Carter Vs. Canada Attorney General

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that power to regulate interstate commerce. It was given to congress by the commerce clause of the constitution. It was led by Chief Justice John Marshall. The debate in Gibbons concerned contending cases of adversary steamship establishments. The condition of New York gave Aaron Ogden a select permit to work steamboat ships between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat administrator, ran two ships along the same course. Ogden looked for an order against Gibbons in a New York state court, asserting that the state had issued him elite rights to work the course. Accordingly, Gibbons guaranteed he had the privilege to work on the course in accordance with a 1793 demonstration of Congress directing waterfront business. The New York court found for Ogden and requested Gibbons to stop working his steamships; on bid, the New York Supreme Court avowed the request. Gibbons spoke to the U.S. Preeminent Court, which surveyed the case in 1824. John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York 's selective award to Ogden disregarded the government authorizing demonstration of 1793. In coming to its choice, the Court deciphered the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution surprisingly. The proviso peruses that "Congress should have energy to manage trade among the few States." According to the Court, "trade" included articles in

This case is the case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia in 1993. Sue Rodriguez had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; more commonly know as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 1991. Rodriguez was aware that this disease would eventually lead to her not being able to breathe on her own, move on her own, or even eat without a feeding tube. Rodriguez had the attitude that she wanted to enjoy as much of life as possible, but when the time came that she could no longer enjoy life, she wanted the assistance of a doctor to end her life. In her own words, she asked, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”(Windsor Sun). In the opinion of Rodriguez, she should have the choice to end her life, and that if she could not do the act without assistance, it should be legal for a physician to help her. She ended up losing her case in a Supreme Court appeal. The decision stated, “No consensus can be found in favour of the decriminalization of assisted suicide. To the extent that there is consensus, human life must be respected.” (Windsor

The court case of Washington vs Glucksberg decided assisted suicide was unconstitutional, in 1997. Basically, Dr. Harold Glucksberg along with four other physicians and a few terminally ill patients went to court to argue with the ban on assisted suicide. Court decision was 9-0,

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a panel of judges from that court heard the case and overturned the lower court’s ruling on the basis that there has never been asserted that there is a constitutional right to aid in killing yourself which was upheld by a court of final jurisdiction such as the Supreme Court. When the case was head by the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals they reversed the panel decision and agreed with the district court. They based their decision on the same cases as the lower court as well as the historical and societal views towards the right to die. After considering all this they concluded that through the Constitution there is a liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one’s death. They determined that there was a constitutional right to die and the state law was unconstitutional since it applied to terminally ill patients who were competent to make their own decisions and wished to end their lives. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which after hearing arguments decided that the Constitution was not violated by the state law and found that the state had the legal right to pass such a law.

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

The decision of the Supreme Court could be considered ethically right. It was right to revoke the physicians’ decision, as it wasn’t in agreement with what the Canadian Health Care Consent act (HCCA) section 26 stipulates “A health practitioner shall not administer a treatment under section 25 if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, expressed a wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the treatment.”3 Also, in medical ethics, it is the obligation of health care providers to allow the patients to make their own medical decisions. They should have autonomy in their decision making, that’s if they completely comprehend all the medical diagnosis, prognosis and all outcome of treatment options4. Starson had a full understanding of his options, he was fully

Labelle v. Rogers Communications Inc. Deborah P. Labelle filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on September 3, 2009 against Rogers Communications Inc. The complainant, Labelle feels that Rogers Communications Inc. the respondent, discriminated against her because she is a woman. This falls under section 3 of the CHRA which covers and protects against sex discrimination. Labelle alleges she was treated differently compared to her male counterparts and was eventually fired from her position. The complainant filed this complaint on the grounds of sex discrimination.

Physician-assisted suicide has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court on several occasions, in order to test the constitutional backing. The result is always quite similar: the Supreme Court rules against physician-assisted suicide. There was one particular supreme court case, Washington v. Glucksberg. The state of

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

There have been numerous court cases concerning different patients and euthanasia. April 15, 1989, a British seventeen-year-old boy by the name of Anthony Bland became the most famous victim of the disaster of Hillsborough (ninety-five fans were crushed to death in the extremely overcrowded seats). As a result, Bland experienced severe brain damage that left him in a “vegetable state” (“Top 10 Comas”). Anthony Bland lived in this state for three years until a court order allowed him to be euthanized. The judges reassured that if he had a living will written up ahead of time then he would have been able to be euthanized sooner (Cases in History). In most cases, people are against euthanasia because they feel as though doctors will not go out

In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which exempted, “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” Oregon, to this day, remains the only state within the Union to allow physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that, although there was no constitutionally protected right to physician-assisted suicide, states have permitted to pass laws allowing it. Thus, the issue of euthanasia remains widely open to philosophical, political, legal, and ethical challenges.