Mack V. Canad Case Study

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

The rights of many people versus the rights of an individual is certainly a vexing concept. Like a delicate balancing act; if one side is favoured over the other it causes a rift in the already strained relationship between the minority and majority. Evidently, the justification of taking any side must be valid, according to the theories of H.L.A. Hart. In the past, Canadian law has violated the rights of minorities; however, these violations have decreased in their severity as time has passed on. Some cases where the balance between minority and majority rights is questioned is in The Canadian Indian Residential School System, Bill 101, Equality in the Workplace and The Public Service Act.

The Canadian government is biased against the Aboriginal population and uses less funding towards them. Perry Bellegarde, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, stressed that “more funding is desperately needed for equal education on reserves, [because] the government spends 3 000 dollars less per student [in a reserve] than the national average”. Many Aboriginal people in Canada, including Bellegarde, feel as if the government is treating their population as they did when residential schools were still running. The Canadian government does not treat the Aboriginal and the non-Aboriginal population equally. They are spending a significantly lower amount of money for the education of Aboriginal youth. They are oppressing the Aboriginal population but many of them are taking a stand for their rights and demanding more. There have been many lawsuits involving members of the Aboriginal population and the Canadian government, but the largest one is the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA). This agreement was made after many large scale campaigns were done and a class-action lawsuit was filed, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, to pressure the Canadian government to recognize the abuses of the residential school system and to gain compensation. The class-action lawsuit ended with a multi-billion dollar agreement to help improve the conditions of

In addition people with different race, religion and ethnicity were denied work without question adding to the unjust treatment. Due to these ideas Canada was an unjust society.

In the eyes of a Canadian, the notion of human rights has evolved drastically over time. Change is ignited when someone feels as though they are being treated unfairly and action is taken to reverse this oppressive environment. There has been a historical pattern of unjust and inhuman acts towards perceived racially inferior groups in Canadian history during the 20th century. The uprising of Black Civil Rights was a crucial step towards an equal and just society; despite Canada’s influence in the fight against the Nazis’ repressive actions in WW2, the fight for racial

Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper

The case being presented is the Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, which is a 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Kahkewistahaw First Nation developed an election code, which required that candidates who wished to be a Band Councilor or Chief must have achieved at least a grade 12 education (CanLII, 2015). The Chief for the majority of the previous three decades (27 years), 76 year old Louis Taypotat, had only attained a grade 10 education, which caused him to be disqualified from candidacy (CanLII, 2015). Taypotat opposed the process of the development of the election code, his disqualification, and the constitutionality of the election requirement (CanLII, 2015). His main argument was that the requirement for a candidate to possess a Grade 12 education violated section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”, and that educational attainment is analogous to race and age (Canadian Charter of Rights

When someone speaks of great inequalities and human rights violations, very seldom is Canada as a nation (in a broader sense,) conjured together with these thoughts. However, in reality probably some of the greatest human right violations within our time and even within the late modern period, and most concerning examples of them, can be found through looking back into Canadian history. For many this may be a surprise to hear, however for others, specifically the native population of Canada, we can assume this is well understood. Commonly known today as Indian residential schools, a great act of wrong was committed under the command and leadership of the Canadian government starting back with elementary roots through the passage of the

Issue: Do warrantless arrest and no probable cause determination allow for Police to detain a suspect for an extended amount of time?

Yes, each state should apply the Supreme Court ruling of Miller v. Alabama retroactively. There were two cases reviewed by the Supreme Court that determined their ruling. Evan Miller and his friend Colby Smith robbed, assaulted, and murdered Cole Cannon on July 15, 2003. Miller and Smith, age fourteen had been drinking and doing drugs the night the incident occurred. Miller and Cannon got into a fight over Miller stealing money from Cannon that lead to Miller repeatedly striking him with a baseball bat. After placing a sheet on Cannon and before striking him in the head for the last time, Miller states “I am God, I’ve come to take your life” (“Supreme Court”, 2011). To destroy the evidence, Miller and Smith set Cannon’s trailer on fire and left him to die.

McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819), the constitutional questions asked were: Did congress have the right to establish a bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally with the congressional powers? In 1816, congress chartered The Second National Bank of the United States. In 1818, Maryland passed legislation to tax the bank and cashier of the Baltimore branch bank James MucCulloch refused to pay the tax. This court case took place in the Marshall court, under federalist, Chief Justice John Marshall who ruled this case in favor of MucCulloch. The court’s decision was unanimous in favor of MucCulloch and, the courts held that Congress had the power to establish a bank but Maryland could not tax the bank and that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and was put into place by the Trudeau government. The purpose of the Charter was to protect the rights of Canadian individuals and to establish independence from Britain. However, one section of the charter sparked much controversy, this was section 33, also known as The Notwithstanding Clause. The purpose of this clause was to allow the state to override a right protected by the charter, for various reasons. These reasons include economic, social or because other rights were found to be more important (Blakeney, 2010) In order for the notwithstanding clause to be put into effect the legislature must declare that they plan to use this clause, and after five years the

Grady examines the issue of immigrants in Canada, and takes a strong stance that the amount of immigrants taken in should be drastically reduced. Instead of constantly taking in the same amount of immigrants, this source believes that immigrants should only be taken at peak times in Canada’s economy when Canada actually needs them. In times such as a recession, such as now, the amount of immigrants taken in should be near zero. This will help to reduce the “enclaves characterised by high poverty rates”, as Grady believes that immigrants are the cause of this. However, this ideology would go against the charter of rights and freedoms. In order to resolve this issue, the source believes that the notwithstanding clause should be implemented. In addition, the selection criteria for allowing immigrants should also be made harder, so that only the immigrants who have a very high chance of getting the jobs they need to support themselves should be allowed inside. Moreover, the people who are getting into Canada for free should be drastically reduced. This includes the family class, which includes members of the family of Canadians, and the refugee class, which includes people fleeing from the dangerous condition of their home country. This will result in less people who are feeding off of Canada's

The authors, Gillian Creese and Tania Das Gupta, both demonstrate that equality is less pronounced than the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 states. Although these two articles were written on different time periods in history, both articles display racism in the Canadian society, specifically at a workplace. Creese focuses on the experiences of Chinese workers whereas Gupta investigates the experiences of Black nurses. However, Creese's description of racism is more extreme than Gupta's, which could indicate that there has been an improvement in equality in Canada. Regardless, these articles prove that there is a difference between the promise made by the constitution and reality.

Making demands after what they’ve been through is entirely reasonable; the government should listen to these pleas with respect and create ways to reassure these communities. Groups like the Chinese Canadian National Council (CCNC) have had to fought with the government for way too long to receive an apology from the Canadian government. They began a campaign in 1984 for an apology and be repaid $23 million collected from 81000 Chinese immigrants were forced to pay the head tax. In 1993 the Canadian government rejected this claim, so in 1995, the CCNC approached the United Nations Human Rights Commission to receive help. Recently in 2006, the Canadian government finally agreed to the claim after 22 years of fighting. The Canadian government needs to be committed to fixing their injustices, instead of making groups have to fight for an apology after already going through a plight.