Case Studies On Supreme Court Of Canada Rulings
1. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Context: Criminal law and Charter rights.
Facts: David Oakes was found with a small amount of drugs. The Narcotic Control Act imposed a reverse onus on the accused to prove they were not trafficking.
Issue: Whether the reverse onus provision violated Section 11(d) and Section 1 of the Charter.
Decision: The Supreme Court struck down the reverse onus provision as unconstitutional. It formulated the Oakes Test for determining whether a limitation on Charter rights is justified under Section 1.
Significance: This is a foundational case in Canadian constitutional law. The Oakes Test assesses:
Whether the objective of the law is pressing and substantial.
Proportionality: rational connection, minimal impairment, proportionality of effects.
Impact: Guides courts in all Charter rights cases.
2. R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
Context: Section 7 – Right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Facts: Dr. Henry Morgentaler challenged the criminal prohibition of abortion.
Issue: Whether the abortion law violated women’s rights under Section 7.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated a woman’s right to security of the person. The law was struck down.
Significance: Expanded the interpretation of Section 7 to include bodily autonomy and personal decision-making.
Impact: Set a precedent for balancing personal liberty with criminal law restrictions.
3. R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13
Context: Section 8 – Protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Facts: Police entered Feeney’s home without a warrant and arrested him for murder.
Issue: Did warrantless entry into a home violate Section 8?
Decision: SCC ruled the entry was unconstitutional; evidence obtained was inadmissible.
Significance: Strengthened protections against arbitrary police intrusion into homes.
Impact: Reinforced the requirement of judicial authorization (warrants) for home searches.
4. R. v. Jordan, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631
Context: Section 11(b) – Right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Facts: Jordan experienced delays in his criminal trial (49.5 months). He argued this violated his Section 11(b) rights.
Issue: What constitutes an unreasonable delay?
Decision: SCC established presumptive ceilings:
18 months for provincial court trials.
30 months for superior court trials.
If exceeded, the delay is presumed unreasonable unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Significance: Landmark case on procedural fairness.
Impact: Courts and prosecutors now manage timelines strictly to avoid violations.
5. R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353
Context: Section 9, 10(b), and 24(2) – Arbitrary detention, right to counsel, and exclusion of evidence.
Facts: Grant was stopped by police without reasonable suspicion, detained, and questioned; evidence was obtained.
Issue: Should evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights be excluded?
Decision: SCC clarified modern test for Section 24(2):
Seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct.
Impact on the accused’s rights.
Societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.
Significance: Introduced a structured approach for admission or exclusion of evidence.
6. R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
Context: Section 11(b) – Right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Facts: The accused waited over two years for trial due to delays in the system.
Issue: Were the delays a violation of Section 11(b)?
Decision: SCC ruled the delays were unreasonable, leading to dismissal.
Significance: Early and influential case reinforcing timely trials, later refined by Jordan.
7. R. v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101
Context: Section 7 – Right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Facts: Prostitutes challenged laws criminalizing aspects of sex work (soliciting, brothels, etc.) for safety reasons.
Issue: Did these laws violate Section 7 rights?
Decision: SCC struck down the laws as unconstitutional because they increased risks to sex workers’ safety.
Significance: Extended Section 7 to safety and risk protection, not just liberty in the abstract.
8. R. v. Singh, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405
Context: Section 10(b) – Right to counsel upon arrest.
Facts: Singh claimed police delayed informing him of his right to a lawyer during a drug investigation.
Issue: Was this delay a violation of Section 10(b)?
Decision: SCC reinforced the importance of immediate access to legal counsel.
Significance: Ensures accused persons are aware of and can exercise their rights.
Summary of Principles from SCC Rulings
Section 7 protects life, liberty, and security broadly (Morgentaler, Bedford).
Section 8 safeguards privacy; unlawful searches make evidence inadmissible (Feeney).
Section 11(b) ensures timely trials (Jordan, Askov).
Section 10(b) guarantees immediate access to counsel (Singh, Grant).
Section 24(2) guides exclusion of evidence for Charter breaches (Grant, Feeney).
Section 1 limitations must pass the Oakes Test (Oakes).
RELATED Blog
comments