Judicial Precedent & Its Application

Summary

In 2009, Mr. Bingley was arrested for impaired driving after failing a drug recognition expert (DRE) test, despite passing alcohol screening

DRE's evaluation found cannabis, cocaine, and alprazolam which Bingley admitted using in the past 12 hours

Initially, Mr. Bingley was acquitted but appeals questioned the need for voir dire to assess DRE's expertise under the Criminal Code

Voir dire: a preliminary examination of an expert witness's qualifications

The Supreme Court of Canada decided a voir dire was not necessary for DRE testimony under Criminal Code s. 254(3.1)

Section 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada: a crucial provision that empowers peace officers to demand an evaluation of an individual's ability to operate a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs

DRE's opinion on impairment, although formed through specialized training, is considered an "investigative tool," not direct evidence

DREs recognized for special expertise in drug impairment recognition, beyond the judge's knowledge

Requiring a voir dire for DRE testimony deemed unreasonable and a waste of judicial resources

Majority viewed DRE testimony's benefits as outweighing potential costs

New trial ordered for Bingley, legal recognition of DRE training as expert knowledge

This decision highlights judiciary's trust in standardized training programs for law enforcement against drug-impaired driving and raises debate on judicial efficiency versus the need for scientific scrutiny

Summary

Trinity Western University (TWU), a private evangelical Christian university in British Columbia, required all students to sign a "community covenant" that aligns with biblical teachings, including restrictions on sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage

The LSUC refused TWU’s accreditation to allow its graduates to practice law in Ontario, arguing the covenant discriminated against LGBTQ+ community members

TWU appealed the LSUC's decision through judicial review

Judicial review: a process allowing judges to review decisions made by administrative bodies to ensure they are lawful

Both the Ontario Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario supported the LSUC's decision, agreeing that it reasonably balanced TWU's religious freedom with the need to ensure equality in the legal profession

The Law Society was acting in accordance with its obligation under section 6 of the Human Rights Code and the decision complied with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights despite infringing on the TWU’s freedom of religion

This decision set a precedent on how religious freedoms are balanced against equality rights in Canada

Legal Significance

Addressed the conflict between freedom of religion and anti-discrimination principles within the context of professional accreditation

Emphasized the role of legal institutions in upholding equality in access to the profession, setting a precedent for how religious freedom is balanced against other Charter rights

Ratio Decendi

The Law Society's refusal to accredit TWU's law school was a reasonable balance between TWU's religious freedom and the statutory objective to ensure equal access to legal education

Although TWU's freedom of religion was infringed, this was justified by the broader public interest in maintaining an equitable and inclusive legal profession

Judicial Precedence Importance

Limits power of the judiciary through adherence to established legal principles

Ensures decisions grounded in Charter values, not arbitrary

Illustrates careful legal and ethical issue navigation within legal precedents

Connections

Showcases the topics of law and justice as well as humanity and morality, particularly regarding the balance between religious freedoms and anti-discrimination principles

Applies critical legal theory by questioning the power dynamics and societal structures that influence legal decisions, specifically in the context of LGBTQ+ rights

Summary

Dr. Gillian Frank and Mr. Jamie Duong, long-term non-residents of Canada, challenged The Canada Elections Act, after being denied the right to vote in the 2011 federal election, claiming it violated their Charter rights

Canada Elections Act: previously stated that Canadian citizens residing outside of Canada for over 5 years lose their right to vote in federal elections

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice initially found that denying non-residents the right to vote infringed section 3 of the Charter, which guarantees every citizen the right to vote, however, this decision was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

Section 3 of the Charter: Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein

The SCC allowed the appeal, ruling that the residency requirement in the Canada Elections Act unjustifiably infringed on section 3 of the Charter and could not be saved by section 1

Section 1 of the Charter: Charter rights can be limited by law so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society

The Act's goal of maintaining electoral fairness for Canadian residents was deemed important but not sufficiently pressing to justify the broad disenfranchisement of non-resident citizens

The court highlighted the lack of evidence that non-resident voting compromised election fairness and noted that many non-residents maintain strong ties to Canada, including paying taxes and receiving social benefits, thus deserving a say in government decisions

This decision emphasizes the importance of inclusivity in electoral processes and the principle that citizenship, rather than residency, is the key determinant of the right to vote

Legal Significance

Affirmed the fundamental right to vote for Canadian citizens, regardless of their residence duration outside of Canada

Overturned legislation that disenfranchised Canadian citizens living abroad for more than 5 years, emphasizing the broad scope of voting rights under the Charter

Ratio Decendi

The residency requirement in the Canada Elections Act violated Section 3 of the Charter and was not justified under Section 1

The infringement was not proportional to the law's objective of maintaining election fairness, lacking rational connection and unjustifiably impacting the rights of non-resident Canadians

Judicial Precedence Importance

Promotes predictable and consistent legal principles on voting rights

Reinforces fundamental nature of voting rights for all citizens

Ensures global understanding of Canadian democratic values

Connections

Highlights the topic of democracy, asserting that citizenship, not residency, confers the right to vote, impacting national sovereignty and jurisdiction

Illustrates positive law through the adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions that define and protect voting rights, focusing on the enacted laws themselves rather than broader moral principles

Summary

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a Quebec School Board order that prohibited Gurbaj Multani, an Orthodox Sikh, from wearing a kirpan at school, a requirement of his religion

The court held that the board’s decision infringed Mr. Multani’s freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter

Section 2(a) of the Charter: protects “freedom of conscience and religion” as a fundamental freedom in Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada considered when to recognize a particular practice as a religious requirement

This decision then dealt with the appropriate method for accommodating religious practice in a multicultural society

The school board argued that it had to protect the safety of the rest of the students even if this meant infringing the rights of this one student

The court rejected this argument, finding that it is necessary to find reasonable ways to accommodate different religions, even in schools, and to balance different rights

Legal Significance

Established precedent on religious freedom and accommodation in Canadian schools

Highlighted the necessity of balancing individual rights to religious freedom with broader public safety concerns in educational settings

Demonstrated the Supreme Court's commitment to protecting religious practices under the Charter

Ratio Decendi

The school board's prohibition on wearing a kirpan infringed on Multani's freedom of religion as protected under Section 2(a) of the Charter

Emphasized the importance of seeking reasonable accommodations that respect religious practices without compromising public safety

Rejected the notion that individual rights can be ignored without thorough consideration of less intrusive ways to provide accommodation

Judicial Precedence Importance

Helps people know what to expect regarding religious accommodation

Clarifies rights in multicultural and public institution settings

Sets expectations for religious freedoms vs. institutional policies balance

Connections

Highlights the balance between individual rights (to express religious beliefs) and the duties of public institutions to accommodate these rights equitably, aligning with the topics of rights and duties as well as equality and equity

Showcases legal realism by considering the practical implications of laws and judicial decisions on religious freedoms and the real-life impacts on students

Summary

The plaintiffs in this case were born deaf and used sign language to communicate

They claimed discrimination based on disability because B.C. failed to fund sign language interpretation during doctor visits

In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that sometimes, equal treatment requires different services for different groups

For deaf patients to receive the same level of basic health care as other patients, they required sign language interpreters; this is called substantive equality

Legal Significance

Landmark precedent on substantive equality in Canadian law

Recognized that equality may require accommodating differences, especially in healthcare

Emphasized differential treatment to ensure equal access to services for individuals with disabilities

Ratio Decendi

Discrimination under Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter due to lack of sign language interpretation for deaf patients in healthcare

15(1): 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.

Substantive equality necessitates accommodations like sign language interpreters for deaf individuals to have equal access to healthcare

Judicial Precedence Importance

Promotes reliance on judicial decisions

Ensures consistent legal framework for disability accommodations

Fosters inclusivity and standardization in service access

Connections

Demonstrates substantive law through the application of rights under the Charter, emphasizing equality

Reflects the belief that laws should ensure fundamental human rights and equality, aligning with natural law's emphasis on inherent rights