Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The onus is on the person raising the defence to establish that the defamatory material constituted a statement of opinion rather than fact. To establish that the comment was fair, the defendant must also prove, on an objective basis, that the defamatory opinion was one which a person could have honestly expressed based on the proven facts. [3]
In Canada v Schmidt (1987), the Supreme Court found that government decisions to extradite people are bound by section 7. Moreover, it is possible that a potential punishment in the receiving country " shocks the conscience " to the extent that the Canadian government would breach fundamental justice if they extradited people there, and thus ...
Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention says that receiving countries may not penalize refugees for how they enter a country as long as they present themselves "without delay" to authorities and show "good cause" for their presence. [8] Illegal entry is not an offence in Canada's Criminal Code, but Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations ...
[11]: 91 Defamation is a tort that gives a person the right to recover damages for injury due to publication of words that were intended to lower a person's character. [ 12 ] : 51 The law encourages the media to publish with caution, to avoid any forms of libel and to respect a person's freedom of expression.
Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always reasonable. The reasonable person has been called an "excellent but odious character." [25]
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 May 21, 2004 Patents Harper v Canada (AG) [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33 May 18, 2004 Freedom of speech, federal elections Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Assn of Internet Providers [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 44 June 30, 2004
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was a provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act dealing with hate messages. The provision prohibited online communications which were "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination (such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, etc.).
In the case R v Stone (1999), the issue of crime committed by a person suffering from automatism was considered. The majority ruled that since automatism could be "easily feigned", the burden of proof must rest with the defense; while this would be a limit on section 11 rights, the majority found section 1 would uphold this because criminal law ...