Trudeau gov't loses bid for absolute immunity

Canada's Supreme Court has rejected the Trudeau government's claim that it enjoys absolute immunity from being sued for damages caused by its unconstitutional laws.

CCF pleased by SCC ruling no absolute immunity from damages for Charter-violating laws | Canadian Constitution Foundation (news release):

July 19, 2024 - "The Canadian Constitution Foundation [CCF] is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the state is not entitled to absolute immunity from damages when it enacts unconstitutional legislation that infringes Charter rights. In a 5-4 decision released Friday [July 19] in Attorney General of Canada v Joseph Power, Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis for a majority of the court decided that the state may be required to pay damages for passing legislation that meets the very high threshold of being clearly unconstitutional, passed in bad faith or that amounts to an abuse of power.

"The Trudeau government had argued that it had absolute immunity from paying damages for its enactments based on the constitutional principles of the separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege. 

"The government claimed that damages for enactments of even clearly unconstitutional legislation would open the floodgates to claims and chill them from passing constitutional laws out of concern they would later be on the hook for payments.

"The applicant, Joseph Power, had argued that there was no absolute immunity, and that he should receive damages to compensate him for the harm cause by the enactment of laws that retroactively removed access to pardons, which were passed despite being in clear violation of the protections in section 11 of the Charter against being punished twice for the same crime.

"The CCF intervened in the case to argue that the government is not entitled to absolute immunity. Section 24(1) of the Charter states that damages are available where 'appropriate and just in the circumstances.' The CCF said damages must be available in some exceptional circumstances. The majority agreed.'By shielding the government from liability in even the most egregious circumstances, absolute immunity would subvert the principles that demand government accountability,' Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis wrote.

"The majority also agreed with the CCF on when damages should be available. The Court agreed that there ought not be damages available for merely negligent enactments, but they should be available where the legislation is unconstitutional on its face, where the state was reckless or wilfully blind as to a law’s unconstitutionality and where there was evidence of bad faith or an abuse of power including where the state acted dishonestly or with an improper purpose.

"CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron said she was pleased by the outcome. 'The CCF is relieved that the Supreme Court has recognized that important constitutional principles like parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers cannot justify an absolute immunity from damages where the government passes laws that are flagrantly or knowingly unconstitutional,' Baron said. 'Today’s decision gets it right by clarifying that although claimants who seek damages will have a high test to meet, they will still be able to hold governments to account where the Constitution requires damages to vindicate their rights and compensate them,' she added.

"CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said she believes the threat of having to pay damages will help to deter future governments from passing laws that they know violate the Constitution. 'From banning Indigenous potlatch ceremonies to interning innocent Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War, Canada’s pre-Charter history is sadly full of examples of Parliaments that passed laws that were clearly unconstitutional,' Van Geyn said. 'If the freezing of bank accounts during the freedom convoy is any indication, we still can’t trust Parliament to never enact unconstitutional laws,' she added. 'Today’s decision recognizes that.'

"The CCF was represented in this case by George Avraam, Jennifer Bernardo and Rono Khan of Baker McKenzie."

Read more: https://theccf.ca/ccf-pleased-by-scc-ruling-no-absolute-immunity-from-damages-for-charter-violating-laws/

Trudeau's government wanted ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from being sued for unconstitutional laws... THEY LOST | Canadian Constitution Foundation | July 30, 2024:

Canada's Supreme Court won't rule on lockdowns

In March, Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Manitoba court ruling that public health officials should not be "second guessed" on whether lockdown policies were a justifiable violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Supreme Court will not hear case about government’s violation of rights and freedoms | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:

March 14, 2024 - "The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear the appeal of the challenge to Manitoba’s lockdown restrictions. The decision was announced on Thursday, March 14, 2024. The Leave to Appeal application, under the name Gateway Bible Baptist Church et al. v. Manitoba et al., was filed on September 18, 2023. 

"Five Manitoba churches, a pastor and a deacon [had] asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear their appeal of the lower courts’ dismissal of their constitutional challenge to closures of churches and restrictions on outdoor gatherings during Covid lockdowns in late 2020 and 2021. Included in the application was protester Ross MacKay, who had been ticketed and who was seeking to appeal the lower courts’ dismissal of his constitutional challenge to the outdoor gathering limits.

"Through public health orders, Manitoba had closed churches while permitting businesses to continue to operate. Taxis, in-person university classes, film and tv productions, law offices, and liquor stores were allowed to remain open. The Winnipeg Jets could meet and train indoors with their extended crew, and summer Olympic competitors were allowed to train indoors. Outdoor gatherings were reduced to no more than five people, while at the same time hundreds of people could legally gather indoors at big box stores.

"The initial case was heard in May 2021 before the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench. The province did not produce any evidence that Covid spreads outdoors, or that outdoor gatherings were risky activities. That hearing did produce a significant admission from a government expert witness, Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard, who, under questioning from Justice Centre lawyers, admitted that 56 percent of positive Covid cases were not infectious.... The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench ruled that the government’s public health officials should not be 'second guessed' and that the government need not meet a high threshold of providing persuasive evidence to demonstrably justify that violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were reasonable. 

"The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench did not order the unsuccessful Applicants to pay court costs, finding there to be significant public interest in having this case adjudicated. In December 2022, the Applicants appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in June 2023.

"In the Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, lawyers provided by the Justice Centre argued that the case raised issues of national importance. For instance: 

• How are constitutionally protected activities to be juridically measured against comparable non-constitutionally protected activities? 
• What is the proper approach to the minimal impairment stage of the Oakes analysis with respect to public health orders that fully prohibit Charter-protected activities (e.g. In- person religious worship) while permitting comparable non-Charter-protected activities[?].... 
• Does reliance on the 'precautionary principle' satisfy the state’s onus under Charter section 1 to provide 'cogent and persuasive' evidence to justify Charter-infringing measures?

"The Applicants’ legal team believed the case was critically important, as it could have served as guidance for governments in crafting public health measures on efforts needed to accommodate Charter-protected rights and freedoms. Allison Pejovic, lawyer for the Applicants, stated, 

Our clients are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear their appeal. It was past time to have a conversation with Canada’s highest court about whether Charter-protected rights such as rights to worship and assemble ought to be prioritized over economic interests, such as ensuring that the Winnipeg Jets could practice indoors and that movie productions could continue. It was also critical to hear from the Court on the importance of respecting the Charter during a declared ’emergency’. Governments urgently needed the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance as to the degree to which they should accommodate Charter rights during a future pandemic or other emergency proclaimed by government. Leaving that issue undecided at the highest level is a grave injustice for all Canadians."

Read more: https://www.jccf.ca/supreme-court-will-not-hear-case-about-governments-violation-of-rights-and-freedoms/

Liberals' "No More Pipelines Act" unconstitutional

The Trudeau government's Impact Assessment Act, dubbed the "No More Pipelines Act" by its critics, unconstitutionally exceeds the limits of federal jurisdiction, Canada's Supreme Court has ruled. 

Supreme Court rules environmental impact legislation largely unconstitutional | CBC News | Joel Dryden:

October 13, 2023 - "Canada's top court has delivered a highly anticipated judgment, writing in a majority opinion that Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is largely unconstitutional. The IAA, previously known as Bill C-69, allows federal regulators to consider the potential environmental and social impacts of various resource and infrastructure projects. It was enacted in 2019. The IAA has long been controversial among conservative politicians in Alberta, including former premier Jason Kenney, who frequently referred to it as the "no more pipelines act." 

"The ruling was part of a 'reference case,' which involves the provincial and federal governments asking courts for advisory opinions. It doesn't mean the law is now off the books — a ruling such as this from the Supreme Court of Canada is not necessarily binding, but is traditionally treated as being binding by governments, noted David Wright, an associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary. 'I think what we can expect is the federal government is going to get to work very quickly to put together a suite of amendments to bring the act into conformity with the law,' Wright said.

"Writing for the majority in a 5-2 decision, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner said the process set forth in Sections 81 to 91 of the IAA were constitutional and could be separated out. Those sections involve projects carried out or financed by federal authorities on federal lands, or outside Canada, and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. Those provisions were not challenged as unconstitutional. 

"However, Wagner wrote that the balance of the scheme, involving 'designated projects,' was unconstitutional. Under the IAA, designated projects are those projects that are set out in the regulations or are subject to a ministerial order. 'In my view, Parliament has plainly overstepped its constitutional competence in enacting this designated projects scheme,' Wagner wrote.

"Wagner wrote that environmental protection remains one of today's most pressing challenges, and Parliament has the power to enact a scheme of environmental assessment to meet this challenge. 'But Parliament also has the duty to act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution,' he wrote. 

"Dissenting Justices Andromache Karakatsanis and Mahmud Jamal wrote that they believed the act was constitutional in its entirety.... 

"Alberta previously filed a constitutional challenge with the Alberta Court of Appeal, and was supported by the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario, three First Nations and the Indian Resource Council. Various environmental and legal groups, as well as other First Nations, supported Ottawa. In a 4-1 decision, the court called the law an 'existential threat' when it came to Canada's Constitution. The federal government appealed that non-binding opinion, and the Supreme Court held hearings on the act in March."

"Today's decision was keenly awaited by legal experts, who recognized its importance in providing clarity to an area of law that has long been under debate. Wright, the associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary, said it wasn't the outcome most of those who follow this area of law expected. 'This really does set the the legal landscape for federal impact assessment for decades to come,' said Wright, who was also an intervener on the case. 'What we now know is that there are significant constraints on what the federal government may or may not do with respect to legislating in relation to environmental assessment.'

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-richard-wagner-impact-assessment-act-1.6993720

Top court finds Ottawa's environmental impact assessment law unconstitutional | CBC News | October 13, 2023:

Canada's Supreme Court ducked Cambie case

Canada's Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of the Cambie case, a lawsuit over whether Canadians have a constitutional right to purchase health care outside their provincial gov't-run system.

Supreme Court can't be bothered to fix health care chaos it created | National Post:

April 15, 2023 - "Over the years, the Supreme Court of Canada has positioned itself as a staunch defender of rights Canadians didn’t even know they had. From abortion to prostitution to euthanasia, the court has shown a willingness ... to upend existing legal frameworks enacted by democratically elected legislatures based on a selective interpretation of the charter. Perhaps, then, it should be seen as a breath of fresh air that, late last week, the court declined to hear the appeal of a case arguing that access to private health services should be read into the charter’s Sec. 7 guarantee of the right to 'life, liberty and security of the person.' But it clearly highlights the type of cases the court is willing to take a bold stand on, and those that it’s more than happy to duck....

"We now live in a country where, if the substandard medicare system has left you in pain and suffering, you have a right to opt out by getting a doctor to pump your veins full of poison and end your life, but have no right to pay for the level of care you so desperately need. More importantly, in terms of legal consistency, we find ourselves in a situation in which the court has said that unnecessarily long wait times infringe the rights of Quebecers, but not those living in the rest of Canada.

"In its 2005 decision in Chaoulli v Quebec, the court ruled that the province’s ban on private health insurance for medically necessary services violated the Quebec charter’s guarantee to the “right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.” But the court could not agree on whether that extended to people outside La belle province because the [Canadian] charter’s Sec. 7 guarantee can be deprived 'in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,' or by limits that can be 'demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'.... 

"That contradiction has hung over the country for the past 18 years — 14 of which were spent by Dr. Brian Day, owner of Vancouver’s Cambie Surgery Centre, fighting to get some clarity. By refusing to hear Day’s appeal, the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility to sort out whether there really is a difference in law between Quebec and the other provinces. It also gave its de facto blessing to the idea that individual rights can be taken away, even if doing so causes demonstrable harms. Last summer, the British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to overturn lower court rulings in the case of Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia, but did so in such a roundabout and nonsensical way that it was almost begging for the country’s highest court to weigh in.

"At the initial trial, the court heard from numerous patients who had suffered poor health outcomes because they were forced to wait too long for medically necessary services. It was presented with a wealth of evidence showing that medical wait times were much longer in Canada than most other developed countries, and that the private surgery centres operating in B.C. had not caused harm to the public system. But these arguments were summarily dismissed.

"The Court of Appeal’s majority opinion chastised the trial judge for minimizing the harms caused by excessive wait times and failing to acknowledge that restrictions on paying to receive faster care can lead to death. This, the court agreed, is a violation of the charter’s guarantees of life and security of person....

"[N]onetheless [the court] ruled that such restrictions were in keeping with the principles of fundamental justice. To 'address the question as a matter of fundamental justice, for society as a whole,' the court made an abstract philosophical argument about what type of system people would choose if they had no idea what their lot in life would be and whether they would have the ability to pay. Which was odd, given that we can look to virtually any other advanced country to see how public and private health systems can coexist and thrive. And because we know that our system has merely limited access to private care to the ultra-rich, who can afford to travel to, and pay for care in, the United States....

"When the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal, it usually means the lower court’s opinion becomes settled law. But in this case, we have a point of law that the Supreme Court itself could not agree on in 2005.... If ever there was a legal question calling out for a firm resolution from the highest court in the land, this is it."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-supreme-court-cant-be-bothered-to-fix-health-care-chaos-it-created

Canadian healthcare is failing - and the courts are making it worse, Canadian Constitution Foundation, April 17, 2023:

Provincial trade barriers OK'd by Canada's Supreme Court

Supreme Court upholds law prohibiting Canadians, wherever they live, from buying beer wherever they want | The Star - Tonda MacCharles:

April 19, 2018 - ""Gerard Comeau wasn’t the only one shaking his head when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday there is no 'constitutional guarantee of free trade' within Canada.

"'Money’s more important than liberties, I guess,' said the 64-year-old retired linesman.... Comeau’s bid to strike down the [New Brunswick] Liquor Control Act’s limits on cross-border beer shopping failed, but he became the champion of free-traders across Canada.

"Now some of his supporters hope all the attention his case, and the social media campaign dubbed #freethebeer, brought to the issue will galvanize provincial and federal leaders to drop barriers they say add $50 billion to $130 billion in extra costs to goods and services that cross provincial borders....

"The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1867 constitution did not impose 'an absolute free trade regime within Canada' ... [and] any decision to knock down interprovincial trade barriers would be a political one.... It cited the 'need to maintain balance' ... as long as the law’s primary purpose is not aimed at blocking trade across provincial borders.

"Any other interpretation, warned the court, could lead to a whole slew of laws being invalidated: environmental or public health regulations, agricultural controls on the production and distribution of eggs, dairy or poultry, for example, and 'innumerable' other exercises of provincial jurisdiction."

"Lawyer Howard Anglin, of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, which intervened at the high court in support of Comeau’s arguments, ... believes the ruling actually provides an opportunity for a federal government or federal party leader to push to lower trade barriers, using the federal power to regulate trade and commerce....

"Freer trade between provinces could be a windfall for the provinces, said Anglin, who pointed to a senate committee report that accepted findings by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht. They say interprovincial barriers cost each Canadian household about $7,500 a year."

Read more: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/19/supreme-court-upholds-laws-limiting-amount-of-alcohol-moved-across-provincial-borders.html
'via Blog this'

Supreme Court legalizes edible medical marijuana products in Canada

Medical marijuana legal in all forms, Supreme Court rules - Politics - CBC News:

June 11, 2015 - "Medical marijuana patients will now be able to consume marijuana — and not just smoke it — as well as use other extracts and derivatives, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today.

"The unanimous ruling against the federal government expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond the 'dried' form.

"The country's highest court found the current restriction to dried marijuana violates the right to liberty and security 'in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.'   Restricting medical access to marijuana to a dried form has now been declared 'null and void' — Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which prohibits possession and trafficking of non-dried forms of cannabis, will no longer be in effect....

"The decision upholds earlier rulings by lower courts in British Columbia that said they went against a person's right to consume medical marijuana in the form they choose.

"Many users felt smoking it was even potentially harmful. However, methods such as brewing marijuana leaves in tea or baking cannabis into brownies left patients vulnerable to being charged with possession and trafficking under the law.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medical-marijuana-legal-in-all-forms-supreme-court-rules-1.3109148
'via Blog this'

Mandatory minimum sentencing struck down by Canada's top court

Supreme Court strikes at mandatory-minimum sentences | Ottawa Citizen - Ian MacLeod:

April 14, 2015 - "The Conservative government reaffirmed its tough-on-crime commitment Tuesday, trying to appear undeterred by yet another Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down as unconstitutional a showcase statute in its signature anti-crime agenda.

"The government’s mandatory-minimum sentencing regime for illegal possession of a firearm, introduced in 2008 as part of the Tackling Violent Crime Act, violates Section 12 of the Charter of Rights because it has the potential to be cruel and unusual punishment, the court ruled in a 6-3 decision.

"The judgment is the seventh major defeat for the government and its policies and arguments at the hands of the Supreme Court since 2011.

"Its anti-crime agenda in particular has now suffered three stinging blows. High-court rulings struck down as unconstitutional Conservative statutes limiting inmates’ credit for pre-trial time spent in custody, and changes to parole eligibility....

"The now-impugned law increased the minimum sentence for some gun-related crimes, including possession of a loaded firearm – from one year to three years for a first offence, and from one year to five years for a second. It also imposed a five-year minimum sentence on those previously convicted of serious, weapons-related crimes....

"Tuesday’s judgment striking down the law was not unanimous. The majority on the court found that imposing stiff new penitentiary sentences for weapons-related offences will not, in most cases, violate the Charter. In fact, in the two specific weapons-related cases being heard on appeal, it found the sentencing regime was appropriate in each and upheld them." 

Read more: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-mandatory-minimum-sentencing-for-firearms-offences
'via Blog this'

Canadian medical marijuana rules under fire

Focus: Medical marijuana continues to be source of litigation - Shannon Kari, Law Times:

March 30, 2015 - "There has been one constant since the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the prohibition against possession of marijuana for medical reasons in 2000: the subsequent rules imposed by the federal government have been subject to repeated court challenges.

"The courts have found the regulations that govern medical marijuana to be invalid on more than one occasion and there are two current proceedings before the courts that could again require the federal government to go back to the drawing board.

"A Federal Court judge in British Columbia is presiding over an ongoing challenge to regulations that require those authorized to possess medical marijuana to buy from approved producers in the private sector.

"Late last month, the Supreme Court of Canada reserved its decision in an appeal from British Columbia on whether the rules permit only cannabis in dried form for medical marijuana patients.

"The result is ongoing uncertainty in an area where the government has rarely addressed the complaints of the medical marijuana community without a court challenge. At the same time, it’s a field where a number of private sector investors are eagerly trying to get into what they see as a growth market with even Health Canada officials estimating there could be at least 400,000 legally registered medical users by 2024.

"To add to the complicated legal landscape, a Tax Court judge ruled last year that even approved medical marijuana is subject to the goods and services tax because it’s more like an over-the-counter product than a prescription drug.

"Meanwhile, a new medical marijuana policy adopted earlier this year by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario states that approving cannabis use for a patient is equivalent to a prescription.

"For both people who are registered medical users and individuals and companies seeking to grow cannabis, it’s a confusing time."

Read more: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201503304568/focus-on/medical-marijuana-continues-to-be-source-of-litigation
'via Blog this'

Canada's Supreme Court strikes down assisted suicide ban

Supreme Court strikes down assisted suicide ban | Toronto Star - Tonda MacCharles:

February 6, 2015 - "A historic and far-reaching decision of the Supreme Court of Canada declaring desperately suffering patients have a constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide is set to reshape the agenda of Parliament if not the election this fall.

"The Conservative government that vowed never to reopen the question of assisted suicide is seeking to buy time in the wake of the bombshell ruling. Unanimous and unequivocal, the ruling will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada.

"It set out circumstances where the country’s top court said assisted suicide is constitutional — under a physician’s care, for consenting adults who determine they cannot tolerate the physical or psychological suffering brought on by a severe, incurable illness, disease or disability — a stunning reversal of the court’s 21-year-old ruling in the Sue Rodriguez case....

In the 9-0 judgment, the court declared the Criminal Code’s absolute ban on assisted suicide goes too far. Its attempt to protect the lives of 'vulnerable people' also prevents competent, consenting adults suffering 'grievous and irremediable medical conditions' from making core decisions about how they live and die, and so breaches three of the most basic rights: to life, liberty and security of the person, all enshrined in Sec. 7 of the Charter, and is not justified in a free democratic society."

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/06/supreme-court-rules-strikes-down-assisted-suicide-ban.html
'via Blog this'

Canadian wrongfully convicted of murder released after 12 years in prison

'Nightmare' over for man wrongfully convicted of 1st-degree murder decade ago - Winnipeg Free Press - Colin Perkel, Canadian Press:

"A man wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder more than a decade ago took his first anxious steps as a free man on Friday after the Crown withdrew the charge against him.

"The decision came a year after the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided Leighton Hay should get a new trial based on new hair evidence.

"As Hay and family members looked on, Superior Court Justice John McMahon apologized that it took so long for the system to get it right....

"In an interview, lawyer James Lockyer said he wasn't sure his client was able to process the implications of what had just occurred.

"'Leighton has been through a nightmare for all these years,' Lockyer said. 'This was a miscarriage of justice of the highest order.'

"As a teen with mental-health problems and a member of a visible minority, the lawyer said, Hay was 'vulnerable" and police rushed to judgment.

"'He was another black guy,' Lockyer said."

Read more: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/crown-drops-charges-against-man-convicted-of-first-degree-murder-10-years-ago-284150871.html
'via Blog this'

Supreme Court ruling hasn't stopped warrantless data requests in Canada

Supreme Court ruling hasn’t stopped police from warrantless requests for data | Toronto Star - Alex Boutillier:

September 17, 2014 - "Police in Canada used to ask telecom companies to voluntarily hand over data on Canadian customers more than a million times per year. In June, the Supreme Court struck down this warrantless method as an invasion of privacy.

"But while the number of warrantless requests has dropped since the decision, they have not stopped, an investigation by the Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has found. Key players, including the country’s largest police force and a major telecom, aren’t saying whether they still send or accept them.

"Another of Canada’s 'big three' telecoms, Rogers, started demanding warrants for all requests after the June ruling, known as the Spencer decision. Even after this policy change, the company continues to receive warrantless requests, according to Ken Engelhart, vice-president of regulatory affairs at Rogers....

"TELUS confirmed in a statement that they also require a warrant to access such data in all but the most extreme circumstances. The company did not disclose, however, if it is still receiving warrantless requests....

"The last of Canada’s 'big three' telecoms, Bell, has repeatedly refused interview requests on the issue."

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/17/supreme_court_ruling_hasnt_stopped_police_from_warrantless_requests_for_data.html
'via Blog this'

Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws

Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws - Politics - CBC News:

December 20, 2013 - "The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation — should it choose to do so.

"In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and 'grossly disproportionate.'

"'Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the 9-0 decision that noted 'it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money....

"'I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament.'

"That means the provisions stay in the Criminal Code for the next year while the government decides what to do."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-canada-s-prostitution-laws-1.2471572
'via Blog this'