• Print
  • Constitutional Law accounts for 135 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Taku River Tlingit First Nation v British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74

Duty was discharged bc first nations participated meaningful, they received written materials, had to chance to meet w/ minister, engaged in meetings w/ mind developers, and they were provided w/ funds to fund their participation in this process

Teis v Ancaster (Town), (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 304, 1997 CarswellOnt 2970 (CA).

(1) Inconsistent use test doesn’t apply when there is a mutual mistake.

(2) Actual Possession determination for the 10 year period as set out in the Limitations Act begins from the moment 'open possession' is implemented on the land (to do so any sooner would be unfair to the true owner).

The Queen v Klassen (1960), 20 DLR (2d) 406 (Man CA)

The Federal government can regulate an entire industry in order to regulate the extra-provincial/export portion of the industry

Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider, [1925] UKPC 2

Prima facie jurisdiction of labour relations falls to the provinces (Parson and Snider)

Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2001] 1 SCR 772

1) Narrowing the scope of rights in a context-heavy balancing practice when competing Charter rights conflict
2) Charter rights have co-equal status – not hierarchical; must be balanced against each other when they conflict

Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700

s.91(24) and Interaction of s.88 (to determine if prov law can apply)
** 1. Examine whether the provincial law under review is valid. Is it a law of general application with only incidental effects on “Indian-ness”?
** 2. Apply paramountcy, if applicable. [is there a conflict between a federal and a provincial law?] – if no conflict or no paramountcy argument, then
** 3. Then determine whether the provincial legislation in issue impairs the core of “Indian-ness”.
** 4. Apply s. 88 of the Indian Act, subject to its limitations discussed above.

[And then move on to s. 35(1) test if a RIGHT is impacted by reinvigorated provincial law. Section 88 deals with jurisdiction, not rights, per se.]

Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493

Under-inclusive laws can be subject to Charter review and can violate rights.

Ward v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 17

Fed power over fisheries is not confined to conserving fish stock, but extends to the management of fisheries as a public resource

Westcoast Energy Inc. v Canada (National Energy Board), [1998] 1 SCR 322

In order for several operations to be considered a single federal undertaking they must be functionally integrated (with the interprovincial undertaking) and subject to common management, control and direction – 2 prong test (2nd prong is dependency)

Is the undertaking dependent on the fed undertaking – integral (Is the fed undertaking dependent on the prov – NOT the other way around)
**“One must look at the normal or habitual activities of the business as those of ‘a going concern’, without regard for exceptional or casual factors – to determine if all parts are functionally integrated

Westendorp v The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR 43

Street prostitution is a federal criminal law matter.

Wood v Gateway, (1990) CA.

In cases of mutual mistake it is legally possible for the party claiming possessory title to establish effective exclusion of the true owners from possession

Evidence of mutual estate may infer intention to exclude true owner

Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (1988), 52 DLR (4th) 577

Pressure or compulsion must be assessed from the point of view of the minority (contextual analysis).