Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Perka v The Queen (1984) provides a summary on the nature, basis and limitations on the defence of necessity: (1) the defence of necessity could be conceptualized as either a justification or an excuse; (2) it should be recognized in Canada as an excuse, operating by virtue of s. 7(3) of the Criminal Code; (3) necessity as an excuse implies no ...
Justification is a defense in a criminal case, by which a defendant who committed the acts asserts that because what they did meets certain legal standards, they are not criminally culpable for the acts which would otherwise be criminal. [1] Justification and excuse are related but different defenses (see Justification and excuse). [1]
The Department of Justice works to ensure that Canada's justice system is as fair, accessible and efficient as possible. The department helps the federal government to develop policy and to draft and reform laws as needed. At the same time, it acts as the government's legal adviser, providing legal counsel and support, and representing the ...
The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and ...
The issues relating to prohibitions and penalties can be approached separately, as noted by Laskin C.J. in Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian National Transportation, Ltd.: It is certainly open to the Parliament of Canada, in legislating in relation to s. 91(27), to take a disjunctive view of the very wide criminal law power which it possesses.
A defense of justification is the product of society's determination that the actual existence of certain circumstances will operate to make proper and legal what otherwise would be criminal conduct. A defense of excuse, contrarily, does not make legal and proper conduct which ordinarily would result in criminal liability; instead, it openly ...
When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means ...
R. v. Jordan [2] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 ...