Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In written law, the term fundamental justice can be traced back at least to 1960, when the Canadian Bill of Rights was brought into force by the Diefenbaker government. . Specifically, section 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights stated that everyone has "the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and oblig
Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7, it was held as a principle of fundamental justice that the state cannot impose obligations on lawyers that undermine their duty of commitment to clients. The case arose in the content of federal money laundering legislation which required lawyers to retain information on certain financial ...
[2]: 232–3 Canada's fundamental justice (section 7) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than due process, which is the U.S. equivalent. Freedom of expression (section 2) also has a wider-ranging scope than the freedom of speech guaranteed under the U.S. First Amendment (1A).
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. [1]
Freedom of speech in Canada and freedom of religion in Canada (now in Section 2 of the Charter) equality rights (more complete rights are contained in Section 15 of the Charter) The right to life, liberty and security of the person, and in another section, rights to fundamental justice (the Charter combines those rights in Section 7)
United States v Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that found that extradition of individuals to countries in which they may face the death penalty is a breach of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that Parliament had the authority to criminalize the possession and trafficking of marijuana, and that power did not infringe on the section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The reference to a fair hearing allows one a right to "full answer and defence", a right also based in section 7 of the Charter ("fundamental justice"). This has led to a controversial string of decisions surrounding the rape shield law, starting with R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and ending with R. v. Mills (1999).