March 31, 2006 Last class. Today: Impact of the Charter (continued from last week) Review for final exam Please fill out electronic course evaluation: http://courseevaluations.yorku.ca. To what extent has the Charter promoted the democratic values of inclusiveness and participation ?
To what extent has the Charter promoted the democratic values of inclusiveness and participation?
Singh (1985): refugee applicants have a right to a fair hearing.
Andrews (1989): recent immigrants can become lawyers more quickly than in the past.
Schachter (1992): fathers have a right to be included in parental leave legislation.
Rodrigues (1993): promotes right to live of the severely disabled.
Eldridge (1997): deaf have a right to interpreters in health serviced.
Sauvé (2002): prisoners have a right to vote.
Charter has resulted in removal of barriers in voting for mentally handicapped, students; legislation to limit election spending (including 3rd party) upheld.Impact of Charter
Morgentaler (1988): struck down abortion legislation because of cumbersome procedures. Has this promoted greater participation in Canadian society by women, or inadvertently restricted it (Gavigan)?
RJR‑MacDonald (1995): tobacco advertising legislation struck down. Too anti-majoritarian, or sensible defence against too much gov’t intervention?
Mills (1999): SCC defers to Parliament’s balance between a fair trial and right to privacy.Participation
Big M (1985): inclusiveness of non-mainstream religious groups promoted.
Edwards (1986): supported legislature’s ability to devise secular holiday
Keegstra : support for hate speech law promoted inclusiveness for vulnerable groups, and upheld Parl’s legislation.
Zundel : striking down “spreading false news” promoted inclusiveness even for groups most of us despise.
Butler : “community standards” test for pronography supports participation. Prohibiting sex/violence promotes incusiveness of vulnerable groups
Sharpe : Even those we despise don’t deserve to be subjected to over-broad legislation.Both inclusiveness & participation
Symes  and Thibaudeau : did not promote inclusiveness for women, but supported Parliament’s judgment about taxation systems affecting women.
re Secession of Quebec, : promoted participation through mandating a negotiation process. Deferred to political process re definition of “clear question” and “clear majority.”
Other cases to be discussed next week, along with final review of course.Both inclusiveness & participation (2)
Vriend , M. v. H. , and Halpern  inclusiveness for women, but supported Parliament’s judgment about taxation systems affecting women.
promoted inclusiveness for gays and lesbians in many pieces of legislation, and encouraged greater participation in the political system of these groups.
Ref re Electoral Boundaries (Sask), 
allowed a 25% difference between the average constituency population, and a rural (smaller) and urban (larger) const. Population. Promotes inclusiveness for rural voters, but what about urban voters? Eg. of deference to legislature.Both inclusiveness & participation (3)
Know what’s important about these cases inclusiveness for women, but supported Parliament’s judgment about taxation systems affecting women.
1. Alberta Press Bill reference (1938)
2. Saumur v. Quebec (1953)
3. Switzman v. Elbling & A.G. Quebec (1957)
4. Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959)
5. Robertson & Rosetanni v. The Queen (1963)
6. Regina v. Drybones (1970)
7. Calder (1973)
8. A.G. Canada v. Lavell and Bédard (1974)
9. A.G. Canada & Dupond v. Montreal (1978)
10. Hunter v. Southam (1984)
11. Operation Dismantle Inc. v. the Queen (1985)
12. The Queen v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985)
13. Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
14. Reference re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985)
15. Valente v. The Queen (1985)
16. R. v. Therens (1985)
17. Edwards Book and Art Ltd. v. the Queen (1986)
18. The Queen v. Oakes (1986)
19. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. Dolphin Delivery (1986)
20. Ontario Roman Catholic High School Funding Case (1987)
21. Labour Trilogy of 1987 (Alberta Labour Reference, Public Service Alliance, Sask. Dairy Workers)
22. Quebec v. Ford et al (1988)
23. Morgentaler v. the Queen (1988)
24. Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada (1988)
25. Tremblay v. Daigle (1989)
26. Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989)
27. R. v. Turpin (1989)
28. McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990)Objective Questions from Cases
29. Askov v. The Queen (1990) inclusiveness for women, but supported Parliament’s judgment about taxation systems affecting women.
30. R. v. Sparrow (1990)
31. R. v. Keegstra (1990)
32. Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (1991)
33. Ref re Electoral Boundaries Act (Sask.) 
34. R. v. Zundel (1992)
35. R. v. Butler (1992)
36. Schachter v. Canada (1992)
37. Rodriguez v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1993)
38. Symes v. Canada (1993)
39. Egan et al. v. the Queen (1995)
40. Re Thibaudeau and the Queen (1995)
41. RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (1995)
42. Van der Peet v. The Queen (1996)
43. Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997)
44. Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.) (1997)
45. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)
46. Vriend v. Alberta (1998)
47. Ref re Quebec Secession (1998)
48. M. v. H. (1999)
49. R. v. Mills (1999)
50. R. v. Marshall (Sept. 17, 1999)
51. R. v. Marshall (motion for Rehearing and Stay, Nov. 17, 1999)
52. Law v. Canada (1999)
53. Little Sisters (2000)
54. R. v. Sharpe (2001)
55. Sauvé (2002)
56. Dunmore v. Ontario (2002)
57. RWSDU v. Pepsi (2002)
58. Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (2003)
59. Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004)
60. Can. Fed. of Children, Youth & the Law (2004)
61. Nfld. (TB) v. N.A.P.E. (2004)
62. R. v. Powley (2004)
63. Haida Nation v. B.C. (2004)
64. Mikisew Cree First Nation (2005)List of cases (continued)