Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The common law dictates how much reasonable notice an employee is entitled to. [8] In this regard, the length of reasonable notice depends on a number of factors, best described by McRuer CJHC in the 1960 Ontario decision of Bardal v Globe & Mail: [9] There could be no catalogue laid down as to what was reasonable notice in particular classes ...
At around the time of the centennial of Canadian Confederation in 1967, Liberal Attorney General Pierre Trudeau appointed law professor Barry Strayer to research enshrining rights into the Constitution. Canada already had a Canadian Bill of Rights passed in 1960. This Bill of Rights did not have the force of the Charter and was criticised as ...
Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that it reformed the manner in which damages are to be awarded in cases of wrongful dismissal and it declared that such awards were not affected by the type of position an employee may have had.
Mistake of law is when a party enters into a contract without the knowledge of the law in the country. The contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. [3]
Courts have generally held that the notice be given within a "reasonable time" but not necessarily simultaneous with termination of the lease. For example, in North Bay T.V. and Audio Ltd. v Nova Electronics Ltd. Et Al., [9] a statement of claim about six weeks after the tenant terminated the lease was held to be within "reasonable time".
R v Asante-Mensah, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 38, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court affirmed the limits to which private citizens may undertake an arrest, as well as the limits of private individuals in the use of force to protect property. This case holds particular importance as the prevalence of private security ...
The Act is an attempt to codify what was formerly a matter of common law. It is most often used by private-property owners to keep unwanted individuals off their property. There are many methods of notifying unwanted individuals that they have been banned (for future access), but the most common is a personal notice to the offender. [2]
Where section nine has been invoked the Crown must show that the police were acting under a lawful duty arising from either the common law (per the R. v. Waterfield test) or from a statute. Following this, the Crown must show that the conduct itself was a justifiable use of their authority granted under the duty.