Objective of Legislation

A) Short Answers (Choose 3) 10 Marks EachYou may only choose one question from each sectionGeneral Questioni) “Regarding the ‘objective’ of legislation, the rule is: the more abstract or general the legislative goal, the more desirable the objective ought to be. ” Explain this statement and provide two examples (from the second term) where the SCC ruled that while the objectives of the law remain reasonable the scope of the law must be narrowed to achieve those objectives. Provide for a brief summary for the Court’s reasoning in both cases.Expression/Religioni) “Freedom of Expression is vital to the pursuit of truth and the health of a democratic society. When the government creates law that limits expression it must justify itself to the highest standard of proof that the limitation is a necessary one.” In your own words, elaborate on the meaning of this quote. Given the cases regarding Expression that we have covered in class, how has the Canadian government justified its laws that limit that Charter Right?ii) According to The Supreme Court of Canada, ‘The Harm Principle’ does not limit what constitutes protected Expression or Relgious belief. Explain.Fundamental Justicei) Identify three of the ‘principles of fundamnetal justice’ that the SCC has read into S.7. Why did the SCC not include ‘harm’ in its interpretation of the principles of ‘fundamnetal justice?’ii) The SCC have accepted ‘exterme intoxication’ as a defence in certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? When would ‘EI’ not be permitted as a defence? In your opinion, should extreme intoxication be a defence at all?iii) Parks and Stone are both leading Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the criminal automatism defence. These decisions seem to provide different directions for lower courts when considering evidence regarding automatism. Since Stone doesn’t explicitly overrule Parks, the lower courts can draw distinctions when utilizing one over the other.Briefly describe the distinctions between the Parks and Stone decisions (you do not need to go into any detail regarding the trial facts of either case, just the determinations of law specific to the defence of automatism.) In your opinin, are these decsions consistent with one another? Or has the SCC set a dangerous precendent that may come at the expense of public safety?Equality Rightsi) Identify the criteria that the Supreme Court uses when it decides whether or not to recoginzie a claim of discrimination. In your estimation, what was the key case whereby the SCC articulated an operative definition of discrimination?ii) “When it comes to claims of discrimination, ‘subjective standards’ are not enough. For the SCC the effect of the law has an impact on practices that involve people other than just the party claiming disadvantage.” Explain and provide an exampleWeb Resources:Supreme Court of Canada homepage:https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspxReportedDecisions of the Supreme Court 1983 to Present:https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/en/d/s/index.doCanadian Legal information Institute (a search engine for reported court cases in all Canadian jurisdictions).https://www.canlii.org/en/Court Cases:Freedom of Religion:R. v. Big Drug Mart (1985)R. v. Edwards Books and Arts (1986)Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006)Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004)Freedom of Expression:R. v. Zundel (1992)R. v. Keegstra (1990) R. v. Butler (1992)R. v. Sharpe (2001)Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (2000)Freedom of Association:Dummore v. Ontario (2001)Delisle v. Canada (1999)Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (1991)Fundamental Justice:Morgentaler v. The Queen (1989)Sing v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)Chaoulli v. Quebec (2005)Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General, 2002).Reference re. B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985)Equality Rights:Andrews v. Law Society of B.C. (1989)Vriend v. Alberta, [1989]Egan et al. v. The Queen, (1995)Aboriginal Rights:R. v. Sparrow (1990)Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) R. v. Marshall (1999)Mikisew Cree First Nation v.Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage, 2005)B) Essay Question/Critical Case Analysis: 20 marksThroughout the term we have examined how the courts (via the Charter) have attempted to balance the goals of public policy with the rights and freedoms entrenched in the Charter. In doing so, we have also agreed that the law is not a mechanical exercise or a fail-safe analytical tool when it comes to addressing problematic social and moral issues. The law is, to a large degree, political. That means that decisions, legally principled, logical coherent or otherwise, will always be influenced by contextual factors.Given the cases we have examined this term, it seems then that the tension between the objectives of law, politics and morality will never be completely solved. Perhaps this is a desirable aspect of law in relation to complex social/moral issues.Discuss and evaluated the above quote by making reference to at least one case that involved the tension between morality, the public good, and/or the harm principle and a particular right. In your opinion did the courts strike the correct balance in this cases? Provide reasons for your position(s.)ESSAYQUESTION BASEDON Freedom of Religion:R. v. Big Drug Mart (1985)

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Objective of Legislation
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more