R. V Burns Case Brief

Supreme Court of Canada, hearing an appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Lower Court level.

The courts found that If section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada infringes or denies the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7, 12, 15, 27 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is s. 251 justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

This case made it to The Supreme Court. Once the appellant appealed his conviction of manslaughter that he received at the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 18th, 1990, which sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. The Crown defined manslaughter in Section 222 ( 5 ) of The Criminal Code, which states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being means of an unlawful act or an act of negligence. However, when The Defense challenged this section due to the unique circumstances of this case that caused this case it to go to The Supreme Court of Canada since the Defense also said that it was in conflict with Section 7 of the Charter. In conclusion, the Defense we’re trying to dispute the fact that the accused committed manslaughter.

Burns v. Gagnon, is a Virginia Supreme Court case merging from Gloucester High School bullying incident that took place in 2006. Participants of the case include all justices present within the circuit court, Avery Waterman Jr., of Newport News for Gregory J. Gagnon (student victimized of bullying) appellee and James Newsome (student bullying Gagnon) appellant (No. 110767), and John A. Conrad of Richmond for appellant (No. 110754) and Travis Burns (GHS Assistant Principal) appellee. Former student Gregory J. Gagnon of Gloucester High School, filed a revised complaint asserting claims for simple and gross negligence against Assistant Principal Travis Burns, and assault and battery

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

Besides section 7, section 11 (b) and 12 (1) were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights. Section 11 (b) states “any person with and offence has the right… (b) to be tried within a reasonable time” (Canadian Charter of Rights) and section 12 (1) “anyone whose rights or freedoms… have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such ready as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances” (Canadian Charter of Rights). Blencoe claimed the Commission had lost the power to make a decision because of the “unreasonable delay in processing the complaints” (Westcoastleaf, page.3) He also claimed the delay caused a lot of hate toward his family and him meaning they were a victim of abuse and denial in society.

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

In order to bring these often very abstract issues to life, we will examine a selection of high profile and prominent decisions (mainly from Canadian courts, and frequently from the Supreme Court of Canada) which can be said to have changed the law, and in which the judges of the court have disagreed among themselves. Cases to be covered concern controversial issues such as Battered Woman Syndrome, Euthanasia/ Physician Assisted Suicide, Hate Speech, Marijuana Use, Obscenity/ Pornography, Prostitution, or topics in human rights (i.e., freedom of expression, national security and the right not to be tortured, or religious freedom). Analysis of cases will include exploration and examination of the philosophical aspects of crucial terms and concepts that appear in Canadian law, such as in the Criminal Code of Canada, or in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The controversy that eventually brought the case to the Supreme Court of Canada was based in Judge Sparks' comments:

Beyle’s reason for appeal is that the district court had insufficient jurisdiction over any charges with relation to murder (Counts being 16, 17, 18, and 19) and as well as the consequent use of any firearms (Counts being 22, 23, 24, and 25) due to the primary actions arising within Somalia’s territorial waters and not on high seas.

Party involved in this case is the accused and the crown. Actus rea was the accused, Miroslav Gronych, had more than the legal amount of alcohol in his system when he was in control of a commercial airline. Mens rea was he thought he could operate the aircraft while being so intoxicated that he passed out in the cockpit. The accused was charged with operation while impaired. Despite the accused plead guilty to the crime, showed remorse and ashamed of himself for his mistake, he still received a rather strong sentence of 8 month imprisonment. The accused was in Canada on a work visa, but he still would have to serve and complete his sentence before he can go back to his country.