Seminar Presentations, Autumn 2006

Seminar Presentations, 2009=

Subject-matter of presentation

Presenters

September 2= 5, 2009

Section 2(b) (Fr= eedom of Expression) and Section 1= (Justification)

(1) "Just abo= ut anything qualifies as expression, even the worst possible child pornograp= hy and advertisements aimed at profit-making, and just about any restraint on expression is ruled as a s. 2(b) breach, sending the matter to s. 1. This approach trivializes the Charter and is not consistent with cases un= der s. 2(a) (religion) and s. 2(d) association. Matters should not be so readily sent to s. 1, where the onus lies on government to justify its positions."

(2)&= nbsp; Government should not be obligated to take positive measures to facilitate the exercise of fundamental freedoms.

(3) "The test for justification under s. 1 can be strict (more difficult= for government to meet) or deferential (easier for government to meet). = The Supreme Court of Canada has identified certain types or categories of cas= es that fall into the “deferential” category. On the whole, the categories do not make sense. It is just result-oriented, political reasoning."

(1) Presenter for “pro” side:

Presente= r for “con” side:

(2) Presenter for “pro” = side:

Presente= r for “con” side:

(3) Pr= esenter for “pro” side:

Presente= r for “con” side:

October 9, = 2009

Section 15 (Equality Rights) and Section 1 (Justification)

(4) "The recent case of Kapp is a helpful adjustment to the Law test. The analysis of s. 15(2) is also= a positive development."

(5) "The issue of comparator groups is nothing more than a device th= at allows the court to do whatever it wants."

(6) "The approach of the S.C.C. on the s. 1 issues in N.A.P.E. <= /em>is sound."

(4) Pr= esenter for “pro” side:

      Presente= r for “con” side:



(5)   Presenter for “pro” side:



       Presenter for “con” side:



(6)   Presenter for “pro” side:

   &= nbsp;

       Presenter for “con” side:

October 16,= 2009

Criminal Law Rights

(7) &quo= t;In recent years, fundamental criminal law rights, such as the right against search and seizure, the right against arbitrary detention, the ri= ght to silence and the right to counsel, and the right to a fair remedy of exclusion of unconstitutional evidence have been undercut inappropriately= . There is supposed to be a balance between control of state and police power and protection of the rights of= the person on the one hand and on the other hand furthering effective law enforcement. The balance is currently wrong: the latter is inappropriately favou= red over the former. Recent developments are negative."

(7) Th= ree presenters for “pro” side:

Three presenters for “con” side:

&nbs= p;

October 23,= 2009

Section 7

(8) &#= 8220;The rights to life, liberty and security of the person and the principles of the fundamental justice are just empty vessels for judges to fill with whatever meaning they want. As a result, some of the decisions are dangerous and unwarranted, and push courts beyond their pro= per role.”

(9) “<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN;mso-bidi-font-we= ight: bold'>Justice Arbour's minority reasons on th= e s. 7 Charter issues in Gosselin are terrific and should be adopted by the Supreme Court in a future case. The meaning of 'liberty and secu= rity of the person' in s. 7 should be broadened to cover "positive rights," exactly as she suggests”

(8) Presenter for “pro” side:

Presenter for “con” side:

(9) Pr= esenter for “pro” side:

Presenter for “con” side:

October 30,= 2009

Aboriginal Rights

(10) “The area of aboriginal rights is an area where the Supreme = Court has not been mindful of its proper role, with the result that we are stuck with certain inappropriate judge-made approaches in this area that do lit= tle for the welfare of aboriginal peoples”.

(10) P= resenter for “pro” side:

Presenter for “con” side:

November 6,= 2009

Remedies

(11) “The law of Charter<= /i> remedies is overly restrictive and is not designed to vindicate Charter rights”

(11) P= resenter for “pro” side:

&= nbsp;

Presenter for “con” side:

November 27= , 2009

Unwritten Principles / Quebec Secess= ion

(12) &= #8220;The recent unwritten constitutional principles jurisprudence is a welcome development in Canadian constitutional law” (assessment of what is “good constitutional law” and what is “bad constitution= al law”)

(13) Conduct a legal analysis of the following scena= rio: 53% yes vote in Quebec = in favour of separation, Quebec introduces a separation Bill. What then ensues? What challenges? What legal tactics and proceedin= gs might eventuate?<= /p>

Judicial Appointment / Constitutional Amendment<= /p>

(14= ) “The current system of appointing judges should be reformed.”

(12) P= resenter for “pro” side:

Presenter for “con” side:

(13) Presenter:

(14) P= resenter for “pro” side:

Presenter for “con” side:

A= bout the class

Classes and reading lists

Canadian Chart= er of Rights and Freedoms

C= onstitution Act, 1867

Constitution = Act, 1982

C= anadian Bill of Rights

Links