Section 7: Life, Liberty, & Security of the Person
R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26
Although not decided on the basis of the Charter, this case provides valuable insight into the necessary fault requirement for a criminal conviction, breathing new meaning into the “principles of fundamental justice” stemming from our common law tradition, and later enshrined in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9
The appellants in this case challenged Sections 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which authorized the federal government to detain a permanent resident or refugee for national security reasons. Although detainees could challenge these so called “security certificates” in Federal Court, they were not entitled to review the evidence against them. Furthermore, once a Federal Court judge determined that the certificate was “reasonable” (on the basis of evidence that the accused could not see), there was no avenue of appeal or judicial review. Continue reading
Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791
In Chaoulli v. Quebec, the Appellant Zeliotis was a patient who had not been able to acquire publicly funded medical care in a timely fashion, while the Appellant Chaoulli was a doctor willing and able to provide medical care outside of the public system. The Appellants challenged two pieces of Quebec legislation, s. 15 of the Health Insurance Act and s. 11 of the Hospital Insurance Act, as being inconsistent with s. 1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth & the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76
The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth & the Law, a childrens’ rights organization, brought an action for declaratory relief striking down Section 43 of the Criminal Code, the legislation which decriminalizes the spanking of children for the purpose of corrective discipline. Continue reading
R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761
The accused, Robert Lorne Heywood, an individual with a previous conviction for sexual assault, was charged under Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code with “loitering at or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area.” Mr. Heywood argued that the section infringed his rights under Section 7 of the Charter and overstepped its legislative intention, namely the protection of children from sexual predators. Continue reading
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606
The Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society was charged with two counts of conspiracy to unduly prevent or lessen competition, as a result of its practices in selling and dispensing prescription drugs in 1986 and prior. Continue reading
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326
This case involved a lawyer who, during his trial for breach of trust, theft, and fraud, argued that the prosecution had not provided adequate disclosure for him to make a strong defence. Mr. Stinchcombe was convicted of fraud and breach of trust and this conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada, which accepted that contention that Crown disclosure had been incomplete. Continue reading
R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 SCR 903
In R. v. Mack, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of entrapment, which had previously been considered by a divided court six years earlier in Amato v. The Queen. Continue reading
R. v. Rowbotham, 1988 CanLII 147 (ON CA)
In R. v. Rowbotham, ten Appellants challenged various convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and hashish. Numerous grounds of appeal were argued, but what makes this a key case in Charter jurisprudence is the ground pursued by George and Laura Kononow, two unrepresented accused who argued that a lawyer should have been provided for them in order to protect their right to a fair trial. Continue reading
R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
Dr. Morgentaler and his co-defendants operated an abortion clinic which had provided abortion services contrary to Criminal Code provisions requiring a panel of doctors to certify abortions as “therapeutic” in order to be legal. Continue reading