Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No person shall be refused employment or in any manner be discriminated against in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms m) structure and operation of the Governance Agreement and related key elements of the Governance Legislation;
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 4.05 The Union recognizes and accepts the provisions of this Agreement as binding upon itself, each of its duly authorized officers, representatives and employees represented by the Union, and pledges that it, and each of its duly authorized officers and representatives and employees represented by the Union, will observe the provisions of this Agreement.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legal rights -- Protection against unreasonable search and seizure -- Remedies for denial of rights -- Specific remedies -- Ex- clusion of evidence -- Where administration of justice brought into disrepute -- Accuseds' rights to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure was violated when an agent of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals trespassed on their leased property to investigate a complaint about animals in distress -- Evidence obtained from the search was excluded. Criminal law -- Powers of search and seizure -- Search -- Warrantless searches -- Warrantless search that was conducted of a gravel pit leased by the accused was invalid -- Evidence obtained from the search was excluded. Application by the accused Xxxxxxxx and Cheffins to exclude evidence obtained against them be- cause their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated -- Accused were charged with failing to provide adequate food and care for dogs that they owned -- An agent of the Ontario Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals received a complaint that a large num- ber of dogs were being neglected in a gravel pit -- Gravel pit gate was shut and locked when the agent arrived -- Agent walked down the road and was able to observe the dogs -- Accused leased the pit from its owner -- Their lease provided that they had permission to enter the property or had to be present when other individuals entered -- Accused claimed that the agent conducted an unrea- sonable warrantless search to obtain the evidence -- HELD: Application allowed -- Search was not authorized by law -- Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act authorized a war- rantless search only when the Society's agent observed an animal in immediate distress -- Agent did not observe the dogs until she trespassed on the property -- Manner in which the search was con- ducted was not reasonable -- Accuseds' rights to be secure against an unreasonable search and sei- zure was violated -- Agent's intrusion was unacceptable and serious -- Agent could have attempted to view the dogs from an adjoining property, she could have asked the landowner for permission to enter or she could have obtained a search warrant -- Accused and their landlord acted to keep the area private -- Privacy interest was also at stake and was violated -- Inclusion of the evidence would adversely affect the administration of justice. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Canadian...
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2.8.1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Inuvialuit Government in respect of all matters within its authority.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Application, policies of court -- Application, exceptions -- Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1). Application by several media organizations for television and radio access to a criminal trial. The organizations also applied for a declaration that a court policy that restricted media access to trials was inconsistent with the right of freedom of the press contained in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The former premier of British Columbia, Xxxxx, was charged along with the accused Pilarinos. The Crown alleged that Pilarinos improved Xxxxx'x property in exchange for his assistance to obtain a casino license. The policy allowed radio and television coverage of trials only if the parties consented.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2.9.1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Beaufort-Delta Public Governments, the Gwich’in Government and the Inuvialuit Government in respect of matters within their authority.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legal rights -- Right to retain and instruct counsel without delay -- Criminal law -- Offences -- Offences against person and reputation -- Motor vehicle offences -- Impaired driving or driving over the legal limit -- Breathalyzer of blood sample demand, including refusal. Application by the Crown for leave to appeal the acquittal of the accused, Xxxxxx, for impaired driving. The officer did not have a roadside screening device with him when he pulled over the accused. He called for one to be brought from a nearby police station. During the wait, the officer did not inform the accused of his right to counsel. The accused had a cellular telephone and testified that he would have called a lawyer if he had the opportunity. The device arrived 16 minutes later and a sample was taken two minutes after its arrival. The machine registered a failure. At trial, the judge inferred that the police officer would have allowed the accused to make a telephone call to counsel, and found that there had been a violation of the accused's right to counsel. The judge excluded the breath samples and dismissed the charge. The summary conviction appeal by the Crown was dismissed. HELD: Application allowed. The appeal was dismissed. The officer was not in a position to require the accused to provide a breath sample before there was a realistic opportunity for the accused to consult counsel. The demand was not a demand to provide a sample forthwith but to provide a sample when the required apparatus arrived some time later. During the 18 minute delay, contact with counsel could have been accommodated using the cellular telephone or by means of the telephone at the nearby police station. The police officer could have asked the accused if he had a cellular telephone. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, ss. 1, 8, 10, 10(b). Criminal Code, ss. 238(2), 254(2).
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2.10.1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Gwich’in Governments, Institutions of the Gwich’in Governments, and Gwich’in Governments’ Law.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legal rights -- Life, liberty and security of person -- Principles of fundamental justice -- Application by Xxxxxxx for stay of US extradition proceedings granted -- US wanted Xxxxxxx on charges of tax evasion -- US authorities had attempted to bypass the extradition process and pressure Xxxxxxx to give up his rights while he was visiting Canada from the UK -- Canadian immigration and law enforcement officials were complicit in this attempt -- The tactics used amounted to an abuse of process. Applicant Xxxxxxx sought to have extradition proceedings against him stayed. In November of 2004 charges were laid against Xxxxxxx, the global CEO of a travel agency, alleging tax evasion in the US. The warrant for his arrest was sealed and Xxxxxxx, a permanent resident of the UK, remained unaware of the warrant. US prosecutors were notified that Xxxxxxx was traveling to Canada in January of 2005 and communicated with Canadian law enforcement about his detention in Canada and transfer to the US. On his arrival in Canada on January 18 he was detained and held in custody in the Metro West Detention Centre under s. 36(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His release was negotiated and ordered on January 21, but Canadian immigration officials refused to honour the order. Late that evening, in an "urgent" hearing without notice to Xxxxxxx, an arrest warrant under the Extradition Act was obtained. Xxxxxxx remained in custody until January 28 and, under the conditions of his second release, had to remain in Canada, away from his family, for one and a half years. Xxxxxxx alleged that the tactics used by the US in this case were designed to force him to give up his lawful rights in Canada and amounted to an abuse of process.
