Landmark Decisions in Canada
- Main articles: List of Supreme Court of Canada cases and List of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council cases
There is no universally agreed-to list of "leading decisions" in Canada.
One indication, however, as to whether a case is widely regarded as being "leading" is its inclusion of the ruling in one or more of the series of compilations prepared over the years by various authors. One of the earlier examples is Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy's Leading Cases in Canadian Constitutional Law, published in 1914. More recently, Peter Russell and a changing list of collaborators have published a series of books, including:
- Leading Constitutional Decisions (first published 1965, with several later editions);
- Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions (published in 1989, co-edited by Russell, F.L. Morton and Rainer Knopff);
- The Court and the Charter: Leading Cases (published in 2008, co-edited by Russell, Morton, Knopff, Thomas Bateman and Janet Hiebert); and
- The Court and the Constitution: Leading Cases (published in 2008, co-edited by Russell, Morton, Knopff, Bateman and Hiebert).
Landmark decisions in Canada are have usually been made by the Supreme Court of Canada. Prior to the abolition of appeals of Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s, most landmark decisions were made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.
| Decision | Court | Date & citation | Subject matter | Principle or rule established by the court's decision | Full text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robertson and Rosetanni v. R. | Supreme Court | S.C.R. 651 | Canadian Bill of Rights | Establishes that the Bill of Rights is not concerned with rights in any abstract sense, but rather with the more modest objective of prohibiting restrictions on rights as they existed in Canada at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted. | |
| re Anti-Inflation Act | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 373 | Use of extraneous material in court decisions. | Established that it is acceptable for Canadian courts to examine historical material in addition to the text of the relevant statute. | |
| Patriation Reference | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 753 | Constitutional conventions | Establishes that constitutional conventions are not legally binding. | |
| Quebec v. Blaikie | Supreme Court | 2 SCR 1016 | Status of English & French in Quebec legislation. | Established that all laws and regulations of the province of Quebec, as well as all courts and tribunals, must treat French and English with absolute equality. | |
| R. v. Sparrow | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 1075 | Constitution Act, 1982, section 35(1) (Aboriginal rights) | Establishes that aboriginal rights that pre-exist the Constitution Act, 1982 cannot be infringed without justification. | . |
| Delgamuukw v. British Columbia | Supreme Court | 3 S.C.R. 1010 | Constitution Act, 1982, section 35(1) (Aboriginal rights) | ||
| R. v. Marshall | Supreme Court | 3 S.C.R. 456 | Constitution Act, 1982, section 35(1) (Aboriginal rights) | Establishes that aboriginal treaty rights are subject to Canadian law, but not to provincial licencing systems. | R v Marshall (No 1)R v Marshall (No 2) |
| Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 486 | Charter of Rights, section 7 (Legal rights) | Establishes that laws which impose prison sentences for ”absolute liability” offences (i.e. offences for which intent or negligence need not be shown) are invalidated by section 7 of the Charter. | |
| R. v. Morgentaler | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 30 | Charter of Rights, section 7 (Legal rights), abortion | The abortion provision in the Criminal Code violated the right of women, under section 7 of the Charter to “security of the person.” | |
| Gosselin v. Quebec | Supreme Court | 4 S.C.R. 429 | Charter of Rights, section 7 (Legal rights) | Establishes that section 7 does not mandate positive rights to welfare benefits, but that “a positive obligation to sustain life, liberty or security of the person may be made out” under different circumstances than those of the instant case. | |
| Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 143 | Charter of Rights, section 15 (Equality rights) | Establishes the “Andrews test” for determining whether Charter-protected equality rights have been violated. | |
| Hunter v. Southam | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 145 | Charter of Rights, section 8 (Legal rights) | Establishes that the Charter ought to be interpreted purposively. | |
| R. v. Feeney | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 13 | Constitution Act, 1982, section 8 (Procedural rights) | Establishes that the police cannot enter a home without a search warrant. | |
| Egan v. Canada | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 513 | Charter of Rights, section 15(1) (Equality rights) | Establishes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited under section 15(1). | |
| Law v. Canada | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 497 | Charter of Rights, section 15(1) (Equality rights) | Establishes the “Law test” for identifying Charter-prohibited discrimination. | |
| Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 429 | Charter of Rights, section 15 (Equality rights) | Establishes that Charter-mandated rights come into existence, for purposes of applicability, only from the moment that their existence is determined by the court. Charter rights are not “discovered” in the sense proposed by Blackstone, and therefore are not retroactive. | |
| Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 712 | Charter of Rights, section 2(b) (Freedom of expression) | ||
| Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (A.G.) | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 927 | Charter of Rights, section 2(b) (Freedom of expression) | ||
| R. v. Zundel | Supreme Court | 2 S.C.R. 731 | Charter of Rights, section 2(b) (Freedom of expression) | ||
| R. v. Sharpe | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 45 | Charter of Rights, section 2(b) (Freedom of expression) | ||
| Mahe v. Alberta | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 342 | Charter of Rights, section 23 (Minority-language education rights) | Establishes that section 23 of the Charter is intended to be remedial, and therefore should be given a large and liberal interpretation. | |
| R. v. Oakes | Supreme Court | 1 S.C.R. 103 | Charter of Rights, section 1 (limits on rights protected elsewhere in the Charter) | Establishes the "Oakes test" determining whether laws placing limits on Charter-protected rights are permitted under section 1 of the Charter. | |
| Meiorin case | Supreme Court | 3 S.C.R. 3 | Charter of Rights, section 15(1) (Equality rights) | Establishes the “Meiorin test” to be used in applying human rights legislation. | . |
| Auton v. British Columbia | Supreme Court | 3 S.C.R. 657 | Charter of Rights, section 15 (Equality rights) | Establishes that section 15 of the Charter does not create a positive right to receive government services. |
Read more about this topic: Lists Of Landmark Court Decisions
Famous quotes containing the words landmark, decisions and/or canada:
“They throw in Drummer Hodge, to rest
Uncoffined—just as found:
His landmark is a kopje-crest
That breaks the veldt around;”
—Thomas Hardy (1840–1928)
“A woman does not have to make decisions based on the need to survive. She can cut through issues, call shots as she sees them.... Many bad decisions are made by men in government because it is good for them personally to make bad public decisions.”
—Dianne Feinstein (b. 1933)
“Canadians look down on the United States and consider it Hell. They are right to do so. Canada is to the United States what, in Dante’s scheme, Limbo is to Hell.”
—Irving Layton (b. 1912)