Harper v. Canada

Introduction Paragraph 1: Canada is the second largest country, going over 6 different time zones and covering four and half hours might make difficulties at election time, but It is extremely important the government maintains election rules do not infringe people’s human rights, and specifically the Canada Election Act, the people who write the laws regarding the election. These laws broke the Charter of Human rights multiple time, and people felt that. The first was Stephen Harper, Canada’s 22nd and

disability.” Mainly focusing on the discrimination of age and will be discussing two cases that I have chosen, which are Lavoie v. Canada [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769 and Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12. I will be elaborating on about cases that are particularly about the discrimination of age, that I have chosen. The first case I will discuss is the case of, Lavoie v. Canada [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769. To summarize the case, it is about reducing welfare benefits for individuals under the age of thirty

They decided the question to be asked was “Does the word ‘person’ in section 24 of the BNA Act include female persons?” (Section 15, 2004). Unfortunately, in 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada answers this question with no; women weren’t persons. The judges of the Supreme Court stated that when the BNA Act was written, women weren’t allowed vote or run for office and the British House of Lords had no females (Alberta Online Encyclopedia

Monsanto vs. Farmers in Court: Who has the victory? Monsanto, who is he? It is just the name of the company that was created by John F. Queeny, who then passed it to Edgar M. Queeny, his son. According to Nicole C. Nachtigal, Monsanto Company, previously known as Monsanto Chemical Works in 1901, has been working with chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. Monsanto created a glyphosate in the 1970s, which is an herbicide known as “Roundup.” It is non-selective, which means that it kills any

Supreme Court's decision in 2011 has created an avalanche of various legislation and reactions from all over Canada. Two federal Canadian governments have been involved in the aftermath of the Court's decision, the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, and the Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau. Both have taken drastically different approaches to the issue of safe injection sites. Harper made his view clear when he passed legislation in response to the court's decision. Trudeau's liberal

which public policy is crafted and applied in Canada. Factors such as policy paradigms, the government in power, and economic incentives greatly impact how public policy affects Canadians. However, an unexpected political actor shapes Canadian law in a more extrinsic and all-encompassing way and acts as a sort of “unofficial” policy maker in government despite its role in the judicial court system: The Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada is a public policy maker because it has the

the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, released a statement upon the conclusion of his visit to Canada. In his statement, Anaya reveals that “from all I have learned, I can only conclude that Canada faces a crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples of the country” (2013:8). Even though Canada was one of the first countries to extend constitutional protection to the rights of indigenous people, Canadian aboriginals experience a well-being

English has acted as an imperialistic, invasive subversion force on the Native People in Canada. In my opinion, it was a perfect example of linguistic chauvinism. I believe that to destroy one's culture and political integrity, language plays a critical role in accomplishing it.However, the Canadian government took this into consideration and implemented harsh policies towards the aboriginal people of Canada. The Canadian government made it compulsory for Aboriginal children between the age of 4

makes it unlawful. For example, these sections made activities such as communicating for the purposes of prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house illegal. However, in the recent landmark case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford (2013), the constitutionality of these three laws was questioned. In this case, three former sex workers argued that these prostitution laws that were initially meant to protect them, put their safety at risk. More specifically

From the late 1800s to the 1980s, more than 100,000 First Nations children in Canada attended residential schools To attend these schools, children were taken away from their families and communities. At the schools, the children suffered from emotional, physical, sexual and spiritual abuse. The worst abuses were often used as punishment for speaking their indigenous languages. The imposition of residential schools on First Nations children has led to significant loss of indigenous languages, and