• Print
  • Constitutional Law accounts for 135 out of 654 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 SCR 609

Religious minorities not already recognized by s.93 are not entitled to public funding. These minorities cannot use the Charter to defeat the express provisions of s.93 of the Constitution.

Alberta Government Telephones v Canada (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 2 SCR 225

To determine whether AGT is inter-provincial, ask whether it engages in regular and continuous service [Winner]

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37

If a law is fundamentally supposed to apply to everyone (writ large), an accommodation of religious beliefs (individual tailoring) is NOT appropriate under s.1 – the legislation must do this (greater deference due to complexity of law). Effects on the freedom of religion with writ large laws will be considered under final balancing step of s.1.

Attorney General for Ontario v Attorney General for the Dominion, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario, [1896] A.C. 348 (J.C.P.C.)

If a subject matter is broadly defined, it can have provincial and federal aspects (double aspect doctrine); if this happens, paramountcy is an issue

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39, [2003] 2 SCR 40

Due process protections do not apply to the legislative process.

Babcock v Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 SCR 3

Unwritten constitutional principles (UCPs) must be balanced with Parliamentary supremacy, and while they are capable of limiting governments in some cases, they cant do so in all cases.
**Parliamentary supremacy wins over UCPS

Bank of Montreal v Hall, [1990] 1 SCR 121

Dual compliance will be impossible when application of the prov statute can fairly be said to frustrate Parliament legislative purpose

Conflict: can find conflict when provincial legislation frustrates the purpose of the federal legislation, AND/OR when dual compliance cannot be found (Multiple Access)

Beckman v Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53

Source of the duty to consult is external the treaty – duty to consult informs the ongoing relationship set out in the treaty
**The duty to consult is imposed as a matter of law, irrespective of the parties’ “agreement”

Duty to consult it not excluded by a treaty – this is for established and not established rights

Bell Canada v Quebec, [1988] 1 SCR 749

Scope of IJI doctrine limited to the “basic, minimum and unassailable content”, the core

Bell Canada v Quebec, [1988] 1 SCR 749

The rule is that valid provincial laws of general application can apply to a federal work or undertaking, unless the application of these laws would impair the vital or essential elements of these undertakings.

Management is an essential vital part of a fed undertaking– so feds have jurisdiction over labour relations of fed undertakings, so prov labour relations cannot apply bc it would affect/impair fed essential element.
**Once determined something is a fed undertaking – feds control labour relations, this affects management, which is a vital element

Black v Chretien (2001) 199 D.L.R. (4th) 228 (C.A.)

Test for whether the exercise of a prerogative power is reviewable: Where the right or legitimate expectation of an individual are affected, the court is both competent and qualified to judicially review the exercise of the prerogative power – if not, then not reviewable

Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co. v The King, ( 1916) 1 AC 566

What the words (w/ prov object) do is preclude the grant of powers and rights in respect of objects outside the prov, while leaving untouched the ability of the corp to accept such rights if granted by another prov

Brown v Alberta (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 349 (Alta. CA)

A case must have a legal issue for the court to have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case

The legislature can elect any Senator they want, they do not have to elect from the Senatorial Selection Act in Alberta

Brown v Alberta (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 349 (Alta. CA)

(1) A case must have a legal issue for the court to have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case.

(2) There was no justiciability for the courts to rule on the case.

Caloil Inc. v Attorney General of Canada, [1971] SCR 543

Federal regulation over trade matters in the provinces is permitted if such regulation is “necessary” to the effective regulation of interprovincial or int’l trade (must be trade between provinces)