Canadian Voting Rights History PDF

Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Historical background regarding democratic rights under the Charter Women were given the right to vote: Province Date Manitoba January 1916 Saskatchewan...

Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Historical background regarding democratic rights under the Charter Women were given the right to vote: Province Date Manitoba January 1916 Saskatchewan March 1916 Alberta April 1916 Ontario April 1917 British Columbia April 1917 Nova Scotia April 1918 New Brunswick April 1919 Prince Edward Island (PEI) May 1922 Newfoundland April 1925 Quebec April 1940 1916: Manitoba becomes the first province to grant some women the right to vote provincially (other provinces follow in subsequent years; Quebec grants women the provincial vote in 1940). 1917: Federal wartime legislation (Wartime Elections Act) allows some women related to soldiers to vote in the federal election, marking the first federal voting rights for women in Canada. 1920: All Canadian women over 21 gain the right to vote federally (except Indigenous women, who were still excluded). 1947: Chinese Canadians gain the right to vote federally. 1949: Japanese Canadians gain the right to vote federally. 1960: Indigenous Canadians gain the right to vote federally without losing treaty rights (Canadian Bill of Rights). 1970: Voting age is lowered from 21 to 18 years. 1988: Voting rights extended to people with mental disabilities. 1993: Judges in Canada gain the right to vote. 2002: Inmates in Canadian federal institutions are granted the right to vote by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 A Brief History of Federal Voting Rights in Canada Year Milestone Description 1867 British North America Act When Canada was formed, only men who were 21 years of age or older and who owned property were able to vote in federal elections. People who are excluded from voting provincially cannot vote federally. 1876 Indian Act First Nations peoples’ lives are governed by the Indian Act. It grants First Nations peoples the right to vote, but only if they give up their Indian status. They can vote because the law no longer considers them “Indians.” 1917 Wartime Elections Act and During the First World War, all male and female Military Voters Act members of the armed forces serving overseas and female relatives of soldiers were offered the right to vote. This is the first time that some women, some men under the age of 21, some Asian Canadians, and some First Nations people can vote in a Canadian federal election. 1918 Many women can vote Canadian women now have the right to vote in federally federal elections if they meet the same eligibility criteria as men. 1920 Dominion Elections Act A new elections law brings in major changes, such as the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer. One of their first tasks is to add women to the federal voting lists. However, voting rights across Canada are still inconsistent for some racial groups. 1934 Inuit are disqualified Legislation specifically excludes Inuit from voting in federal elections. 1948 All Asian Canadians gain The federal vote is now open to Canadians the right to vote regardless of provincial exclusions. Japanese, Chinese and other Asian Canadians can vote federally, no matter which province they live in. 1950 Inuit are able to vote Inuit obtain the right to vote in Canadian federal elections. 1960 First Nations women and First Nations women and men are able to vote no men can vote matter where they live and without giving up their Indian status. 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Freedoms affirms the right of every Canadian citizen to vote and to stand as a candidate.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Abortion Laws 1969: Abortion becomes legal under specific circumstances, such as when the mother’s physical health is at risk, with approval from a "Therapeutic Abortion Committee." 1970: Abortion remains illegal if based solely on the mother’s mental health. 1988: Supreme Court of Canada ruling (R. v. Morgentaler) strikes down Canada’s abortion law, making abortion accessible within the first trimester based on the woman’s physician's judgment. 1989: Public debate intensifies; opponents argue that abortion takes a child’s life, though the fetus is not granted rights, and the father is not given legal standing in the decision. Death Penalty 1975: The death penalty is removed from the Criminal Code for most offenses. 1976: Canada formally abolishes the death penalty for all criminal offenses, including murder. 1982: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is enacted, providing protections that would prevent the government from imposing capital punishment. 1987: The House of Commons votes on reinstating the death penalty, but the proposal is declined. 1991: Canada establishes a policy that prevents extradition in death penalty cases unless assurances are provided that the death penalty will not be applied. Euthanasia 1993: The Canadian Supreme Court (R. v. Rodriguez) upholds laws prohibiting euthanasia, voting down proposals that would allow "mercy killing" or assisted suicide for those with chronic diseases, focusing on the individual's quality of life. Mobility Rights Section 6 - In order to be a Canadian citizen, you must have been born within Canada, born outside Canada to a Canadian citizen, or obtained citizenship under the Citizenship Act. Mobility rights are guaranteed to every citizen of Canada and include: The rights to enter, remain in, or leave the country are fundamental rights of a free democracy and are guaranteed As well, the right to move freely, take up residence, and work within the country Under the Act, you must: Be 18 years of age or older Be a permanent resident (legally) Reside in Canada for 3 of the last 4 years  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Have knowledge of English or French Have knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities of citizenship You must not: Be under a deportation order Be on probation, parole, or in a penal institution Be under investigation or on trial for certain criminal offenses Have been convicted of an indictable offence within the past 3 years You can lose citizenship if: You become a citizen of another country You are at least 18 years of age You are not mentally incompetent You do not reside in Canada - Only Canadian citizens can vote, run for office, or enter, remain in, and leave Canada. All other rights are guaranteed to those within Canada. - All Canadian citizens have the right to vote - It has taken years for all citizens to receive the right to vote. - Citizens also have the right to live, move, and work anywhere within the country – problems arise due to federal and provincial jurisdictions - Example: Medical lic. – Can only legally practice in one province but you have the right to live anywhere in Canada Legal Rights Sections 7 to 14 Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Under Section 7, Canadians have the rights to life, liberty, and security, whereas in the U.S., these rights include life, liberty, and property. Principles of Fundamental Justice - The principles of fundamental justice incorporate procedural justice (fair procedures) and substantive justice (fair laws), although this was not always the case. Procedural Justice: The right to be notified if one’s interests or security are in jeopardy.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 The right to know the allegations made against oneself. A fair opportunity to make one’s case before an impartial individual (also known as the rules of natural justice). Substantive Justice: Substantive justice is included as well; however, due to numerous variables, it is difficult to define and has an ever-changing meaning. Role of the Courts in Determining Fundamental Justice For the courts, fundamental justice determines what is fair and right within Canadian society. Whether a law violates the principles of fundamental justice is considered only after the court has determined that an infringement of the rights to life, liberty, or security of the person has occurred. Democratic rights Sections 3–5 of the Charter Focus: Ensure Canadians can participate in the democratic process and hold governments accountable. Key Protections: 1. Right to Vote: Every Canadian citizen has the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. 2. Right to Run for Office: Canadian citizens can stand for election to public office. 3. Limits on Government Terms: Ensures regular elections by limiting terms of legislative bodies to five years, except in emergencies. 4. Annual Legislative Meetings: Mandates that legislatures and Parliament meet at least once a year. Purpose: Empower citizens to shape government decisions and ensure representation. Case studies Sauvé vs. Canada (Attorney General) Sauvé v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002, involved Richard Sauvé, a prisoner challenging the Canada Elections Act which barred inmates serving sentences of two years or more from voting. Sauvé argued this violated Section 3 (right to vote) and Section 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The law in question (Section 51 of the Canada Elections Act) denied voting rights to prisoners serving long sentences. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 in favor of Sauvé, declaring the provision unconstitutional.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 The Court emphasized voting is a fundamental right and cannot be denied arbitrarily. It found that the law violated Section 3, as the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens, and Section 15, because it unfairly discriminated against prisoners. The Court also ruled that excluding prisoners from voting was not a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows limits on rights only if justifiable in a free and democratic society. As a result, prisoners serving sentences of two years or more were granted the right to vote. Law Society of Upper Canada vs. Skapinker Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker (1984) involved the Law Society of Upper Canada challenging the decision to allow a non-citizen, Skapinker, to practice law in Ontario. Skapinker, a permanent resident of Canada, applied to practice law but was denied because he was not a Canadian citizen, which was a requirement under the Law Society’s rules. Skapinker argued that the Law Society’s rule violated Section 6 (mobility rights) and Section 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Skapinker, declaring that the Law Society’s rule was unconstitutional. The Court found that Section 6 of the Charter guarantees the right to move and work anywhere in Canada, and this includes permanent residents, not just citizens. The Court also held that Section 15 protected against discrimination based on citizenship status. The Court ruled that the restriction on non-citizens was not a justifiable limit under Section 1 of the Charter. As a result, the Court allowed Skapinker to practice law in Ontario, setting a precedent that permanent residents cannot be discriminated against based on citizenship status for professional qualifications. B. (R.) vs. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (1992) involved a mother, B. (R.), a Jehovah’s Witness, who refused a blood transfusion for her child, citing her religious beliefs. The Children's Aid Society intervened and sought to have the child placed under its care to receive the blood transfusion, arguing that the child's life and health were at risk without it. The mother argued that the Society’s intervention violated her Section 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, including the right to make decisions about her child’s medical treatment. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Children's Aid Society, stating that the child’s right to life and health outweighed the mother’s religious beliefs.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 The Court held that Section 7 allows for state intervention in situations where a child's safety or life is at risk, even if it infringes on a parent's rights. The ruling concluded that the state had a duty to protect children from harm, and in this case, the blood transfusion was deemed necessary to save the child’s life. The decision clarified the balance between parental rights and the state's responsibility to protect children’s welfare, particularly when medical treatment is involved. R. vs. Morgentaler R. v. Morgentaler (1988) involved Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who was charged with performing illegal abortions in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. Morgentaler argued that the law, which required abortions to be approved by a therapeutic abortion committee, violated a woman's Section 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. The case centered on whether the restrictions on abortion under the Criminal Code infringed on a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and reproductive health. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-2 in favor of Morgentaler, striking down the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code. The Court found that the existing abortion law violated Section 7 of the Charter by denying women the right to security of the person, as it imposed unnecessary delays and risks in accessing abortion services. The ruling emphasized that the law’s requirement for approval by a therapeutic abortion committee was overly restrictive and interfered with a woman's ability to make personal, medical decisions. The decision effectively decriminalized abortion in Canada, affirming that a woman’s right to choose an abortion is protected under the right to security of the person in the Charter. This case was a landmark decision in Canada’s history, expanding reproductive rights and ensuring that access to abortion would not be restricted by criminal law. Wilson vs. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) Wilson v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1988) involved Dr. Wilson, a physician, who challenged the decision of the British Columbia Medical Services Commission to deny payment for services he provided outside of the provincial health care system. Dr. Wilson argued that the refusal to pay for his medical services violated his Section 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, as well as his ability to practice medicine freely. The case revolved around the issue of whether the Medical Services Commission could deny payment for medical procedures that were outside the framework of publicly  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 funded health care, specifically when the patient chose to pay privately for services not covered by the provincial health care plan. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Medical Services Commission and upheld the decision to deny payment for the private medical services. The Court found that the public health system could regulate the payment and delivery of medical services to ensure fairness and the proper allocation of public funds. The ruling emphasized that Section 7 rights do not necessarily guarantee a right to public funding for medical services outside of the provincial health plan, as long as patients have access to necessary medical care through the public system. The decision reinforced the idea that health care regulation is within the provincial jurisdiction and that there is no constitutional guarantee for private health care funding under the Charter. The case clarified the balance between individual rights and the government’s role in managing publicly funded health care. R. vs. Maier R. v. Maier (1989) involved Maier, who was charged under Section 106 of the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia for not wearing a seatbelt while driving. Maier challenged the ticket, arguing that the seatbelt requirement violated his Section 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly his right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Maier contended that being forced to wear a seatbelt infringed on his personal freedom and that it was an unreasonable government intrusion into his private choices. The case raised the issue of whether the Motor Vehicle Act's seat belt requirement was a justifiable limitation on an individual's personal liberties under the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the seatbelt law did not violate Section 7 of the Charter. The Court found that the law was a reasonable restriction designed to protect public safety, and that it was justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows for limits on rights if they are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Court recognized that wearing a seatbelt was a reasonable safety measure that protected both the individual and society, and that the government had the right to impose such regulations to reduce harm and protect public health. As a result, Maier's conviction was upheld, affirming that laws requiring seat belt use are consistent with the Charter and serve the public interest in promoting safety. Rodriquez vs. British Columbia (Attorney General) Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1993) involved Sue Rodriguez, a woman with Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), who sought to have the right to assisted suicide legally recognized in Canada. Rodriguez argued that the Criminal Code's prohibition on assisted suicide violated her Section 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically her right to life, liberty, and security of the person.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Rodriguez contended that she should have the right to choose to end her life with medical assistance when her suffering became unbearable, but the law made it a crime to assist someone in dying, even if it was at their request. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 against Rodriguez, upholding the Criminal Code's ban on assisted suicide. The majority of the Court found that the right to life, liberty, and security of the person under Section 7 did not extend to the right to choose death, arguing that the prohibition on assisted suicide was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. The Court recognized that while Rodriguez had a right to make decisions about her health and personal well-being, this did not extend to actively ending her life, as it was seen as a violation of societal values. The Court also ruled that Section 7 did not guarantee a right to die with the assistance of others, and the state's role in protecting vulnerable individuals outweighed the individual’s right to make that decision. The decision was controversial and divided, with the dissenting judges arguing that the law unjustly infringed on an individual's autonomy and personal choice, particularly in the face of unbearable suffering. Although the Court upheld the law in this case, the Rodriguez case paved the way for ongoing debates about assisted suicide and euthanasia, which later culminated in legal changes, such as the Carter vs. Canada (2015) decision, which struck down the ban on physician-assisted death. Carter vs. Canada (Attorney General) Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015, involved the challenge to Canada’s laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia. The case was brought by Kay Carter, who suffered from a degenerative disease and wanted the right to end her life with medical assistance. The Criminal Code made assisted suicide illegal, and Carter argued this violated her rights under Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person) and Section 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled in favor of Carter, striking down the prohibition on assisted suicide for competent adults with serious medical conditions. The Court found that the criminal prohibition on assisted suicide violated Section 7, as it unjustifiably interfered with the individual’s autonomy and control over their own life and death. The Court also found the law violated Section 15, as it disproportionately affected people suffering from debilitating conditions who could not end their lives without assistance. The decision led to the legalization of medically assisted dying in Canada under the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation in 2016. The ruling emphasized that the right to choose a death with dignity should be available to individuals suffering intolerably from serious medical conditions.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Re Blainey and Ontario Hockey Association et al. Re Blainey and Ontario Hockey Association et al. (1986) involved Blainey, a hockey player who challenged the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA)'s rule that excluded females from playing in male junior hockey leagues. Blainey, a female athlete, was denied the right to play in a male-dominated junior league, despite her skills and desire to compete. She argued that the exclusion violated her Section 15 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights and prohibits discrimination based on sex. Blainey claimed that the rule created an unjustifiable barrier to her participation in hockey solely because of her gender. The Ontario Hockey Association defended the rule, stating that it was based on the tradition and physical nature of the sport, which was thought to be too rough for female players. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Ontario Hockey Association, upholding the exclusion. The Court found that the OHA's rule did not violate Section 15 because the distinction made between male and female players was a reasonable limit in the context of sports competition. The Court ruled that the physical differences between males and females in hockey were relevant to the sport's nature, and the exclusion did not constitute discrimination in this context. This case was significant because it raised important issues regarding the application of gender equality in sports and set a precedent for gender-based exclusions in certain areas of Canadian law, especially in sports leagues. Andrews vs. Law Society of British Columbia Andrews vs. Law Society of British Columbia (1989) involved Andrews, a lawyer trained in the United Kingdom, who applied for admission to the British Columbia Bar to practice law in the province. Andrews, a Canadian citizen born in Hong Kong, was denied admission to the Law Society of British Columbia because he did not meet the language proficiency requirements set by the Law Society, which required fluency in English. Andrews argued that the Law Society’s decision violated his Section 15 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights and prohibits discrimination based on national or ethnic origin. Andrews claimed that the refusal to admit him based on his English proficiency was discriminatory, as it treated him differently because of his ethnic origin and language background. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Andrews, finding that the Law Society’s rule discriminated against him on the basis of his ethnic origin and language.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 The Court held that Section 15 of the Charter guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination based on national or ethnic origin, and that language requirements should not exclude individuals from accessing professions if they are otherwise qualified. The Court also stated that equality under the Charter includes protection from discrimination not just on the basis of race but also on the basis of cultural background and language. The ruling was a landmark case for the interpretation of Section 15 and equality rights, establishing that discrimination based on language proficiency could be a violation of Charter rights if the language requirement was not justifiable. Action Travail des Femmes vs. Canadian National Railway Co. Action Travail des Femmes vs. Canadian National Railway Co. (1987) involved a complaint from Action Travail des Femmes (a women's advocacy group) against Canadian National Railway (CNR) for its discriminatory hiring practices against women, particularly in non-traditional roles, such as train conductors and engineers. The complaint was based on sex discrimination, arguing that CNR's hiring policies and practices disproportionately favored male applicants and excluded women from positions that they were otherwise qualified for. Action Travail des Femmes argued that CNR's hiring policies violated the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and requires employers to ensure equal opportunities for men and women in the workplace. The case also raised broader issues of gender segregation in the workplace, where certain jobs were traditionally reserved for men, limiting women's access to higher-paying and skilled positions in the workforce. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that CNR’s policies were discriminatory, finding that the railway company had failed to provide equal opportunity for women to be hired in certain roles. The Tribunal concluded that CNR’s practices created a barrier to the employment of women in non-traditional roles and that the company had not taken sufficient steps to promote gender equality in its hiring. The Tribunal ordered the Canadian National Railway to take corrective action by implementing policies that would actively encourage the hiring of women for jobs traditionally held by men, and to ensure that women were not unfairly excluded from such roles. This case was significant in advancing gender equality in employment, particularly in traditionally male-dominated industries, and it helped set a precedent for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in Canadian workplaces. Brown vs. British Columbia (Minister of Health) Brown vs. British Columbia (Minister of Health) (1990) was a case brought by Donald Brown, a man living with HIV/AIDS, who challenged the British Columbia  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Ministry of Health’s refusal to provide AZT (a medication used to treat HIV/AIDS) through the provincial health care system. Brown was seeking coverage for AZT, which had been shown to improve the quality of life and extend the lifespan of people living with HIV/AIDS. However, the Ministry of Health refused to fund AZT treatment for him, arguing that it was an experimental drug and not a guaranteed effective treatment for the condition. Brown argued that the denial of coverage violated his Section 7 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly his right to life, liberty, and security of the person. He also argued that the refusal to provide AZT treatment discriminated against him and others living with HIV/AIDS in violation of Section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees equality rights and prohibits discrimination based on health status. The case raised important questions about access to healthcare and whether the government could deny coverage for treatments that may be crucial for individual survival based on the drug's experimental status. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the British Columbia Ministry of Health, finding that the refusal to cover AZT did not violate Section 7 or Section 15 of the Charter. The Court found that the government's refusal to provide AZT was not a breach of the right to life or security because the drug was still considered experimental and its effectiveness was not fully proven at the time. The Court also ruled that there was no discrimination based on health status because the provincial health plan did not provide coverage for all experimental treatments, regardless of the specific medical condition. This case was significant in addressing the right to health care for people with HIV/AIDS, but it also reinforced the limitations of government funding for experimental medical treatments in the public health system. R. vs. Gonzales R. v. Gonzales, 1962, involved Frank Gonzales, a member of the Tsartlip First Nation, challenging a law under the Indian Act. The Indian Act prohibited Indigenous people from possessing or consuming alcohol off reserves, even though this law didn’t apply to other Canadians. Gonzales was charged for possessing alcohol off-reserve and argued that the law was discriminatory and violated his rights to equality. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Gonzales, upholding the Indian Act restrictions. The Court reasoned that Parliament had the authority to make laws specifically for Indigenous peoples under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It found that the restrictions were not discriminatory in a legal sense at that time because the law was considered to be within Parliament's powers. This ruling reflected the paternalistic attitude toward Indigenous peoples prevalent in Canadian law at the time.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 The decision was later criticized for upholding discriminatory practices, and the restrictions on alcohol consumption were eventually removed from the Indian Act in 1985. R. vs. Drybones R. v. Drybones, 1970, involved Albert Drybones, a member of the Dene Nation, who was charged under the Indian Act for being intoxicated off-reserve in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. At the time, the Indian Act made it illegal for Indigenous people to be intoxicated off-reserve, while other Canadians could legally consume alcohol anywhere. Drybones argued that the law was discriminatory and violated his rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960). The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Drybones, stating that the law violated his equality rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights. This was the first time the Canadian Bill of Rights was successfully used to strike down a law as discriminatory. The Court found that the Indian Act provision unjustly singled out Indigenous people, creating inequality before the law. The decision marked a major step forward in recognizing equality rights for Indigenous people in Canada. Following this case, the Indian Act was eventually amended to remove such discriminatory provisions. R. vs. Lavell R. v. Lavell, 1974, involved Jeannette Lavell, an Indigenous woman who challenged a provision of the Indian Act that removed “Indian status” from Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men. Under the Indian Act, Indigenous men who married non-Indigenous women kept their status, while women lost theirs, affecting their rights and access to their communities. Lavell argued that this provision was discriminatory and violated her equality rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Lavell, upholding the Indian Act provision. The Court found that the Indian Act did not violate the Canadian Bill of Rights because it was within the power of Parliament to legislate in matters specifically related to Indigenous peoples. This decision was widely criticized for upholding gender discrimination within the Indian Act. The ruling highlighted limitations in the Canadian Bill of Rights regarding equality rights, as it was interpreted narrowly by the Court. The discriminatory provisions were eventually repealed in 1985 with the passage of Bill C-31, which allowed Indigenous women to retain their status regardless of marriage.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Carter vs. Rodriguez case Key Differences: The Rodriguez decision was based on the view that assisted suicide posed risks of abuse and exploitation, and it upheld the existing law. In Carter, the Supreme Court shifted its stance, recognizing the rights of individuals to choose medically assisted death under strict safeguards, declaring the existing prohibition unconstitutional. Carter resulted in the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) law in 2016, while Rodriguez led to no immediate legal changes. Key Similarities: Both cases involved individuals with serious medical conditions seeking the right to end their lives with assistance. Both cases were centered on the issue of personal autonomy and Section 7 of the Charter (right to life, liberty, and security). Andrews vs. Wilson case Key Differences: Andrews focused on equality rights and discrimination based on citizenship, while Wilson dealt with criminal law and the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences under Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment). Andrews involved Section 15 (equality rights), whereas Wilson involved Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment). Andrews resulted in a citizenship requirement being struck down as unconstitutional, expanding equality rights for non-citizens. Wilson led to the recognition that mandatory minimum sentences could violate the Charter by imposing disproportionate punishments without consideration of individual circumstances. Key Similarities: Both cases involved the Supreme Court interpreting the Charter to protect individuals from unfair treatment. Both cases resulted in the Court striking down laws that it found violated the Charter, reinforcing the importance of constitutional protections in Canadian law. Both cases involved individuals challenging laws they believed unfairly restricted their rights based on fundamental constitutional principles. The various concepts of equality - They all examine how individuals are treated  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 - Also, each concept prevents discrimination Equality before the law - Application of the law - The principle that everyone is subject to the law in the same way, without discrimination. - Procedural equality Equality under the law - Content and structure of the law - Ensuring that laws are applied uniformly to all individuals, regardless of their status or background. - Can be both, substantive equality and procedural equality Equality of treatment - Equal access and opportunity - Treat everyone the same - The idea that all people should be treated the same way, without unfair bias or discrimination. - Procedural equality Equality of result - Equal outcomes and results - Treat people differently to achieve equality - The aim to achieve equal outcomes for individuals, often by addressing systemic inequalities. - Substantive equality Equal protection of the law - The constitutional guarantee that laws must apply equally to all individuals and cannot unfairly discriminate. - Can be both, substantive equality and procedural equality Equal benefit of the law - The principle that everyone should enjoy the benefits and protections provided by the law equally, without bias. - Can be both, substantive equality and procedural equality Equal protection of the law ensures that the law applies equally to all individuals which prevents discrimination. It focuses on making sure everyone is treated the same under the law. Equal benefit of the law goes further, ensuring that laws actually provide fair benefits and protections to all, especially the disadvantaged groups. While equal protection is about preventing unequal treatment, equal benefit is about ensuring laws lead to positive outcomes for everyone.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Similarly situated test - A legal standard used to determine if individuals in similar situations are being treated equally. Affirmative action - Policies designed to give special consideration to disadvantaged groups to promote equality and address past discrimination. Reverse Discrimination Reverse discrimination occurs when policies meant to help marginalized groups are seen as unfairly disadvantageous to majority or historically advantaged groups, often in areas like employment, education, and diversity initiatives. Some view affirmative action as “reverse discrimination” because it gives preferential treatment to certain groups to address historical inequalities, which they see as unfair to non-marginalized individuals. Critics argue that favoring disadvantaged groups, like racial minorities, women, or people with disabilities, can disadvantage others, even if equally qualified. For example, in university admissions, affirmative action may mean that a Black or Indigenous student with slightly lower test scores is admitted over a white or Asian student with higher scores to increase diversity and counter systemic inequalities. System vs. Direct discrimination Direct discrimination Occurs when a person or group is treated unfairly or unequally based on a protected characteristic (e.g., race, gender, disability) in a clear and open manner Involves explicit actions or decisions that treat someone less favourably because of their personal characteristics Example: a qualified candidate is denied a job because of their race or gender Systemic Discrimination: Refers to discrimination that is built into the policies, practices, or structures of an organization or society, often without intention. It is less visible and is embedded in the systems or institutions that affect people’s opportunities, outcomes, or access to services. Example: A workplace has a hiring policy that unintentionally favors certain groups due to historical biases or practices, leading to unequal representation of marginalized groups.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Key Differences: Direct discrimination is usually obvious and easy to identify, while systemic discrimination is often subtle and harder to recognize. Direct discrimination involves intentional actions to disadvantage someone based on characteristics, whereas systemic discrimination often arises unintentionally due to entrenched practices or policies. Direct discrimination affects individuals directly, whereas systemic discrimination can affect entire groups of people over time by reinforcing inequalities in systems or institutions. Key Similarities: Both forms of discrimination lead to unfair treatment and unequal opportunities based on certain characteristics, resulting in harm to those affected. Both contribute to societal inequalities and can perpetuate disadvantage for marginalized groups. Pre-Charter equality vs Post-Charter equality Pre-Charter equality Pre-Charter equality was based on formal equality, meaning everyone should be treated the same under the law. Limited legal protections for equality, primarily found in the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960), but it applied only at the federal level and had limited scope. Discrimination was widespread, especially against women, Chinese Canadians, Indigenous peoples, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals. Women: Faced discriminatory laws (e.g., limited voting rights, property rights, and employment opportunities). Chinese Canadians: Subjected to discriminatory policies like the Chinese Head Tax (1885-1923) and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1923-1947). Indigenous Peoples: Restricted by the Indian Act, denied voting rights until 1960, and faced significant cultural and legal discrimination. Racial minorities and immigrants: Faced limited access to services, education, and employment opportunities, with laws often discriminating based on race or ethnicity. Legal recourse was limited, as the courts did not have the power to challenge laws that perpetuate inequality. No constitutional protection for equality, and laws did not address systemic discrimination or historical injustices. Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) offered some rights against discrimination but was not entrenched in the constitution and was limited in scope and applicability.  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Post-Charter equality Post-Charter Equality (1982) guarantees equality under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Constitutional protection for equality rights across Canada. Focuses on substantive equality: goes beyond treating everyone the same to addressing systemic discrimination and historical disadvantages. Broader scope: protection against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, and more. Courts have power to strike down discriminatory laws and provide remedies for violations. Affirmative action and positive measures (e.g., employment equity) are recognized as legitimate to address past disadvantages. Recognizes intersectionality: discrimination can occur based on overlapping factors like race + gender. Stronger Indigenous rights protections, including treaty rights, self-governance, and land rights. Key Differences: Pre-Charter vs. Post-Charter Equality - Constitutional Protection Pre-Charter: No constitutional guarantee for equality (only for Canadian Bill of Rights) Post-Charter: Section 15 guarantees equality rights in the Constitution - Equality Focus Pre-Charter: Focused on formal equality (treating everyone the same) Post-Charter: Focuses on substantive equality (addressing systemic discrimination and historical disadvantages) - Legal Remedies Pre-Charter: Limited ability for courts to challenge or strike down discriminatory laws Post-Charter: Courts can invalidate laws that violate equality rights and provide remedies - Affirmative Action Pre-Charter: No clear support for affirmative action or positive measures Post-Charter: Affirmative action and positive measures (like employment equity) are allowed to address inequality - Indigenous Rights Pre-Charter: Indigenous peoples were subject to policies like the Indian Act and had limited rights  Law Test Review - Unit 7 and 8 Post-Charter: Indigenous rights are explicitly protected, including treaty rights and land rights - Intersectionality Pre-Charter: Discrimination based on one factor (e.g., race or gender) was often treated separately Post-Charter: Recognizes intersectionality, where discrimination can happen based on overlapping factors (e.g., race + gender) Section 15(1) vs. Section 15(2) Section 15(1) prohibits discrimination and promotes equal treatment and protection under the law, while Section 15(2) allows governments to implement programs that address systemic inequalities and improve the conditions of disadvantaged groups. They work together to promote fairness by recognizing that treating everyone the same does not always lead to true equality. Procreation terms In vitro fertilization A process where eggs are fertilized by sperm outside the body in a lab, and then the embryo is implanted into the uterus. Surrogate motherhood An arrangement where a woman (the surrogate) carries and delivers a baby for another person or couple, who will become the child’s parents. Artificial insemination A procedure that involves directly inserting sperm into a woman’s reproductive tract to facilitate pregnancy.