Appeal from the dismissal of claims for declarations that the appellant’s Charter rights as protected by ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10(a) were violated. Her claims arose from a pat-down or “frisk” search by Constable Turner in Nelson, British Columbia, after he pulled over a truck in which she was a passenger in response to reports of a traffic violation. Her claims arose from a pat-down or “frisk” search by Constable Turner in Nelson, British Columbia, after he pulled over a truck in which she was a passenger in response to reports of a traffic violation. On approaching the truck, Constable Turner smelled vegetative marihuana and told the occupants he would search them personally as well as the truck.
Supreme Court judges Moldaver J., Rothstein and Wagner JJ. say that "Parliament's choice to raise the mandatory minimums ... reflects valid and pressing objectives, and it is not for this court to frustrate the policy goals of our elected representatives based on questionable assumptions or loose conjecture," the dissenting justices wrote. "The hypothetical scenario advanced by the majority stretches the bounds of credulity."
The Appellant brought a Charter challenge to this provision. It submitted the provision should be read down to include an exception for third parties spending less than $500 on election advertising. The parties agreed, and chambers judge found, s. 239 infringed freedom of expression, but found this infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
The legislative landscape on the issue of physician-assisted death has changed in the two decades since Rodriguez. In 1993 Sopinka J. noted that no other Western democracy expressly permitted assistance in dying. Despite the Court’s decision in Rodriguez, the debate over physician?assisted dying continued. Between 1991 and 2010, the House of Commons and its committees debated no less than six private member’s bills seeking to decriminalize assisted suicide. None was passed...a vocal minority spoke in favour
Court rules 4 to 3 that the sharing of information with U.S.A. does not contravene the Charter or privacy rights. Held (Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
The motion concerns the viability of what could be a significant application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms