R v.

Big M Drug Mart [1985]

! Appellant: Crown ! Defendant: Big M Drug Mart ! On appeal from court of appeal of Alberta ! Shop was open Sunday in Alberta Facts ! Crime: Violating Lords Day Act ! Does Lords Day Act violate charter section 2A? Issue ! Is the crime a legitimate federal power? Decision ! Appeal brought by crown was dismissed ! Compulsory observance infringes section 2A Reason ! Inconsistence with charter, therefore it has no force ! Lords Day Act was struck down Relevance ! Applied section 52 (1): Constitution is supreme law ! Lords Day Act is the first law struck down by new constitutional power Habeas Corpus Writ: order from legal authority Latin: That you have the body can physically appear before the court Accused criminal must be brought before the court Purpose: o Determine legality of arrest/detention o Protect from illegal detention Applications for writ of habeas corpus o Made in writing o Usually after conviction o Challenge legality of laws used against individual o Requirements: ! Applicant must prove: deprivation of liberty ! State must prove: unlawfulness of deprivation in lawfulness Canadian Context o Reflected in charter section 10(C) Everyone has the right upon detention To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if detention is unlawful o Under criminal code, where a right to appeal exists in law, writ is unavailable o Other historical events that led to denial of writ? ! War measures act ! Internment during wars: Ukrainians during world war one, and Japanese during world war two

R v. Askov [1990]
! Appellants: Elijah Askov, Ralph Hussey, Samuel Gugilotta, Edward Melo ! Respondent: Crown

! Appeal from court of appeal of Ontario Facts Issue Decision Reason Relevance ! Appellants charged with conspiracy to commit extortion (1983) ! Trial (1986) ! Appellants moved to stay trial citing unreasonable delay; denied by lower court ! Appeal should be allowed; grant stay of proceedings ! Violated section 11(b): quick resolution important (memory, illness); victims interest ! Defines delay; 2 years is unreasonable; created prejudice against appellants o Court would feel obligated to get trial done quickly or they would be annoyed o Child in back seat: are we there yet?

R v Keegstra [1990]
! Appellant: Crown ! Respondent: Keegstra ! On appeal from court of appeal of Alberta Facts ! Keegstra charged with promoting hatred against identifiable group ! Convicted, appealed which resulted in case being turned over ! Are Keegstras expressions protected by section 2B? ! Is criminal code section 319(s)/281(2) constitutional ! Appeal allowed ! Criminal code section 319(s)/281(2) is constitutional ! Hate propaganda is protected under 2b; offence does not overly restrict freedom ! Keegstras conviction restored; offence is a reasonable limit on freedom ! Section 319(s)/281(2) of criminal code was not struck down

Issue

Decision

Reason Relevance

R v Morgantaler [1988]
! Appellant: Dr.s Morgantaler, Smoiling, Scott ! Respondent: Crown ! On appeal from court of appeal of Ontario ! Criminal code 251: patients require certificate

Facts ! ! Issue ! ! ! ! ! !

Decision Reason Relevance

and hospital approval for abortion; Dr.s charged with conspiracy to provide abortion Does criminal code 251 violate charter section 7 rights? Is this a reasonable limit? Appeals allowed, acquittals restored; Section 251 violates section 7 rights Cannot be justified Security of person = Right to control ones body 251 causes physical and psychological harm

! Section 251 struck down because it violated section 7 which caused arbitrariness in health care.