Judgement published October 16, 2020 Background Three retired members of the RCMP participated in a job-sharing program that allowed members to split the duties and responsibilities of one full-time position. Almost everyone who enrolled in the job-sharing program were women with children, as was the case with these three. They expected that job-sharing would enableContinue reading “Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28”
Author Archives: teddyweinstein
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v Canada (Attorney General)
Citation: 2014 FC 651 Judgement released July 4, 2014 Background In 1995 the federal government created the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provided public health care to all refugees and asylum seekers in Canada. Gradually, it also covered other similar migrants such as victims of human trafficking and people in immigration detention. The IFHPContinue reading “Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v Canada (Attorney General)”
1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22
Judgement released September 10, 2020 Unanimous decision (written by Justice Côté). Key Takeaway This case provides clarification on how to interpret the framework set out in s. 137.1 of the CJA, and guidance on how to adjudicate anti-SLAPP pre-trial motions more generally. Introduction In 2015, Ontario amended the Courts of Justice Act by introducing ss.Continue reading “1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22”
CCLA v Attorney General of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 4838
DISCLAIMER: The author was employed at the CCLA as an articling student during some of the events of this case. Decision released Friday September 4, 2020. Key Takeaways Partisan political messaging is not a valid form of compelled speech, and will run afoul of freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. Promoting aContinue reading “CCLA v Attorney General of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 4838”
R v McSweeney, 2020 ONCA 2
CONTENT WARNING: This case concerned charges of the possession of child pornography. Decision released January 07, 2020 Introduction Mr. McSweeney, the appellant, appealed his conviction for possession and distribution of child pornography. His trial exclusively consisted of a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He alleged that his rights under sections 7 andContinue reading “R v McSweeney, 2020 ONCA 2”
Flashback: Eldridge v BC (Attorney General) [1997] 3 SCR 624
Introduction: In this flashback case, we look at three important topics: to whom does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply, what does “equal benefits” mean for disabled people under section 15(1) of the Charter, and briefly at what we mean by “minimal impairment” under the section 1 justification framework. This case was releasedContinue reading “Flashback: Eldridge v BC (Attorney General) [1997] 3 SCR 624”
R v Rose, 2020 ONCA 306
Date of Decision May 21, 2020 Key Takeaways: “Alternate” and “additional” jurors are different, and a judge confusing the two can invalidate the trial. Evidence of prior convictions, even when factually relevant to the case, must be treated carefully and given alongside proper jury instructions. A judge’s reasons for conviction into evidence is highly prejudicial,Continue reading “R v Rose, 2020 ONCA 306”
R v July, 2020 ONCA 492
Key Takeaway: Police officers do not need to prove it is necessary for an investigation in order to seize old text messages stored by a cell phone provider. They only need to show “reasonable and probable grounds” that an offence has been committed or will be committed and that there is likely relevant evidence toContinue reading “R v July, 2020 ONCA 492”
Flashback: R v Sinclair 2010 SCC 35
Key Takeaways: Section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to counsel, does not require the presence of defence counsel throughout a police interrogation. In most cases, an initial warning that the detainee can consult with a lawyer, coupled with a reasonable opportunity to do so, satisfied their s. 10(b) rights. However,Continue reading “Flashback: R v Sinclair 2010 SCC 35”
July 17: Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act
Note: This case has three written decisions. Click here for an explanation of majority, concurring and dissenting reasons. Background In 2017 Parliament enacted the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (the Act). Section 2 of the Act defines a genetic test as “a test that analyzes DNA, RNA or chromosomes for purposes such as the prediction of diseaseContinue reading “July 17: Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act”
Weinstein Law Blog 