Parliament passes a new law!
Parliament passes a new law! The government doesn’t like defence lawyers, and thinks that innocent people should be able to defend themselves well enough. Thus, parliament bans criminal defendants from retaining legal counsel.
Unconstitutional
Goes against section 10. b)
No precedent
Riley wants to move to South Dakota. They are stopped at the border and told that, although there is no state of emergency or extenuating factors occurring, the government just does not think that South Dakota is a very good place to live. They refuse to let Riley leave so long as Riley plans to travel to South Dakota.
Unconstitutional
Section 6
No precedent
One day in the House of Commons, the French translators all call in sick. Because of this, it is impossible for the house to make a proper record of anything said in French, so the Speaker announces at the start of the day that all remarks made that day must be in English until they can replace the translators.
Unconstitutional
Goes against s. 17 and s. 18
In response to violent physical confrontations between protesters and counter-protestors at a recent demonstration, parliament passes the Public Safety Act. With the aim of safety, the law would prohibit protests in public spaces that create a nuisance, engage in rowdy behaviour, or use profanity. The law would also allow the police to seize any item from protesters that could in their opinion be used to cause violence.
Law is unconstitutional
Goes against s. 2, s. 7, and s. 8.
Each part of the act fails the test laid out in R. v. Oakes
Parliament passes a new law! Although painting a horse is already illegal, this law will also make it a crime to “traffic horse paint” or have “intent to traffic horse paint”. Beryl is caught with two cans of horse paint and is charged with “intent to traffic”. Beryl is told that she must prove that she only intending to use the paint herself to be found innocent of her charge.
Law is unconstitutional
Goes against section 11. d)
R. v. Oakes
A judge in a quaint small town has a habit of imposing unique punishments on defendants in order to deter them from crime while also keeping them out of prison. In one case, someone is charged with assault after they punched someone in the street over a disagreement. As punishment, the judge orders that the victim get the chance to punch the accused back.
Unconstitutional
Goes against section 7
Would not go against section 12
The Green Party of Prince Edward Island, led by a premier simply named “Anne,” passes a law that postpones the next election indefinitely, citing the ongoing potato famine and the costs associated with counting ballots when that money should go towards buying more potatoes. Anne’s government invokes s. 33 of the Charter to prevent judicial review of this.
Unconstitutional
Goes against s. 3 and s. 4
s. 33 does not allow for infringements on Charter rights in s. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
The court affirmed the right to vote for all Canadians in Frank v Canada.
A man is pulled over on the side of the road because he had a broken tail light. The police noticed a plastic bag with a single pill on it on his passenger seat, and correctly identifies it as advil. However, the police officer is under the impression that all pills are illegal drugs, and decides that he has reasonable grounds to search the man’s vehicle, where he finds 25 kg of cocaine. The trial judge rules that the 25 kg of cocaine should be admitted as evidence.
Constitutional
S. 9, Grant test is applied
R v. Tim, 2022
Parliament passes a new law! Possessing videos of serial killer murders for entertainment is made very illegal. This is bad news for Stevie. Stevie loves horror movies. As a true artiste, she hates all commercial and non-commercial horror movies for not being “realistic” enough. She begins to buy videos of actual murders from a serial killer she met on Craigslist. When arrested, she claims that this violates one of her fundamental freedoms.
Constitutional
Goes against section 2.b), but the SCC decided that protecting others from harm was a reasonable limit in R. v. Sharpe
R. v. Sharpe
A teenager requests to wear a pasta strainer on his head when he takes his driver’s license photo. He claims to be a member of “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” and that the pasta strainer is religious headgear. He prefers to wear the strainer in his photo to express his religion to others. However, the staff at the registry refused his request, and he ended up not being allowed to wear it.
Constitutional
Reasonable limits of s. 2 as per the test affirmed by Syndicat Northcrest v Anselem
A naval reservist is charged with theft after they stole a yacht from a neighbor. For theft over $5,000, the accused can elect to a jury trial, but under the National Defence Act, they are tried in a Court Martial, which does not allow juries.
Constitutional
Courts-Martial have been held to not violate fundamental justice, and s. 11(f) explicitly excludes Courts-Martial from jury requirements
R. v. Stillman
The government decides that it is imperative to crack down on those who fradulently pretend to be practicing witchcraft. The government reinstates it as an offence in the Criminal Code and attaches a two year mandatory minimum sentence. The government argues that there is no situation where any pretending to practice witchcraft deserves less than two years, while some intervenors suggest a hypothetical where a young adult might charge her friends for false tarot readings to make some extra cash.
Unconstitutional
S. 12, test outlined in Nur is applied
R v. Nur, 2015