1 / 8

Case Study

Case Study. WARD v. Canada. Federal Government Action. Federal government action was correct in charging in Mr. Ward. Section 91 of Constitution clearly states that control of fisheries is a federal responsibility

macha
Download Presentation

Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case Study WARD v. Canada

  2. Federal Government Action • Federal government action was correct in charging in Mr. Ward. • Section 91 of Constitution clearly states that control of fisheries is a federal responsibility • Section 27 of the Marine Mammal Regulation provides meaning regarding Section 91 • Pith and Substance is meant to protect viability and integrity of fisheries– intra vires of Federal government • Fisheries Act meant to preserve fish stocks for the entire nation so it cannot merely be a provincial responsibility

  3. Should Federal powers supersede provincial? • Federal power to regulate fisheries should supersede provinces authority to license and regulate trade • National issue- main issue is preservation of fish stocks and control harvesting in the seas • Without federal control, stocks would be overfished

  4. Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998

  5. Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998 • Question 1 • The Constitution is more than a series of rules or principles, and includes the ideals of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law and respect for minorities • These values have evolved since Confederation and have become significant components of the Canadian nation. If Quebec seceded unilaterally, it would put aside these values and relationships

  6. Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998 Question 1 (cont’ed) • A majority vote for secession in one province does not provide a pretext for unilateral secession. However, if such a vote took place, the federal government and the other provinces would be obliged to recognize the will of Quebecs

  7. Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998 • Question 2 • Quebec does not fit the interpretation of international law regarding secession, since they are not an oppressed or colonized people • Quebec cannot complain that its people have been denied access to pursue their political development • Quebec thus does not meet required criteria for secession • Does not rule out the possibility of unilateral secession

  8. Reference re. Secession of Quebec1998 Question 3 • Decided there was no conflict between international and domestic law

More Related