Landmark Cases in Canadian Law – serie

An RCMP sting caught Nicole Doucet (Ryan) trying to hire a hitman to kill her ex-husband. It was supposed to be an open-and-shut case. It wasn't.No Legal Way Out details the judicial process, media coverage, and legal implications of R v Ryan. Appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada, Doucet's initial acquittal – on the basis of duress in the context of abuse – was overturned, but a stay of proceedings meant that she could not be tried again. The court castigated the RCMP for not protecting her, prompting a one-sided investigation that ultimately exonerated the force and garnered substantial critical media attention for Doucet.R v Ryan limited the legal options for women seeking to escape abuse and had a profoundly negative impact on public perceptions of domestic violence. This unabashedly feminist analysis explains why the court, the police, and the media let down all women trapped by intimate partner terrorism.

An RCMP sting caught Nicole Doucet (Ryan) trying to hire a hitman to kill her ex-husband. It was supposed to be an open-and-shut case. It wasn't.No Legal Way Out details the judicial process, media coverage, and legal implications of R v Ryan. Appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada, Doucet's initial acquittal – on the basis of duress in the context of abuse – was overturned, but a stay of proceedings meant that she could not be tried again. The court castigated the RCMP for not protecting her, prompting a one-sided investigation that ultimately exonerated the force and garnered substantial critical media attention for Doucet.R v Ryan limited the legal options for women seeking to escape abuse and had a profoundly negative impact on public perceptions of domestic violence. This unabashedly feminist analysis explains why the court, the police, and the media let down all women trapped by intimate partner terrorism.

In 1888, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen, a case involving the Saulteaux people's land rights in Ontario. This precedent-setting case would define the legal contours of Aboriginal title in Canada for almost a hundred years, despite the racist assumptions about Indigenous peoples at the heart of the case. In Flawed Precedent, preeminent legal scholar Kent McNeil provides a compelling account of this contentious case. He begins by delving into the historical and ideological context of the 1880s. He then examines the trial in detail, demonstrating how prejudicial attitudes towards Indigenous peoples influenced the decision. He further discusses the effects that St. Catherine's had on law and policy until the 1970s when its authority was finally questioned in Calder, then in Delgamuukw, Marshall/Bernard, Tsilhqot'in, and other key rulings. He also provides an informative analysis of the current judicial understanding of Aboriginal title in Canada, now driven by evidence of Indigenous law and land use rather than by the discarded prejudicial assumptions of a bygone era.

In 1888, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen, a case involving the Saulteaux people's land rights in Ontario. This precedent-setting case would define the legal contours of Aboriginal title in Canada for almost a hundred years, despite the racist assumptions about Indigenous peoples at the heart of the case. In Flawed Precedent, preeminent legal scholar Kent McNeil provides a compelling account of this contentious case. He begins by delving into the historical and ideological context of the 1880s. He then examines the trial in detail, demonstrating how prejudicial attitudes towards Indigenous peoples influenced the decision. He further discusses the effects that St. Catherine's had on law and policy until the 1970s when its authority was finally questioned in Calder, then in Delgamuukw, Marshall/Bernard, Tsilhqot'in, and other key rulings. He also provides an informative analysis of the current judicial understanding of Aboriginal title in Canada, now driven by evidence of Indigenous law and land use rather than by the discarded prejudicial assumptions of a bygone era.

In 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Hunter v Southam, declared warrantless searches unreasonable under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Police would henceforth require authorization based on "reasonable and probable grounds." The decision promised to protect individuals from state power, but as Richard Jochelson and David Ireland argue, post-Hunter search and seizure law took a turn away from the landmark decision. An examination of dozens of subsequent cases reveals that section 8 protections have become more difficult to obtain in the post-9/11 era. Rather than developing rigorous standards for new search and surveillance techniques and technologies, the courts have used the Charter to sanction broader police powers. Yet, even as it demonstrates that the core principles of Justice Dickson's vision for section 8 rights have been diminished, Privacy in Peril suggests that increasing citation of Hunter in the halls of justice offers hope that some protection of civil liberties will endure in the twenty-first century.

In 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Hunter v Southam, declared warrantless searches unreasonable under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Police would henceforth require authorization based on "reasonable and probable grounds." The decision promised to protect individuals from state power, but as Richard Jochelson and David Ireland argue, post-Hunter search and seizure law took a turn away from the landmark decision. An examination of dozens of subsequent cases reveals that section 8 protections have become more difficult to obtain in the post-9/11 era. Rather than developing rigorous standards for new search and surveillance techniques and technologies, the courts have used the Charter to sanction broader police powers. Yet, even as it demonstrates that the core principles of Justice Dickson's vision for section 8 rights have been diminished, Privacy in Peril suggests that increasing citation of Hunter in the halls of justice offers hope that some protection of civil liberties will endure in the twenty-first century.

The process by which Supreme Court judges are appointed is traditionally a quiet affair, but this certainly wasn't the case when Prime Minister Stephen Harper selected Justice Marc Nadon for appointment to Canada's highest court. Here, for the first time, is the complete story of "the Nadon Reference" – one of the strangest sagas in Canadian legal history.Following the Prime Minister's announcement, controversy swirled and debate raged: as a federal court judge, was Marc Nadon eligible for one of the three seats traditionally reserved for Quebec? Then, in March 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada broke new ground in statutory interpretation and constitutional law when it released the Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6.With detailed historical and legal analysis, including never-before-published interviews, The Tenth Justice explains how the Nadon Reference came to be a case at all, the issues at stake, and its legacy.

The process by which Supreme Court judges are appointed is traditionally a quiet affair, but this certainly wasn't the case when Prime Minister Stephen Harper selected Justice Marc Nadon for appointment to Canada's highest court. Here, for the first time, is the complete story of "the Nadon Reference" – one of the strangest sagas in Canadian legal history.Following the Prime Minister's announcement, controversy swirled and debate raged: as a federal court judge, was Marc Nadon eligible for one of the three seats traditionally reserved for Quebec? Then, in March 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada broke new ground in statutory interpretation and constitutional law when it released the Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6.With detailed historical and legal analysis, including never-before-published interviews, The Tenth Justice explains how the Nadon Reference came to be a case at all, the issues at stake, and its legacy.

This book tells the story of a First Nation's single-minded quest for justice. In 1958, the federal government leased a third of the small Musqueam Reserve in Vancouver to an exclusive golf club at far below market value. When the band members discovered this in 1970, they initiated legal action. Their tenacity led to the 1984 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Guerin v. The Queen.In Guerin, the Court held that the government has a fiduciary duty towards Indigenous peoples – an obligation to act in their best interests. This landmark decision is explored in this book, written by an Aboriginal rights lawyer who served as one of the legal counsel for the Musqueam and argued on their behalf all the way to the highest court. Jim Reynolds provides an in-depth analysis, considering the context, the case and decision, and the major impact that Guerin had on Canadian law, politics, and society.The Guerin case changed the relationship between governments and Indigenous peoples from one of wardship to one based on legal rights. It was a seismic decision with implications that resonate today, not only in Canada but also in other Commonwealth countries.

This book tells the story of a First Nation's single-minded quest for justice. In 1958, the federal government leased a third of the small Musqueam Reserve in Vancouver to an exclusive golf club at far below market value. When the band members discovered this in 1970, they initiated legal action. Their tenacity led to the 1984 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Guerin v. The Queen.In Guerin, the Court held that the government has a fiduciary duty towards Indigenous peoples – an obligation to act in their best interests. This landmark decision is explored in this book, written by an Aboriginal rights lawyer who served as one of the legal counsel for the Musqueam and argued on their behalf all the way to the highest court. Jim Reynolds provides an in-depth analysis, considering the context, the case and decision, and the major impact that Guerin had on Canadian law, politics, and society.The Guerin case changed the relationship between governments and Indigenous peoples from one of wardship to one based on legal rights. It was a seismic decision with implications that resonate today, not only in Canada but also in other Commonwealth countries.

The Canadian Senate has long been considered an institutional pariah, viewed as an undemocratic, outmoded warehouse for patronage appointments and mired in spending and workload scandals. In 2014, the federal government was compelled to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court relating to its attempts to enact senatorial elections and term limits.Constitutional Pariah explores the aftermath of Reference re Senate Reform, which barred major unilateral alteration of the Senate by Parliament. Ironically, the decision resulted in one of the most sweeping parliamentary reforms in Canadian history, creating a pathway to informal changes in the appointments process that have curbed patronage and partisanship.Despite reinvigorating the Senate, Reference re Senate Reform has far-reaching implications for constitutional reform in other contexts. Macfarlane's sharp critique suggests that the Court's nebulous approach to the amending formula raises the spectre of a frozen constitution, unable to evolve with the country.

The Canadian Senate has long been considered an institutional pariah, viewed as an undemocratic, outmoded warehouse for patronage appointments and mired in spending and workload scandals. In 2014, the federal government was compelled to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court relating to its attempts to enact senatorial elections and term limits.Constitutional Pariah explores the aftermath of Reference re Senate Reform, which barred major unilateral alteration of the Senate by Parliament. Ironically, the decision resulted in one of the most sweeping parliamentary reforms in Canadian history, creating a pathway to informal changes in the appointments process that have curbed patronage and partisanship.Despite reinvigorating the Senate, Reference re Senate Reform has far-reaching implications for constitutional reform in other contexts. Macfarlane's sharp critique suggests that the Court's nebulous approach to the amending formula raises the spectre of a frozen constitution, unable to evolve with the country.

The legal meaning of bankruptcy and insolvency law has often remained elusive, even to practitioners and scholars in the field, despite having been enshrined in Canada's Constitution since Confederation. Federal jurisdiction in this area must be measured against provincial powers over property and civil rights, among others. Debt and Federalism traces changing conceptions of the bankruptcy and insolvency power through four landmark cases that form the constitutional foundation of the Canadian bankruptcy system: the 1894 Voluntary Assignments Case, Royal Bank of Canada v Larue in 1928, the 1934 Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case, and the 1937 Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case. Together, these decisions ultimately produced the bedrock for modern understandings of bankruptcy and insolvency law. Thomas G.W. Telfer and Virginia Torrie draw on archival and legal sources to analyze the decisions from a historical and doctrinal perspective. This astute book demonstrates that the legal changes introduced by these landmark cases underpin contemporary bankruptcy and insolvency law and scholarship.

The legal meaning of bankruptcy and insolvency law has often remained elusive, even to practitioners and scholars in the field, despite having been enshrined in Canada's Constitution since Confederation. Federal jurisdiction in this area must be measured against provincial powers over property and civil rights, among others. Debt and Federalism traces changing conceptions of the bankruptcy and insolvency power through four landmark cases that form the constitutional foundation of the Canadian bankruptcy system: the 1894 Voluntary Assignments Case, Royal Bank of Canada v Larue in 1928, the 1934 Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case, and the 1937 Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case. Together, these decisions ultimately produced the bedrock for modern understandings of bankruptcy and insolvency law. Thomas G.W. Telfer and Virginia Torrie draw on archival and legal sources to analyze the decisions from a historical and doctrinal perspective. This astute book demonstrates that the legal changes introduced by these landmark cases underpin contemporary bankruptcy and insolvency law and scholarship.

In 1997, complacency about the racial neutrality of a predominantly white judiciary was shattered as the Supreme Court of Canada considered a complaint of judicial racial bias for the first time. The judge in question was Corrine Sparks, the country's first Black female judge.Reckoning with Racism considers the RDS case. A white Halifax police officer had arrested a Black teenager, placed him in a choke hold, and charged him with assaulting an officer and obstructing arrest. In acquitting the teen, Judge Sparks remarked that police sometimes overreacted when dealing with non-white youth. The acquittal held, but most of the white appeal judges critiqued her comments, based on the tradition that the legal system was non-racist unless proven otherwise. That became a matter of wide debate.This book assesses the case of alleged anti-white judicial bias, the surrounding excitement, the dramatic effects on those involved, and the significance for the Canadian legal system.

In 1997, complacency about the racial neutrality of a predominantly white judiciary was shattered as the Supreme Court of Canada considered a complaint of judicial racial bias for the first time. The judge in question was Corrine Sparks, the country's first Black female judge.Reckoning with Racism considers the RDS case. A white Halifax police officer had arrested a Black teenager, placed him in a choke hold, and charged him with assaulting an officer and obstructing arrest. In acquitting the teen, Judge Sparks remarked that police sometimes overreacted when dealing with non-white youth. The acquittal held, but most of the white appeal judges critiqued her comments, based on the tradition that the legal system was non-racist unless proven otherwise. That became a matter of wide debate.This book assesses the case of alleged anti-white judicial bias, the surrounding excitement, the dramatic effects on those involved, and the significance for the Canadian legal system.

Canadian administrative law was bedevilled for many decades by uncertainty and confusion. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to bring this chaos to an end in its landmark decision Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. In A Culture of Justification, Paul Daly explains why Canada's administrative law was uncertain and confusing, and he assesses the proposition that Vavilov provides a roadmap to a brighter future. Looking at administrative law from its historic origins in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, identifying the complexity of its underlying structure, and describing divergent judicial attitudes to the growing administrative state, Daly builds a framework for understanding why multiple previous reform efforts failed and why Vavilov might very well succeed. This engaging study shows readers how a newly emerged "culture of justification" allows courts and citizens to insist on the reasoned exercise of public power by the administrative state.

Canadian administrative law was bedevilled for many decades by uncertainty and confusion. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to bring this chaos to an end in its landmark decision Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. In A Culture of Justification, Paul Daly explains why Canada's administrative law was uncertain and confusing, and he assesses the proposition that Vavilov provides a roadmap to a brighter future. Looking at administrative law from its historic origins in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, identifying the complexity of its underlying structure, and describing divergent judicial attitudes to the growing administrative state, Daly builds a framework for understanding why multiple previous reform efforts failed and why Vavilov might very well succeed. This engaging study shows readers how a newly emerged "culture of justification" allows courts and citizens to insist on the reasoned exercise of public power by the administrative state.

In Bedford, the Supreme Court struck down prohibitions against communicating in public for the purpose of sex work, living on its avails, and working from a bawdy house. Its narrow constitutional reasoning nevertheless allowed Parliament to respond by adopting the "end demand" or "Nordic Model" of sex work regulation, an approach widely criticized for failing to ensure sex worker safety. Judging Sex Work takes stock of the Bedford decision, arguing that the constitutional issue was improperly framed. Because the most vulnerable sex workers have no realistic choice but to commit the impugned offences, they already possess a legal defence. The constitutionality of the sex work laws should therefore have been assessed by their application to those who choose sex work, an approach that militates in favour of upholding these laws based on current jurisprudence. While this approach leads to the former restrictions on sex work being constitutional, it also has the salutary effect of forcing litigants to consider a more pressing question: Can sex work be rationalized as a criminal matter at all?

In Bedford, the Supreme Court struck down prohibitions against communicating in public for the purpose of sex work, living on its avails, and working from a bawdy house. Its narrow constitutional reasoning nevertheless allowed Parliament to respond by adopting the "end demand" or "Nordic Model" of sex work regulation, an approach widely criticized for failing to ensure sex worker safety. Judging Sex Work takes stock of the Bedford decision, arguing that the constitutional issue was improperly framed. Because the most vulnerable sex workers have no realistic choice but to commit the impugned offences, they already possess a legal defence. The constitutionality of the sex work laws should therefore have been assessed by their application to those who choose sex work, an approach that militates in favour of upholding these laws based on current jurisprudence. While this approach leads to the former restrictions on sex work being constitutional, it also has the salutary effect of forcing litigants to consider a more pressing question: Can sex work be rationalized as a criminal matter at all?

Should Canadians have the right to medical assistance in dying? If so, under what conditions? Deciding on Death delves into the legal and political aspects of these controversial questions. In the early 1990s, Sue Rodriguez unsuccessfully challenged the criminalization of assisted dying. The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently reversed its position in a 2015 case initially brought by the family of Kay Carter, who had travelled abroad for access to an assisted death. Kent McNeil and Wayne Sumner not only analyze the landmark Rodriguez and Carter decisions but also contextualize them within legal and political history and carry the story forward to the present day. Legalization of medically assisted dying has finally given many Canadians with incurable medical conditions that cause them intolerable suffering the ability to choose the manner and timing of their death. Over fifteen thousand people per year now pursue that option. This timely book explains how we got here and the decisions that still lie ahead.