3360 Final Test Review (Lecture Readings Only)

.docx

School

Seneca College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3DM3

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

12

Uploaded by ElderNightingale4154

Report
Tutorial 2 SOSC 3360 Final Test-Review of Lectures Winter Term ****CHOOSE YOUR 15% Final Test Option 1: (Monday April 3 rd – write it on the course website. You can start at any time between 4 pm and 7 pm and you will have one hour to write it.) Option 2: Alternatively, you can write a one week take home test. Professor Krikorian will email you the test on Monday April 3rd sometime between 8 to 10 pm. And you will need to submit it online, by Monday April 10th at 10 pm. You will submit your answers on-line Submit your choice to Professor Krikorian at jdk@yorku.ca by Friday, March 24, 2023 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZwBeI8QqUsN_x46WDxedcJosYKaVjFz/edit? usp=sharing&ouid=103144282707350995348&rtpof=true&sd=true TUTORIAL TASK: - Get in pairs, you will receive a sticky note with your group # and author names - Go to this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZwBeI8QqUsN_x46WDxedcJosYKaVjFz/edit? usp=sharing&ouid=103144282707350995348&rtpof=true&sd=true - Find your group # below, write some brief notes, key quotes, interesting points you found under the reading for your section - These notes are designed to supplement your own notes, do not include these notes word for word into your exam if relevant Group 1: Kassandra & Katarina Week 1 Winter Term - Week of January 9th Eugene A. Forsey, How Canadians Govern Themselves, 10th edition (2020), https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/bdp-lop/X9-11-2020-eng.pdf The legislative system of Canada is examined in How Canadians Govern Themselves, from the choices made by the Fathers of Confederation to the everyday activities of lawmakers in the Senate and House of Commons. In the legislative democracy of Canada, the rule of law is regarded as the highest authority. The three main characteristics of Canada's political structure are that it is a federal state, a legislative democracy, and a constitutional monarchy. - In our federal state, the national and foreign issues are handled by the federal administration. These include defense, foreign policy, commerce and contacts between provinces, money, This review is for the exclusive use of students enrolled in SOSC 3360 and it is not to be circulated, copied, shared, sold or posted on-line.
transportation, the law, and citizenship. Municipal administration, public education, health care, natural resources, human liberties, and highways fall under the purview of the provinces. Immigration and agriculture fall under the joint authority of the central government and the provinces. Federalism gives provinces the freedom to try with new ideas and policies and enables them to implement policies that are specific to their own populations. - In Canada's parliamentary system, citizens choose representatives for the province and territorial assemblies as well as the House of Commons in Ottawa. These representatives are in charge of authorizing and overseeing expenses, making laws, and holding the government accountable. Since cabinet ministers answer to elected officials, they must maintain the "confidence of the House" and are required to retire if they lose a motion of no confidence. - As a constitutional monarchy, (Queen or King), who rules in line with the Constitution and the authority of law, is Canada's Head of State because it is a constitutional monarchy. The Sovereign is a member of Parliament and serves as the object of patriotism and loyalty. This position is most prominently seen during regal trips to Canada. Her Majesty is a representation of our past, a representation of Canadian authority, and a defender of fundamental liberties. Group 2: Week 2 Winter Term - Week of January 23th Canadian Bill of Rights https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html Group 3: Olivia Fehr & Donna Tran Week 3 Winter Term - Week of January 30th Sauve v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519, 2002 SCC 68. (read the summary only) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc68/2002scc68.html - Sauve v. Canada o Mr suave was an inmate at the federal penitentiary and wanted to vote in the upcoming federal election and was disqualified through s 51 of the canada election act o This was not the first time an inmate and the rights of those imprisoned were challenged in court, but this case does ask interesting questions about the future of disenfranchisement of inmates in canada - Section 51 of the canada elections act denies the right to vote to “ every person who is imprisoned in correctional institutions serving a sentence of two years or more” , - this was challenged under s 3 and 15 of the canadian charter - The crown conceded that s 52 infringes the right to vote guaranteed by s 3 of the charter - Under s1 the government must show that the infringement achieves a constitutionally valid purpose or objective and that the chosen means are reasonable and justified This review is for the exclusive use of students enrolled in SOSC 3360 and it is not to be circulated, copied, shared, sold or posted on-line.
- The government's argument for denying the right to vote with inmates wass that it was a matter of social and political philosophy is rejected - Limits on the right to vote require a careful examination - However the trial judge found that under s 1 section 51 is not justified - The government failed to identify particular problems that require denying - The court held that the infringement of s3 was justifiable in a free and democratic society and that s 51 did not infringe equality rights protected by s 15 - Four judges dissented. Justice gonthier, writing in dissent, stressed the importance of giving “ difference to parliaments reasonable view” - Conclusion o The decision was delivered by the chief justice beverly mclachlin and five supreme court judges agreed that the denial of prisoners to vote was a charter violation and limitation was not justifiable o The right to vote was a privilege and that there was a majority of black and indigenous people in prisons o There was a conclusion that denying the right to vote could affect several communities since a lot are incarcerated ( Indigenous and African Americans) o Rational connect : Focusing on s 1 looking at the reasoning of the limitation, and does the limiting match the goals of the limitation o In this case there was no establishment of the rational connection - Opinions o Some opinions concluded opinions such as : Denying prisoners the right to vote is a justifiable limitation because “ such persons have demonstrated a great disrespect for the community in their committing serious crimes: such persons have attacked the stability and order within our community.Society therefore may choose to curtail temporarily the availability of the vote to serious criminals” (Sauvé v.Canada,2003, para 116) R v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30. (read summary only) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii90/1988canlii90.html - Morgentaler and his colleagues (medical practitioners) were charged for undertaking abortions on women who did not have a certificate to do so, which violated Section 251 of the Criminal Code - Section 251 of Criminal Code – prohibits women from intending to procure a miscarriage and prohibited women who were pregnant from trying to miscary o Could be have indictable offences with imprisonment for life o Section 251 took away the decisions of the women and threatens their security o Interferes with a woman's bodily integrity (both physically and emotionally) - Provision was challenged under Section 7 (everyone is entitled to to life, liberty, and security) o Morgentaler believed that women had a right to decide if they wanted a abortion or not o Claimed that Section 251 was not in accordance with Section 7 - Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants – found section 7 did violate their rights and could not be saved under section 1 This review is for the exclusive use of students enrolled in SOSC 3360 and it is not to be circulated, copied, shared, sold or posted on-line.
Group 4: Sarah Owusu and Jasdeep Sandhu Week 5 Winter Term - Week of February 13th (Resolution to Amend the Constitution (1981) Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, 1981 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1981] 1 SCR 753. Read pages 874- 911. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1981/1981canlii25/1981canlii25.html?resultIndex=1 Resolution to amend the Constitution (1981) - The case dealt with a proposal to amend the Canadian Constitution in 1981 - The Court affirmed the validity of the proposed resolution and its alignment with the Constitution Act, 1982 - The Court clarified the process for amending the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of provincial consent and consultation - The Court reaffirmed the principles of federalism and the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, stating that any amendments to the Constitution must respect this division of powers - The Court emphasized that amending the Constitution is a political process that requires negotiation and compromise among the various levels of government and that constitutional amendment is a matter of negotiation and accommodation, not of legal power - The federal government cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution without the agreement of at least some of the provinces. - The case underscored the importance of cooperation and consultation between the federal and provincial governments in the process of amending the Constitution - The case highlighted the importance of the Constitution as the fundamental law of Canada, emphasizing the need for respect and adherence to its principles - The case clarified the process for amending the Constitution, ensuring that it is understood as a political process and not solely a legal matter - The case reinforced the need for provincial consent and consultation in the process of amending the Constitution, recognizing the importance of the provinces as integral participants in the Canadian political system. - The Constitution is a "living tree" that can evolve over time, but significant changes require provincial agreement. o Ongoing dialogue and consultation between federal and provincial governments are necessary to ensure the Constitution remains relevant and effective. - One of the famous quotes from the case is "Constitutional amendment is a matter of negotiation and accommodation, not of legal power". This quote emphasizes the Court's view that amending the Constitution is a political process that requires negotiation and compromise among the various levels of government. - The resolution contained an address to Her Majesty the Queen - Manitoba and Newfoundland submitted 3 questions to the court concerning the proposed resolution for a joint address to her Majesty the queen. - The reference in question was prompted by the opposition of eight provinces to a proposed resolution Published on October 2, 1989. This review is for the exclusive use of students enrolled in SOSC 3360 and it is not to be circulated, copied, shared, sold or posted on-line.
- Constitutional amendment proposed a constitutional amendment affecting provincial powers- eight provinces opposed the resolution. - The questions addressed to the courts was related to power and rights of the legislation of the provinces. Group 5: Justin & Nick Week 7 Winter Term - Week of February 27th (find readings in tutorial dropbox or York libraries) Allyson M. Lunny, “Chapter 8 – Hate Speech, Media, and Canadian Federal Law,” Media and Law: Between Free Speech and Censorship: Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, volume 26 (2021), 133- 149. - Criminalization and the right of expression without government interference in a liberal democracy - with hate speech there is a cultural shift that understands only mass communications with people which in turn have led to the creation of these hate speech laws in Canada - in 1965 the minister at the time appointed a special committee in Hae speech and propaganda, and some of the specific talks led to a breach of the peace and the promotion of hatred towards certain groups of people - Ken Norman, “Words Matter”: A Case Comment on the Whatcott Judgment,” Saskatchewan Law Review, volume 77 (2014), pp. 105-117. - The effects of hate speech not only vilifies marginalized groups but could be used as a groundwork for future more violent attacks such as segregation, deportation, discrimination and genocide - In 2001, a Christian church released pamphlets that were deemed to be homophonic and encourage hate speech against this community. The pamphlets stated that “Sodomites in our schools and keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s public schools” - Hate speech does against S. 14 of the Human Rights code. It puts justified limitations on freedom of religion and expression - During the Appel portion of the tribunal, Group 6: Week 8 Winter Term - Week of March 6th (Vika Nazarov) R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii46/1986canlii46.html This review is for the exclusive use of students enrolled in SOSC 3360 and it is not to be circulated, copied, shared, sold or posted on-line.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help