Law U2 Test Notes PDF

By using these notes, you acknowledge that I am not responsible for any inaccuracies, and you proceed at your own risk. Apologies for the length—you can read through it, but memorization is not really necessary. CLN4U – UNIT TWO: RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – QUIZ REVIEW Event 1: War Measures...

By using these notes, you acknowledge that I am not responsible for any inaccuracies, and you proceed at your own risk. Apologies for the length—you can read through it, but memorization is not really necessary. CLN4U – UNIT TWO: RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – QUIZ REVIEW Event 1: War Measures Act: Internment of “enemy aliens” during World War One Description: During WWI, the Canadian government passed the War Measures Act, which granted extraordinary powers, allowing for the detention of individuals without charges. Under this act, immigrants from Austria-Hungary (Britain’s enemy) were labeled as “enemy aliens.” Around 8,600 people, including 5,000 Ukrainians, were interned in camps, while 80,000 others had to carry ID cards and report regularly to the police. Why abuse was allowed to occur: The War Measures Act permitted the government to take extreme actions under the guise of national security without debate or oversight. Anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada also contributed to a lack of public opposition. Why abuse was unacceptable: Many individuals were detained and forced into labor camps without due process, solely based on their nationality. This violated basic human rights, treating individuals unfairly due to prejudice and wartime fears. Event 2: War Measures Act: Internment of Japanese Canadians during World War Two Description: Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Canadian government used the War Measures Act to intern approximately 22,000 Japanese Canadians, citing them as security risks. The government confiscated their property and placed families in internment camps in British Columbia. Most internees lost their means of livelihood, and their property was sold at reduced prices. Why abuse was allowed to occur: The War Measures Act allowed for detention without charges in times of perceived national security threats. Wartime hysteria and racial prejudice against Japanese Canadians fueled public and government support for internment. Why abuse was unacceptable: Japanese Canadians, many of whom were citizens, were treated as threats based solely on their ancestry. This action was discriminatory, violating the fundamental rights to freedom, property, and equality under the law. Event 3: Christie v. York Corp., SCR 139 Description: Fred Christie, a Black man, was refused service at a Montreal tavern due to a “house rule” against serving Black people. He sued for damages, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of York Corporation, citing the principle of “freedom of commerce,” allowing businesses to choose their customers unless specific laws prohibited it. Why abuse was allowed to occur: At the time, there were no specific anti-discrimination laws prohibiting racial discrimination in service. The court’s decision reflected existing societal norms that permitted discrimination in private enterprises.  Why abuse was unacceptable: Christie was denied service based on race, undermining his dignity and equality. Such treatment was discriminatory and highlighted the need for legal protections to ensure equal treatment for all citizens. Event 4: War Measures Act: Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the October Crisis of 1970 Description: In response to the October Crisis, where members of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) kidnapped political figures, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, allowing the government to suspend civil liberties and detain individuals without charges. This led to the arrest of hundreds of people suspected of supporting the FLQ. Why abuse was allowed to occur: The War Measures Act provided broad powers to the government in times of national crisis, which Trudeau justified due to the threat posed by FLQ activities. The public’s concern about terrorism allowed for the suspension of normal legal processes. Why abuse was unacceptable: Many people were detained without due process or clear evidence of wrongdoing. The suspension of civil rights affected numerous citizens who had no connection to the FLQ, illustrating the dangers of unchecked governmental powers during crises. John Stuart Mill – The Harm Principle Advocated that people should have the freedom to act however they like, provided it doesn’t harm others. - You can do anything you want in society as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else ⇨ e.g., your freedom ends where your neighbour’s nose begins (JJR) Jean Jacques Rousseau – Social Contract Proposed that individuals have inherent rights and enter a "social contract" with society, agreeing to follow laws for collective well-being. Declaration of Rights of Man (1789) Context: ○ Emerged from the French Revolution, inspired by the American Revolution ○ Resulted in the overthrow of the king and nobility Core Concept: ○ “Natural rights of man” include: Liberty Property Security Resistance to oppression Freedom of religion and speech Key Articles: ○ Article 1: Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.  ○ Article 2: Rights include liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. ○ Article 3: Law-making powers reside in the Nation. ○ Article 4: Liberty is the power to do anything that does not harm others. ○ Article 7: Protection against unlawful accusation, arrest, or detention. ○ Article 9: Presumption of innocence until proven guilty. ○ Article 11: Freedom of thought and speech, both spoken and written. ○ Article 17: Right to property. Napoleonic Code (1804): Also called the French Civil Code. Formed the basis of the Civil Code of Quebec. Inquisitorial trial system: ○ Permits the judge to ask questions and take a more active role in the trial process. ○ Different from the adversarial trial system. Emphasized equality and justice for all. Abolition of Slavery Key Events: ○ 1833: British Empire passed the Emancipation Act, abolishing slavery throughout the empire. ○ 1865: The United States abolished slavery following the Civil War (1861-65) with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Magna Carta (1215) Context: ○ Signed by King John of England, marking a significant development in English law. ○ At the time, the king was considered above the law and had abused his power. Key Events: ○ The nobility, clergy, and freemen forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. Significance: ○ Established the rule of law: even rulers must obey the law. ○ Prevented any ruler from restricting people's freedoms without a valid reason. ○ Ensured that people’s legal rights could not be altered without their consent. Key Rights: ○ Habeas Corpus: guaranteed that anyone imprisoned without a valid reason had the right to appear in court within a reasonable timeframe. ○ If held unlawfully, the accused must be released or tried by their peers if charged with an offense. Feudalism & English Common Law (King William) Feudalism: ○ Introduced by King William (Duke of Normandy, now part of France) after conquering England. ○ Land Ownership: King owned all land and divided it among lords and nobles. Lords became the king's vassals (servants) and owed loyalty and military support. ○ Social Structure: Lords had their own vassals who farmed the land and provided a portion of their produce to the lords and the Church. Lords managed their lands (manors or estates) autonomously. ○ Judicial Issues: Lords acted as judges on their lands, often leading to inconsistent and unjust punishments (e.g., different punishments for the same crime). ○ Response: The king appointed travelling judges who held hearings (assizes) on significant cases. Established regular punishments, which created a fairer system that gained respect. Led to the development of English common law. English Common Law: ○ Based on the rule of precedent: Decisions in cases served as examples or rules for future cases with similar facts. Judges would rule consistently on similar cases, creating a standard in legal decisions. ○ Impact: Established a degree of certainty in the law by expecting similar results in similar cases. ○ Common Law: Defined as law based on judges' decisions, the rule of precedent, and published case law. The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) Passed by: Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. Purpose: Codified civil rights and freedoms that Canadians already enjoyed under common law. Context: Post-WWII awareness of the need for formal protections against unfair government treatment. Significance:  ○ Served as a precursor to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF). ○ Main significance: Codification of rights. Limitations: ○ Ordinary statute, easily changed by Parliament. ○ Not entrenched in the Constitution, so it held no precedence over other federal laws. ○ Applied only to federal jurisdiction—did not protect against unfair treatment under provincial jurisdictions. ○ Judges were reluctant to strike down laws based on it, as it was not part of the Constitution. Current Status: Still technically in force, but rarely used in court due to the CCRF. The English Bill of Rights (1689) Monarchs required to obey Parliament and its laws Guaranteed rights: ○ Free speech ○ Free elections ○ Freedom of assembly ○ Freedom from cruel and illegal punishments (building on rights from the Magna Carta) Monarch could not ignore Parliament or its decisions Parliament recognized as the institution representing the people and their interests The Declaration of Independence (1776) Context: Drafted during the American Revolutionary War as the American colonies sought independence from Britain. Chief Author: Thomas Jefferson, influenced by the ideas of philosopher John Locke. Core Principles: ○ Self-evident truths: Certain truths are universal and can be understood through reason. ○ Fundamental Rights: All men are created equal. All have certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ○ Government and Democracy: Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If a government fails to secure these rights, it can be altered or abolished, and a new government can be established.  Powers of government are to be organized to ensure the safety and happiness of the people. Canada’s Court System (note) Supreme Court of Canada Highest appeal court in Canada Unlimited jurisdiction in criminal matters Hears appeals from provincial appeal courts Hears cases of national importance, including Charter cases Grants leave (permission to hear an appeal): Individuals must request the court's permission for their case to be heard. Court Composition: ○ Chief Justice + 8 other judges ○ All appointed by the federal government ○ At least 3 judges from Quebec; traditionally, 3 from Ontario, 2 from Western Canada, and 1 from the Atlantic provinces Sits in Ottawa for three sessions a year: winter, spring, and fall Provincial Supreme Court of Appeals Hears appeals from the Trial Division of Provincial Supreme Courts Sets provincial precedent: decisions must be followed by all judges in that province Provincial Supreme Court – Trial Division  Handles more severe crimes (e.g., manslaughter, sexual assault, murder, treason) – severe indictable offences Hears criminal appeals in summary conviction cases Sets provincial precedent Provincial Courts – Criminal Division Arraigns all criminal cases (reads the charge and enters the plea) Preliminary hearings for severe indictable offences (accused may choose trial in a higher court) Hears and tries criminal summary conviction cases and less serious indictable offences (e.g., theft under $5000) Criminal Offences and Procedures Category Examples Trial Procedures Summary Minor crimes (e.g., theft < Provincial court, judge gives verdict Offences $5000) Least Serious Mischief (< $5000), fraud (< Trial like summary offences Indictable $5000), driving while disqualified More Serious Assault, manslaughter, Accused chooses: Provincial court judge, higher Indictable sexual assault, weapons court judge, or judge and jury offences Most Serious Murder, treason, piracy, Trial usually before judge and jury Indictable bribing a judicial officer Summary & Minor Indictable Offences Procedures 6-month limitation period for laying charges  Provincial court judge hears evidence and gives a verdict (summary or minor indictable offence) Accused enters plea of guilty or not guilty Quasi-criminal offences: Court appearance not needed unless pleading not guilty Indictable Offences Procedures No limitation period for laying charges Minor indictable offences: treated like summary offences More serious indictable offences: ○ Accused chooses trial type: Provincial court judge, higher court judge, or judge and jury Most serious indictable offences: typically involve a trial by judge and jury International Criminal Court Background 1970s/1980s: Human rights groups pushed for a permanent tribunal to try suspected war criminals. Previously used ad hoc tribunals: Set up only as needed for specific situations (e.g., Rwanda, Yugoslavia). Rome Statute of the International Court Ratified: July 1, 2002, by 60 states initially Current ratifications: As of May 1, 2024, 124 countries have ratified. Mandate: Court prosecutes individuals (not states) for serious international crimes, including: ○ Genocide: Acts (e.g., killing, causing harm) intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. ○ War Crimes: Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other severe violations during international conflicts. ○ Crimes Against Humanity: Acts (e.g., murder, rape, torture) as part of widespread or systematic attacks on civilians. Location and Function Located: The Hague, Netherlands Primary responsibility: Prosecution generally lies with member states. Court action: Steps in if national systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Questions and Answers 1. Why did the United States vote against the Rome Statute? ○ The U.S. opposed the Statute over concerns about losing jurisdiction and sovereignty and fears that American soldiers might face “unfair” prosecution in the ICC. 2. Which countries sided with the United States in opposing the Rome Statute? ○ The United States, China, Libya, Russia, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia opposed the Rome Statute. Legal Tests for Rights and Freedoms Minimal Interference ○ Any infringement on Charter rights must be minimal and tolerable in a free, democratic society. Proportionality ○ Solutions to issues should not be excessive or disproportionate. ○ Legislators should avoid enacting overly harsh or restrictive measures. Bona Fide Legislative Objective ○ The solution should be reasonable and not excessive. ○ Legislators must avoid enacting harsh or restrictive legislation as an overreaction. Rational Connection ○ There must be a logical link between the issue and its solution. ○ Problem should be pressing and substantial; solution must be appropriate and carefully implemented. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification ○ Employment standards should be necessary and non-arbitrary. ○ Qualifications should not be falsely created to deny opportunities or target specific groups. Reasonable Accommodation ○ Employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate employees' special needs, especially religious needs. Stigma ○ Laws or standards should not degrade individuals’ self-worth or place a mark of disgrace upon them. Human Dignity ○ Laws or standards should not cause individuals to feel unfairly degraded. Gladue Reports Definition: Pre-sentencing and bail hearing reports in Canada that provide background information about Indigenous offenders. Purpose: ○ To address systemic issues affecting Indigenous people in the justice system. ○ Consider unique circumstances to promote fairer, more culturally sensitive sentencing. Origin: ○ Stems from the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision R v. Gladue. ○ Based on section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which emphasizes alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous offenders. Content: ○ Personal history, including family background, trauma, community ties, and struggles related to poverty, addiction, discrimination, etc. ○ Exploration of community resources or rehabilitative programs for potential sentencing alternatives. Preparation: Usually written by specialized writers or social workers with knowledge of Indigenous culture and community context. Effectiveness: Promotes Rehabilitation: Encourages alternative sentences that focus on healing and reintegration, which are often more constructive than incarceration. Reduces Recidivism: By addressing root causes of criminal behavior, Gladue Reports help reduce repeat offenses. Supports Reconciliation: Recognizes and accounts for historical and ongoing impacts of colonization and discrimination. Judicial Awareness: Educates judges on systemic factors affecting Indigenous offenders, leading to more informed and empathetic sentencing. Increased Trust: Helps build trust between Indigenous communities and the legal system by showing respect for cultural backgrounds and challenges. Justine Blainey Background: Now a chiropractor, runs Justine Blainey Wellness Centre with family; mother of two. Legal Battle: ○ As a skilled hockey player, she wanted to play on boys' teams but was denied due to gender.  ○ Filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission; initially failed as the law allowed gender discrimination in sports. ○ Fought through Ontario courts, leading to a 1986 Court of Appeal ruling that struck down the gender restriction. ○ Ontario had to amend the Human Rights Code to align with the Charter's equality rights. Significance: Case highlighted the principle of "equal protection and benefit of the law," leading to more equitable sports opportunities. Justine Blainey's Perspective Personal Story: Began in traditional sports but discovered a passion for hockey watching her brother’s games. Struggles: Faced harassment, isolation, and discrimination for wanting to play on boys' teams. Fight for Equality: Battled through multiple court cases; advocated for equal access in sports and beyond. Legacy: Continues to promote equality through public speaking and teaching her daughter about resilience and fairness. Key Takeaways on Equality and Discrimination 1. Equal Protection and Benefit of the Law: Blainey's case demonstrated the need for laws to provide equal opportunities and protections across genders. 2. Discrimination Evaluation: Courts examine whether an action imposes unequal burdens or benefits on individuals based on protected grounds. Vriend v. Alberta (1998) Facts: Delwin Vriend, a lab coordinator at King’s College, a private Christian college in Edmonton, was employed full-time in 1988. Vriend received positive performance evaluations, salary increases, and promotions. In 1990, the college discovered Vriend was homosexual and asked him to resign. He refused, so his employment was terminated due to his non-compliance with the college’s policy on homosexuality. Vriend attempted to file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission but was told Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act (IRPA) did not include sexual orientation as a protected ground against discrimination. Vriend and other appellants filed a motion in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which found that excluding sexual orientation from IRPA violated s. 15(1) of the Charter. The court ordered “sexual orientation” be added as a protected ground.  The Alberta government appealed, and the Court of Appeal sided with Alberta, stating the exclusion was not a violation of s. 15(1). Vriend then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Issue: Was the omission of sexual orientation in Alberta's IRPA a violation of equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter? Decision: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the Charter applied to IRPA and concluded that excluding sexual orientation as a protected ground violated s. 15(1) by creating a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. The court found the omission discriminatory against gays and lesbians and denied them equality. Reasoning: The omission created a significant impact on gays and lesbians, denying them equal benefit and protection of the law. The distinction based on sexual orientation was analogous to those grounds listed in s. 15(1) of the Charter, indicating discrimination. The Court held the infringement could not be justified under s. 1 as the omission was a "total, not minimal, impairment." The Court decided that “reading in” sexual orientation to IRPA was the most appropriate remedy to address the omission, rather than striking down or reading down the legislation. Significance: The case affirmed the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected ground under equality rights, setting a precedent for human rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in Canada. R v. Brown (2003) Facts: ○ Date: November 1, 1999. ○ Decovan Brown, a young Black man, was driving an expensive new car slightly over the speed limit on an urban highway. ○ Brown was pulled over, given a roadside screening test, and arrested for driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level under s. 253 of the Criminal Code. ○ Brown alleged that the stop was based on racial profiling, not his driving.  ○ He argued the police officer assumed he was involved in criminal activity due to stereotypes about young Black men driving luxury vehicles. ○ Evidence was presented questioning the credibility of the arresting officer, supported by independent sources and Brown's testimony. ○ Brown was portrayed as a professional basketball player for the Toronto Raptors with no criminal record. Trial Judge’s Conduct: ○ The judge frequently intervened during the trial, showing a possible bias in favor of the arresting officer. ○ The judge suggested that Brown's accusations against the officer were "nasty, malicious," and required proof of racist motivation. ○ During sentencing, the judge even suggested Brown should apologize to the officer. ○ Brown was convicted at trial. Issues: ○ Was Brown a victim of racial profiling? ○ Was there a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge? Decision: ○ Brown's appeal to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was allowed. ○ Justice Trafford ruled that the trial judge’s comments indicated a reasonable apprehension of bias. ○ Justice Trafford noted that racial bias, whether conscious or subconscious, is often proved through circumstantial evidence, requiring judicial impartiality. ○ The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, agreeing with Justice Trafford's decision that there was evidence capable of supporting a finding of racial profiling. Significance: ○ This case emphasizes the need for judges to maintain impartiality, especially in cases involving racial profiling. ○ It highlights the challenges of proving racial profiling, often relying on circumstantial evidence. ○ The case reinforces the responsibility of the judiciary to address potential racism within the justice system. Conway v. The Queen (1993) Facts: ○ Phillip Conway was an inmate at Collins Bay Penitentiary, Kingston, Ontario, in 1986. ○ Conway objected to: Frisk searches: Hand search by guards of an inmate's body from head to foot. Cell patrols: Security patrols by female guards in male inmates' cells.  ○ Conway argued that: Cross-gender touching during searches felt wrong. Women guards could potentially see him undressed during cell patrols. ○ Conway initiated a court action, claiming these practices violated his rights to: Security of the person Privacy Equality ○ Federal Court Trial Division: Frisk searches did not violate the Charter. Cell patrols were an invasion of privacy, violating s. 8 of the Charter. ○ Federal Court of Appeal: Ruled that neither frisk searches nor cell patrols were unconstitutional. ○ Conway appealed to the Supreme Court. ○ The case had broader implications for affirmative action programs increasing the number of women working as correctional officers. Removing women from male prisons could lead to discrimination against them. Decision: ○ The Supreme Court dismissed Conway's appeal. ○ Reasons for decision: Security and Safety Needs: Frisk searches and cell patrols were necessary to ensure the security of the prison and the safety of inmates. Professionalism: Correctional officers are trained to carry out these duties professionally and with respect for inmates' dignity. Reduced Privacy Expectations: Inmates have a reduced expectation of privacy while incarcerated. ○ The Supreme Court distinguished between men and women in relation to cross-gender searches and surveillance: Biological and Sociological Differences: Cross-gender touching and searches may be less threatening for men than for women due to biological and sociological factors. Equality Consideration: Section 15(1) of the Charter requires equality but not identical treatment; differences in the treatment of men and women are justified by historical, sociological, and biological factors. The ruling did not extend to female inmates being subject to cross-gender searches or surveillance. Implications: ○ This case highlighted the complexity of balancing security needs with the rights of inmates. ○ It addressed gender equality, particularly with regard to affirmative action programs and the role of women in male-dominated environments. Christie v. York Corp. (1940) Facts: ○ Fred Christie, a black man, attended a Montreal Canadiens hockey game with friends on July 11, 1936. ○ After the game, they entered the Montreal Forum's tavern. ○ Christie ordered a beer, but the barman refused to serve him, citing the tavern's "house rules" that prohibited serving "coloured persons." ○ Christie sued York Corporation (tavern owners) for $200 in damages for humiliation. ○ York Corporation argued it was merely protecting its business interests by not serving black customers, claiming it had the right to choose whom to serve as a private enterprise. Court Decisions: ○ Trial Court: Christie won the case and was awarded $25 in damages. The judge based the decision on sections 19 and 33 of the Quebec Licence Act, which made refusal of service illegal. ○ Court of King's Bench (Quebec Court of Appeal): Overturned the trial court’s decision. Ruled that the Quebec Licence Act did not apply in this case, and merchants were free to run their businesses as they saw fit in the absence of a specific law. ○ Supreme Court of Canada: The Supreme Court ruled against Christie. Stated that Quebec law generally allows complete freedom of commerce. Merchants are free to deal with anyone as they choose, without needing to justify their motives, unless there is a specific law or the practice goes against public order or morals. The Court determined that the rule adopted by York Corporation was not contrary to good morals or public order. The Court also clarified that Christie was not covered by section 33 of the Quebec Licence Act (which applied to travellers seeking meals), as he was only requesting beer in a tavern. Decision: ○ The Supreme Court upheld the principle of freedom of commerce, meaning merchants could refuse service to anyone unless a specific law dictated otherwise. ○ The tavern's refusal to serve Christie was legally permissible under the law at the time. Key Points: Issue: Whether York Corporation's refusal to serve Christie, based on his race, violated any laws. Christie’s Argument: The refusal was discriminatory and should be prohibited by law. York Corporation’s Defense: They were exercising their rights as a private business to refuse service, citing "house rules." Court's Reasoning: ○ Quebec law permits freedom of commerce, meaning businesses can choose whom to serve. ○ No specific law prohibited York Corporation's actions. ○ The refusal did not violate public morals or order. ○ Section 33 of the Quebec Licence Act was not applicable to the situation. Outcome: ○ Supreme Court decision: Refused to intervene in the merchant’s decision, ruling it was within their rights to refuse service based on the principles of free commerce. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) Facts: ○ In May 1982, Big M Drug Mart in Calgary was charged with violating the Lord’s Day Act, which prohibited selling goods on Sunday. ○ Police observed transactions (groceries, plastic cups, and bicycle locks) taking place at the store on a Sunday. ○ Big M was charged under Section 4 of the Lord’s Day Act for unlawful Sunday sales. ○ A Provincial Court judge dismissed the charge, ruling the Act unconstitutional. ○ The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld this decision. ○ The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Court Decision (6-0): ○ Issue: The Court had to decide whether the Lord's Day Act violated Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. ○ The Court found that the Lord’s Day Act infringed upon freedom of conscience and religion by imposing Christian religious practices on both believers and non-believers. ○ The Crown argued the law was justified under Section 1 of the Charter, claiming it was a reasonable limit: It was practical to have a universally accepted day of rest (Sunday). Everyone accepted the value of a universal day of rest, making Sunday an appropriate choice.  ○ The Court ruled the law was unconstitutional, stating the intent of the law (Christian in nature) was the main issue. The effect of the law was secondary. ○ The Crown’s appeal was dismissed, and the Lord’s Day Act was deemed unconstitutional. Discussion Questions: 1. Why did all courts find the Lord’s Day Act unconstitutional? ○ All courts found the Lord’s Day Act unconstitutional because it imposed Christian religious values on all people, violating the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This infringement was due to the law’s religious intent, not necessarily its effect. 2. Under what circumstances might courts find a law prohibiting businesses from opening on Sunday valid? ○ Courts might find a law valid if: The law is secular in nature (i.e., not based on religious beliefs). It serves a public purpose, such as public health, safety, or welfare. It applies equally to all individuals, regardless of religious beliefs. It is justified under Section 1 of the Charter, meaning it is a reasonable limitation on rights in a free and democratic society. 3. Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision? ○ Yes, the decision seems justifiable because the law, rooted in Christian religious beliefs, violated the freedom of religion of non-believers. In a diverse, pluralistic society, laws should not impose the values of one religion on everyone. The Charter's protection of individual rights should prevent the government from enforcing laws based solely on religious doctrine. R. v. Drybones (1970) Facts: ○ Joseph Drybones, an Aboriginal, was found intoxicated at the Old Stope Hotel in Yellowknife, NWT, on April 8, 1967. ○ He was charged under Section 94(b) of the Indian Act, which made it an offense for an Aboriginal to be intoxicated off a reserve. ○ The Indian Act stated that an Aboriginal could be intoxicated anywhere (even in their home), whereas non-Aboriginals could only be convicted for intoxication in a public place under the Liquor Ordinance Act. ○ Drybones was sentenced to a $10 fine (or 3 days jail) and appealed the conviction, arguing it violated his right to equality under the Bill of Rights. ○ The Territorial Court acquitted him, and the NWT Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal. ○ The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in favor of Drybones, declaring s. 94(b) of the Indian Act invalid. Decision: ○ The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Section 94(b) of the Indian Act was unconstitutional because it violated Drybones' right to equality under the Canadian Bill of Rights. ○ The Court formally recognized the Bill of Rights for the first time. ○ Drybones was acquitted, and the law was struck down as discriminatory. PART C – CASE STUDY (10 MARKS COMM, 10 MARKS APP) Judges are responsible for interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in many of their cases. Even though rights and freedoms are clearly laid out in the Charter, why are the decisions of judges still controversial (they do not always please everyone in Canadian society)? You should use at least one case studied in class to support your answer. Include a description of the case and sections of the Charter which it challenged, the final result, and who/which groups benefit from this judicial precedent. *Can speak to rights and freedoms in general if not referencing a Canadian case specifically. GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!