LS202 Test One 2025 - Analisa Chattergoon PDF

LS202 Test One: Analisa Chattergoon January 29, 2025 TERMS: -​ Arbitrariness: disconnect with a limit of liberty and the objective of prohibition. Arbitrary laws lead to abuse of power. -​ Borderline cases: -​ Comity: legal principle that involves the recognition of laws and judicial dec...

LS202 Test One: Analisa Chattergoon January 29, 2025 TERMS: -​ Arbitrariness: disconnect with a limit of liberty and the objective of prohibition. Arbitrary laws lead to abuse of power. -​ Borderline cases: -​ Comity: legal principle that involves the recognition of laws and judicial decisions between different jurisdictions. It's also known as judicial comity -​ Contextualism: Meaning of arbitrariness tied to substantive legal contexts, divergent purposes, interests and stakes in outcome. -​ Deontic language: Deontic language in law refers to words that express rules about what people must do, can do, or cannot do. It’s the kind of language used in laws, contracts, and regulations to set clear expectations and limits. -​ Due Process: Liberty is defined as right to move about, associate with whoever and marry whomever -​ Habeas corpus: Those detained have a right to be told of their right to counsel, opportunity to contact one, to challenge arrest detention based on grounds of habeas corpus -​ Judicial Interpretation: How courts explain and apply the law, including statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions. Judges interpret the meaning of legal texts when there is conflict, or uncertainty about what a law means or how it should be applied. -​ Law as an Instrument of Change: The fundamental premise of the criminal law is that it functions as a means by which society reaffirms its values and denounces violators. A change in value necessitates a change in the type of conduct we wish to prohibit. -​ Legal Moralism: Criminal code offences are established to protect the public and maintain societal values. Such values include the preservation of morality, the person, property, public peace and the state. -​ Notwithstanding Clause: The Notwithstanding Clause is found in Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It allows federal, provincial, or territorial governments to pass laws that override certain Charter rights for up to five years, after which the override can be renewed. -​ Open Court Rule: A legal principle that ensures court proceedings are open to the public. It is a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial and supports transparency in the judicial system. -​ Preliminary Hearing / Inquiry: legal procedure that takes place before a criminal trial. Its main purpose is to determine whether there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial.  -​ Presumption of Innocence: Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty - the golden thread. -​ Quantum of Proof: Amount of evidence required to prove a claim or charge in a legal case. It is about how much evidence is needed to meet the burden of proof in different types of legal proceedings. -​ Reasonable Limits Clause: The Reasonable Limits Clause is found in Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It says that your rights and freedoms can be limited, but only if the limits are reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society. -​ Reverse onus - burden of truth: Shift of burden onto the defendant. Statutory provision that necessitates the accused person to provide evidence in order to raise a degree of doubt -​ Stare decisis: Based on situations of similar fact - precedent -​ Sunset Clause: This is one limitation of the ‘notwithstanding’ clause that automatically voids the legislation after 5 years. Legislation must be renewed by the government that passed it on a five year basis. -​ The Rule of Law: -​ Criminal law applies to all -​ Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law as enshrined in the Charter -​ Therefore, laws ought to be applied in fairness and impartiality and without favour -​ Transparency: Principle that legal processes, decisions, and laws should be open, clear, and accessible to the public. It ensures that people understand how laws work, how decisions are made, and how they are affected by the legal system. -​ Ultra Vires: "beyond the powers". It refers to actions taken by a person or entity that exceed the legal authority or powers granted to them by law, a constitution, or a contract. -​ Vagueness: When a law fails to detail the practices to the ordinary citizen that are required or prohibited. Vague laws are “guessing games” -​ Vague law: When a law fails to detail the practices to the ordinary citizen that are required or prohibited. OR when a law fails to detail the procedure(s) followed by officers or judges of the law (e.g., how to handle an investigation or case before the court) LONG ANSWER: -​ The difference between substantive and procedural law: Substantive law is a body of law that prohibits certain kinds of conduct and imposes sanctions for unlawful behaviour. Procedural law includes how the criminal justice system enforces and adjudicates crime. -​ Understand the concept of federal criminal law of power (slides): -​ Who has the ultimate power to create legislation? Who creates laws? Who interprets them? The legislative branch (parliament) has the power to create laws, the executive branch (PM) enforce the laws and the judicial branch (courts) interpret and apply laws.  -​ Jurisdiction. What if you have a law that conflicts with legislation? Federal power wins. Judicial discretion is necessary in order for courts to decide whether provincial legislation should be struck down on the basis that it infringes on the FCLP. -​ What are the three necessary elements needed to create a law? Prohibition, penalty and demonstrating some kind of evil. Has to be an act or omission. -​ How do you get a law off the books, can the courts do that? Courts can't directly remove laws from the books, but they can strike down or invalidate laws that are unconstitutional or violate higher legal principles. This means that if a law goes against the constitution, a court can rule it invalid and it can no longer be applied. -​ What's the standards for refusal within an administrative system/law? refusals by government agencies or officials must be based on clear, fair reasons. Common standards for refusal include: 1.​ No Authority: The agency doesn’t have the power to make the decision. 2.​ Not Following Rules: The person didn’t meet legal or procedural requirements. 3.​ Lack of Proof: The person didn’t provide enough evidence to support their request. 4.​ Policy Decisions: The agency might refuse based on public interest or safety. 5.​ Unfair or Biased Decisions: A refusal can be challenged if it seems unreasonable or based on personal bias. 6.​ Unfair Process: The decision may be invalid if the person wasn’t given a chance to respond or wasn’t treated fairly. -​ Corporations in connection to criminal law: Can claim Charter rights to defend itself or to invalidate legislation. Eg. use of section 8 for search warrants, section 11b for timely trial. At one time, section 12 (cruel and unusual). -​ CASE STUDIES: R v. Oakes: Facts of the Case: -​ David Oakes was caught by police with 8 vials of hashish oil outside of a tavern. He claimed it was for his own use. He was in possession of $619.45 but claimed it was from a government program. -​ He claimed the oil was for pain relief. -​ The Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act (NCA) established that possession of a narcotic inferred an intent to traffic unless the accused establishes the absences of such an intention” Legal Issues: -​ Is the violation of 11(d) reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, per section 1 of the Charter? Judgement:  -​ Section 8 NCA violates section 11 (d) presumption of innocence and is not saved under Section 1. Oakes Test: -​ It is used to determine whether a law that infringes on a Charter right or freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be justified as a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter. 1.​ At a minimum (the) objective (of the limiting law) must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society (S.C.R. 105). 2.​ The limitation must be proportional to the objective: a.​ Rational connection b.​ Minimal and proportional impairment R v. Keegstra: Facts of the Case: -​ James Keegstra was charged under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code for promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Smeitic statements to his students. Legal Issues: -​ Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code violates the freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) of the charter. -​ Section 319 (3)(a) violates the section.11(d) presumption of innocence since it requires the accused to disapprove the hatred element by establishing that the content of expression was true. Judgement: -​ Section 319(2) violates Charter 2(b) but is a reasonable limit under the Oakes test. -​ Section 319 (3)(a) violates Charter (11)(d), but is a reasonable limit: “if the defence of truth is too easily used, parliaments objective under section 319(2) “to deter and denounce hate propaganda” R v. Sullivan 2022 SC 19: -​ Constitutionality of auto with intoxication defense -​ If one court in the same province declares a law unconstitutional, does a second court have to abide by this ruling in a separate case? -​ Unless the facts of the case are vastly different, than yes, courts must “bind” Presumption of Innocence - R.v Sullivan: -​ Contested that Section 11d violated 33.1 right to operationalize defence to prove extreme intoxication did lead to actions. R. v Sloan (1994) -​ Having intimate relations in a parked car may or may not constituted a public place -​ Depends on where the car is parked  -​ In this case, the court rules: -​ Not guilty -​ Car parked in the dark periphery of the lot -​ Unless approaching, sexual activity would not be seen R. v Jacob (1996) -​ Gwen Jacobs exposes her breasts in public by walking down a busy street in Guelph, On -​ Police arrest and charge her -​ Was she guilty of an indecent act? -​ Courts ruled that her actions did not violate community standards of intolerance (test) -​ Not a sexual nature Section 173 of the Criminal Code: -​ Requisites to determine whether or not the action constitutes indecency and thereby becomes a summary offence. a.​ Public place in the presence of one or more people and b.​ In place with intent to insult or offend -​ Defending public space -​ Public have access or by the invitation express or implied witnessed by others -​ Not a viable defence that one did not think there were witnesses.