Impact Of Supreme Court Of Canada Rulings
1. R v. Morgentaler (1988) – Abortion Rights and Section 7
Facts:
Dr. Henry Morgentaler challenged the federal law criminalizing abortion. At the time, the law required women to get approval from a Therapeutic Abortion Committee in a hospital. Morgentaler argued that this infringed upon women’s rights under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right to life, liberty, and security of the person).
Supreme Court Ruling:
The SCC struck down the law as unconstitutional because it violated women’s security of the person. The law was found to create arbitrary barriers and delays that endangered women’s health.
Impact:
This ruling effectively legalized abortion in Canada.
It strengthened Section 7 as a powerful tool for protecting personal autonomy and bodily integrity.
Sparked ongoing debates about the role of the courts versus Parliament in morally sensitive issues.
2. R v. Oakes (1986) – The Oakes Test
Facts:
David Oakes was charged with possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking. The Narcotic Control Act placed the burden on the accused to prove they were not trafficking, which Oakes challenged under Section 11(d) and Section 1 of the Charter.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The SCC formulated the Oakes Test to determine if a law that infringes a Charter right can be justified under Section 1:
There must be a pressing and substantial objective.
The means must be proportional: rational connection, minimal impairment, and proportionality between effects and objectives.
Impact:
Introduced a systematic framework for balancing rights and societal interests.
Used in countless cases to evaluate constitutionality.
Reinforced the importance of judicial review in protecting Charter rights.
3. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) – Indigenous Land Rights
Facts:
The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en nations claimed title to ancestral lands in British Columbia. The provincial government disputed the claims, raising questions about the nature and proof of Aboriginal title.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Aboriginal title is a collective right to land, rooted in historical occupation prior to European sovereignty.
Oral histories are valid evidence in proving land claims.
Aboriginal title includes the right to use land for traditional practices and commercial purposes but must respect the rights of others.
Impact:
Major development in Indigenous law in Canada.
Influenced subsequent cases like Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014), where the SCC granted full title to a First Nation.
Shifted government policy toward negotiated land claims and consultation.
4. R v. Sparrow (1990) – Indigenous Rights and Fishing
Facts:
Ron Sparrow, a member of the Musqueam Band, was charged under federal law for fishing with a drift net longer than allowed. He argued that his right to fish for food, as protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, was violated.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Court established the Sparrow test to determine if government interference with Aboriginal rights is justified:
Was there infringement?
Was it justified in terms of compelling objectives and minimal impairment?
Impact:
Provided a framework for evaluating Aboriginal rights.
Affirmed that Indigenous rights are constitutionally protected.
Influenced policies around natural resource management, including fishing, hunting, and land use.
5. R v. Jordan (2016) – Right to a Timely Trial
Facts:
Barrett Jordan was charged with drug-related offenses. His trial was delayed for 49.5 months (over 4 years) in provincial court and 30 months in superior court. He argued this violated Section 11(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Established a presumptive ceiling for trial delays: 18 months for provincial court cases, 30 months for superior court cases.
Delays beyond these limits are presumed to be unreasonable unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Impact:
Prompted reform in the criminal justice system to reduce delays.
Highlighted systemic issues like court backlogs and resource constraints.
Strengthened the enforcement of Charter rights in practical terms.
6. Carter v. Canada (2015) – Assisted Dying
Facts:
Carter, a terminally ill woman, challenged the Criminal Code’s prohibition on assisted suicide, arguing it violated Section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty, security).
Supreme Court Ruling:
Criminal ban on physician-assisted dying was struck down for terminally ill competent adults under strict conditions.
The ruling required Parliament to legislate safeguards.
Impact:
Led to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation in 2016.
Signaled a broader recognition of personal autonomy and dignity at the end of life.
Illustrates the SCC’s role in shaping public policy through Charter interpretation.
7. Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998) – Constitutional Law
Facts:
Quebec posed the question of whether it could unilaterally secede from Canada.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Quebec cannot secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law.
Any secession would require negotiation with the federal government and other provinces.
Introduced the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law as guiding tools.
Impact:
Provided a legal framework for Quebec sovereignty debates.
Reinforced the idea that constitutional change requires negotiation, not unilateral action.
Averted potential constitutional crises.
Summary of SCC Impact
The SCC has had transformative effects across multiple areas:
| Area | Key Cases | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Charter Rights | R v. Morgentaler, R v. Oakes, R v. Jordan | Strengthened civil liberties, procedural fairness, and frameworks for rights justification |
| Indigenous Rights | Delgamuukw, R v. Sparrow | Recognition of Aboriginal title, consultation duties, and the role of oral histories |
| Criminal Law | R v. Jordan | Introduced strict timelines for trials, improving access to justice |
| Health & Autonomy | Carter v. Canada | Expanded individual rights in life and death decisions |
| Constitutional & Federalism | Reference re Secession of Quebec | Clarified limits of unilateral action and emphasized negotiation |
RELATED Blog
comments