DOCSLIB.ORG

Understand Your Rights an Annotated Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understand Your Rights an Annotated Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Contents UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AN ANNOTATED GUIDE TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS CONTENTS Section 1: Rights and Freedoms in Canada ..........................................................................................................3 Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms .........................................................................................................................5 Section 3: Democratic Rights of Citizens .............................................................................................................9 Section 4: Democratic Rights ................................................................................................................................11 Section 5: Democratic Rights ................................................................................................................................11 Section 6: Mobility of Citizens ................................................................................................................................11 Section 7: Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person ...........................................................................................14 Section 8: Legal Rights ............................................................................................................................................16 Section 9: Legal Rights ............................................................................................................................................17 Section 10: Legal Rights .........................................................................................................................................18 Section 11: Legal Rights .........................................................................................................................................19 Section 12: Legal Rights .........................................................................................................................................20 Section 13: Legal Rights .........................................................................................................................................20 Section 14: Legal Rights .........................................................................................................................................21 Section 15: Equality Rights .....................................................................................................................................21 Section 16-20: Official Languages in Canada ....................................................................................................25 Section 21: Continuation of Existing Constitutional Provisions ......................................................................28 Section 22: Rights and Privileges Preserved ......................................................................................................29 Section 23: Minority Language Education Rights .............................................................................................30 Section 24: Enforcement .........................................................................................................................................32 Section 25: Aboriginal Rights and Freedoms Not Affected by the Charter ...................................................34 Sections 26-31: General Charter Rights ..............................................................................................................36 Section 32: Application of Charter .......................................................................................................................37 Section 33: Exception Where Express Declaration ...........................................................................................38 2 Understand your Rights – An Annotated Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms This document does not contain legal advice. This document was prepared with the assistance of Pro Bono Students Canada (PBSC) University of Manitoba law student volunteers. PBSC is a student organization, and students are not lawyers or authorized to provide legal advice. This document contains general discussion of certain legal and related issues only. If you require legal advice, please consult with a lawyer. SECTION 1: right as little as possible; and the limit on the right must not be disproportional to the benefit RIGHTS AND of limiting that right. FREEDOMS IN CANADA Questions Jeff was a single father of two kids and a delivery 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms driver for a company who needed his driver’s license guarantees the rights and freedoms set out to work. One night, after going out with his friends, in it subject only to such reasonable limits he was arrested for driving under the influence and prescribed by law as can be demonstrably his license was suspended. Aside from this, Jeff had justified in a free and democratic society. both a clean driving and criminal record. Jeff went to court to argue that his suspended license violated his section 12 right (the right to not be subjected Summary to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) because a suspended license meant that not only The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms could he not work, but he could also not take his guarantees the rights found in the Charter, but children to school and to their appointments. He felt these rights are limited by laws, provided that those that this infringement on his section 12 right could laws still promote a free and democratic society. not be justified under section 1. This limitation on freedoms was tested in the Q: Does Jeff have a case? What would be his case of R v Oakes (R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR remedy? 103, 1986 CarswellOnt 1001), which created the “Oakes test.” This legal test states that in A: The judge felt that given Jeff’s circumstances and order to override a right protected by the Charter, the fact that he did not have a prior history of driving four requirements must be met: it has to be while under the influence, a suspended license was important; it has to be connected to what it is unreasonable. He sentenced Jeff to a rehabilitation trying to accomplish; it must interfere with the program and gave him a fine R( v Berg). Understand your Rights – An Annotated Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 3 Sarah was an owner of a travel agency with five had to determine whether this infringement of employees working in her office. One day, the his rights was justified under section 1. The only travel agency was raided by police officers who way that the infringement would be justified is had received a tip that someone was trafficking if it achieved the objective of rehabilitating the narcotics out of the office. Since Sarah was the accused, protected the public, or was a minimal owner of the agency, she was arrested and tried infringement. It was determined that the for drug trafficking. At trial, Sarah stated that the sentencing did not meet these requirements and charges against her, and the trial, violated her was not a justified infringement under section 1. section 11(d) rights (the right to be presumed The judge decided that the probation could exist innocent until proven guilty according to law notwithstanding the requirements of his job. in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal), because the officers had R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103, 1986 CarswellOnt 1001 not connected the narcotics to her personally – just to her office. While she did not know who In December of 1971, Oakes was arrested for the narcotics belonged to, she stated that any of unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose her employees could have left them in the office of drug trafficking. Even though he denied that as they all had a key to the building and often he was going to sell the drugs, section 8 of the worked when she was not around. Narcotic Control Act said that possession of a narcotic can infer plans to traffic a narcotic under Q: Does Sarah have a case against the officers? a rational connection test. The accused claimed What should happen if she does? that this section of the act violated his right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty A: The judge might determine that the officers under section 11(d). When the case went to trial, had not collected enough evidence to try her it was found that the rational connection test for trafficking narcotics. While the judge might used in section 8 did violate section 11(d) in a recognize that the narcotics were found in her way that was not justifiable and could not be office, he may feel that the connection is not saved under section 1. strong enough to try Sarah personally, and the arrest violated her section 1 rights. Leading Cases R v Berg, 2001 YKSC 528 In this case, a man with a history of chronic alcoholism was arrested for driving under the influence. At trial, it was established that if he could not drive, he would lose his job; however, the Court chose to give him a mandatory three- month probation on driving because this was the minimum penalty for this charge at the time. It was determined that the sentencing violated the accused’s section 12 right. The Court then 4 Understand your Rights – An Annotated Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms SECTION 2: be one freedom in this section. Freedom of conscience, also known as freedom of thought, FUNDAMENTAL refers to the right of an individual to hold their own ideas no matter what other people
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Placing Vulnerability at the Centre of Section 15(1) of the Charter: a Case Comment on Inglis V British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety)
    Placing Vulnerability at the Centre of Section 15(1) of the Charter: A Case Comment on Inglis v British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety) Connor Bildfell* In order to advance substantive equality under Afin de faire progresser l'dgalite reelle selon the Charter through the section 15(1) frame- la Charte grdce au cadre de l'rticle 15(1), work, Canadian courts should shift towards les tribunaux canadiens devraient adopter un a vulnerability-centric model that focuses on modile centre sur la vulndrabilitiqui accorde protecting individuals and groups who expe- la prioriti & la protection d'individus et de rience vulnerability based on enumerated or groupes qui connaissent la vulndrabilite selon analogous grounds. In adjudicating claims des motifs inumirs ou analogues. Au mo- under section 15(1), Canadian courts have oc- ment de statuer sur des rilamationsen vertu casionally invoked the notion of "vulnerabili- de l'rticle 15(1), les tribunaux canadiens ont ty. "However, the courts have yet to engage in a parfois invoque la notion de la o vulndrabilite thorough discussion of the term's meaning and ). Cependant, ils nontpas encore entami une implications across specific contexts. This arti- discussion approfondie de la signification et la cle explores the meaning and contours of "vul- porte du terme dans des contextesparticuliers. nerability" and analyzes the prospectofusefully L'uteur de cet article examine la signification integratingvulnerability into the section 150) et les contours de la o vulndrabilite ) et fait framework. This includes a discussion of how l'nalyse de la possibilite d'intigrer utilement the section 15(1) test as currently formulated la vulndrabilitidans le cadrede l'article 15(1).
    [Show full text]
  • Appellants – Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta
    File No. 33340 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA (MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT) and REGISTRAR, METIS SETTLEMENTS LAND REGISTRY APPELLANTS (Respondents) -and- BARBARA CUNNINGHAM and JOHN KENNETH CUNNINGHAM, LA WRENT (LAWRENCE) CUNNINGHAM, RALPH CUNNINGHAM, LYNN NOSKEY, GORDON CUNNINGHAM, ROGER CUNNINGHAM AND RAY STUART RESPONDENTS (Appellants) -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO INTERVENERS APPELLANTS' FACTUM Mr. Robert J. Normey Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Mr. David Kamal Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Attorney General of Alberta Suite 2600 4th Floor 160 Elgin Street Bowker Building Ottawa, Ontario 9833 - 109th Street KIP 1C3 Edmonton, Alberta T5K2E8 Tel.: 780422-9532 Tel.: 613 233-1781 Fax: 780425-0307 Fax: 613 788-3433 [email protected] henry. [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants Agent for the Appellants -11- Mr. Kevin Feth Mr. Dougald E. Brown Field LLP Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP Suite 2000 Suite 1500 10235 - 101 Street 50 O'Connor Street Edmonton, Alberta Ottawa, Ontario T5J 3GI KIP 6L2 Tel.: 780423-7626 Tel.: 613 231-8210 Fax: 780424-7116 Fax: 613 788-3661 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondents Agent for the Respondents Ms. Isabelle Harnois Mr. Pierre Landry Attorney General of Quebec Noill & Associes 2nd Floor III Champlain Street 1200 Route de l'Eglise Gatineau, Quebec Ste-Foy, Quebec J8X 3RI GlY 4MI Tel.: 418 643-1477 Tel.: 819771-7393 Fax: 418 646-1696 Fax: 819771-5397 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener Attorney General of Quebec Attorney General of Quebec Attorney General of Saskatchewan Brian A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada and Constitutional (Equality) Baselines
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 50, Issue 3 (Spring 2013) Rights Constitutionalism and the Canadian Charter of Article 7 Rights and Freedoms Guest Editors: Benjamin L. Berger & Jamie Cameron The uprS eme Court of Canada and Constitutional (Equality) Baselines Rosalind Dixon Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Special Issue Article Citation Information Dixon, Rosalind. "The uS preme Court of Canada and Constitutional (Equality) Baselines." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 50.3 (2013) : 637-668. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol50/iss3/7 This Special Issue Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. The uprS eme Court of Canada and Constitutional (Equality) Baselines Abstract In its approach to defining “analogous grounds” for the purposes of subsection 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted an unusual mix of broad and generous interpretation, and high formalism. This article argues that one potential reason for this is the degree of heterogeneity among the nine distinct enumerated grounds in section 15. Heterogeneity of this kind can produce quite different interpretive consequences, depending on whether a court adopts a direct, “multi- pronged,” or a more synthetic, “common denominator,” approach to the question of analogical development. The ourC t, over time, has implicitly shifted from the first to the second of these approaches. For comparative constitutional scholars, a lesson of Canadian Charter jurisprudence is thus that the number and scope of the analogical baseline categories in a constitution—and how courts approach their relationship to each other—can matter a great deal for the subsequent recognition of new constitutional categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Genesis of the Duty to Consult & Supreme Court
    THE GENESIS OF THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND THE SUPERME COURT The judicial genesis of the legal duty of consultation began with a series of Aboriginal right and title decisions providing the foundational principles of the duty to consult. Guerin Beginning prior to the repatriation of Canada’s constitution, the Supreme Court in Guerin1 found that the Crown had violated its fiduciary duty to the band by failing to consult with them when they accepted a lesser lease and unilaterally changed the legal position of the band, without their knowledge or consent. Justice Dickson stated “In obtaining, without consultation, a much less valuable lease than the promised, the Crown, breached the fiduciary obligation it owed the band.” Sparrow Then in 1990, the Supreme Court in Sparrow2 deliberated its first post 1982 Aboriginal rights case to explore the content of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 19823 where the court expressly limited Crown power and conduct by affirming a duty to consult with West Coast Salish asserting their inherent and constitutionally protected right to fish through a ‘justification test’ where the duty to consult is one factor to be considered when justifying an infringement on Aboriginal rights. Van der Peet In 1996 the Supreme Court further developed foundational principles on the duty to consult in their adjudication of the definition of an Aboriginal right in R v Van der Peet.4 Van Der Peet is important for proving CHRs off reserve. Nikal Next in 1996, another Supreme Court decision constraining crown power and affirming the duty to consult regarding resources to which Aboriginal peoples make claim was made in Nikal, where Cory J.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for Working with Indigenous Students Interdisciplinary Development Initiative (Idi) in Applied Indigenous Scholarship Acknowledgments
    GUIDE FOR WORKING WITH INDIGENOUS STUDENTS INTERDISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (IDI) IN APPLIED INDIGENOUS SCHOLARSHIP ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Western University is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lunaapewak, and Attawandaron peoples, who have long-standing relationships to the land and region of southwestern Ontario and the city of London. The local First Nations communities are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, the Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Munsee Delaware Nation. Contributors This Guide was made possible through the collaborative vision, effort and support of Western University’s Interdisciplinary Development Initiative (IDI) in Applied Indigenous Scholarship. This IDI is composed of an interdisciplinary team of faculty, staff and students who represent eight of Western’s Academic Faculties, as well as Student Experience, Indigenous Services and the Centre for Teaching and Learning. We would also like to thank Western’s Indigenous Postsecondary Education Council (IPEC) members and other community partners who provided valuable input in the development of this Guide. Leads: Candace Brunette Faculty of Education Chantelle Richmond Faculty of Social Science Contributors: Robert Andersen Faculty of Social Science Jamie Baxter Faculty of Social Science Brian Branfireun Faculty of Science Deborah Coward Office of the Registrar / Student Experience Michael Coyle Faculty of Law Brent Debassige Faculty of Education Rick Ezekiel Student Experience Janice Forsyth Faculty of Social Science Aisha
    [Show full text]
  • Alex M. Cameron, Power Without Law. the Supreme Court of Canada, .The Marshall Decisions, and the Failure of Judicial Activism
    Dalhousie Law Journal Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 6 4-1-2010 Alex M. Cameron, Power Without Law. The Supreme Court of Canada, .the Marshall Decisions, and the Failure of Judicial Activism Dianne Pothier Dalhousie University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/dlj Part of the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Dianne Pothier, "Alex M. Cameron, Power Without Law. The Supreme Court of Canada, .the Marshall Decisions, and the Failure of Judicial Activism" (2010) 33:1 Dal LJ 189. This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dalhousie Law Journal by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Power Without Law: The Supreme CourtofCanada,the MarshallDecisions, and the Failure of Judicial Activism by Alex M. Cameron. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009. 244 pages. Alex Cameron's book, Power Without Law, is a scathing critique of the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 decisions in R. v. Marshall' upholding Donald Marshall Jr.'s Mi'kmaq treaty claim. Cameron's book has attracted a lot of attention because of the author's position as Crown counsel for the government of Nova Scotia. 2 Cameron was not involved as a lawyer in the Marshall case itself. As a fisheries prosecution, Marshall was a matter of federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867,1 and Nova Scotia chose not to intervene.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Comment on R. V. Kapp: an Analytical Framework for Section 25 of the Charter
    Case Comment on R. v. Kapp: An Analytical Framework for Section 25 of the Charter Celeste Hutchinson* There is a significant void in the jurisprudence Un important vide subsiste dans la jurisprudence and literature regarding section 25 of the Canadian et dans la doctrine au sujet de l’article 25 de la Charte Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Consequently, there is canadienne des droits et libertés. Par conséquent, 2007 CanLIIDocs 140 no settled interpretation of either when it is triggered or l’interprétation de cet article demeure incertaine quant à the specific analytical framework that should apply. In la détermination des critères selon lesquels cet article R. v. Kapp, the British Columbia Court of Appeal est susceptible d’être invoqué ainsi qu’au choix du provides a groundbreaking analysis of section 25 that cadre analytique approprié ou pouvant s’y appliquer. addresses both constitutional questions. Dans l’affaire R. v. Kapp, la Cour d’appel de la The author first reviews the facts of the case, in Colombie-Britannique a arboré une analyse sans which ten non-Aboriginal persons accused of unlawful précédent de l’article 25 qui aborde ces deux questions fishing challenged regulations that restricted fishing in constitutionnelles. an area to members of licensed First Nations bands on En guise d’introduction, l’auteure présente les the ground that they violated section 15 of the Charter. faits de la cause. Dix personnes non autochtones A majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal accusées d’avoir pêché sans autorisation invoquèrent dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement of l’article 15 de la Charte afin de contester la section 15.
    [Show full text]
  • R. V. Morris: a Shot in the Dark and Its Repercussions†
    R. v. Morris: A Shot in the Dark and Its Repercussions KERRY WILKINS* ITHE SCOPE OF THE TSARTLIP TREATY RIGHT TO HUNT 4 II THE LEGITIMATE REACH OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION 10 Division of Powers: The Limits of Provincial Legislative Authority 11 Interjurisdictional Immunity 11 Shielding Treaty Rights from Provincial Interference 13 Then What Happened: Canadian Western Bank and Lafarge 18 What This Means 23 Section 88 of the Indian Act 26 III SOME CONSEQUENCES 31 IV A FINAL, UNEXPLORED ISSUE 35 VCONCLUSION 37 The Supreme Courts decision in R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 915, 2006 SCC 59, which upheld and enforced the treaty right of Tsartlip hunters to hunt safely at night with lights, is important for the practical consequences of its somewhat surprising doctrinal pronouncements. By rejecting the assumption that hunting at night is inherently dangerous, it converted what many thought would be an all or nothing issue into a matter for case-by-case Editors Note: This paper was published pursuant to invitation and was not subject to double- blind peer review. The ILJ will invite one author each year to provide commentary on a recent major case, usually a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In Volume 6, Number 2, John McEvoy discussed R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray. We thank Mr. Kerry Wilkins for providing the following comment on R. v. Morris for Volume VII. * Kerry Wilkins is a Toronto lawyer and, in 200809, an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Special thanks to Kent McNeil for helpful comments on an earlier draft and for giving me pre-publication access to relevant recent work of his own.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Treaty-Based Practice of Relationality by Gina Starblanket
    Beyond Rights and Wrongs: Towards a Treaty-Based Practice of Relationality by Gina Starblanket M.A., University of Victoria, 2012 B.A. Hons., University of Regina, 2008 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Indigenous Governance Program ã Gina Starblanket, 2017 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee Beyond Rights and Wrongs: Towards a Treaty-Based Practice of Relationality by Gina Starblanket M.A., University of Victoria, 2012 B.A. Hons., University of Regina, 2008 Supervisory Committee Dr. Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, Department of Political Science Co-Supervisor Dr. Taiaiake Alfred, Indigenous Governance Program Co-Supervisor Dr. Jeff Corntassel, Indigenous Governance Program Departmental Member iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, Department of Political Science Co-Supervisor Dr. Taiaiake Alfred, Indigenous Governance Program Co-Supervisor Dr. Jeff Corntassel, Indigenous Governance Program Departmental Member This research explores the implications of the distinction between transactional and relational understandings of the Numbered Treaties, negotiated by Indigenous peoples and the Dominion of Canada from 1871-1921. It deconstructs representations of the Numbered Treaties as “land transactions” and challenges the associated forms of oppression that emerge from this interpretation. Drawing on oral histories of the Numbered Treaties, it argues instead that they established a framework for relationship that expressly affirmed the continuity of Indigenous legal and political orders. Further, this dissertation positions treaties as a longstanding Indigenous political institution, arguing for the resurgence of a treaty-based ethic of relationality that has multiple applications in the contemporary context.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Paper and Notice Paper Feuilleton Et Feuilleton Des Avis
    CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES 37th PARLIAMENT 37e LÉGISLATURE FIRST SESSION PREMIÈRE SESSION Order Paper Feuilleton and et Notice Paper Feuilleton des Avis AT PROROGATION À LA PROROGATION Monday, September 16, 2002 Le lundi 16 septembre 2002 For further information, contact the Journals Branch Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer at 9922038. avec la Direction des journaux au 9922038. The Order Paper is the official agenda for the House of Commons Le Feuilleton, qui est le programme officiel de la Chambre des and is published for each sitting. It lists all of the items of business communes, est publié pour chaque séance et comprend la liste des that may be brought forward during that sitting. The Notice Paper affaires qui pourraient être étudiées pendant la séance. Le contains notice of all items Members wish to introduce in the Feuilleton des Avis comprend les avis des motions et des House. questions que les députés veulent présenter à la Chambre. Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Publié en conformité de l'autorité du Président de la Commons Chambre des communes Monday, September 16, 2002 Le lundi 16 septembre 2002 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES Page Page Order Paper Feuilleton Introduction of Private Members’ Bills..................................... ..7 Dépôt de projets de loi émanant des députés...............................7 Motions...................................................................................... 13 Motions ...................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Fisheries Issues: May 2003
    HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA ATLANTIC FISHERIES ISSUES: MAY 2003 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS Tom Wappel, M.P. Chairman November 2003 The Speaker of the House hereby grants permission to reproduce this document, in whole or in part for use in schools and for other purposes such as private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary. Any commercial or other use or reproduction of this publication requires the express prior written authorization of the Speaker of the House of Commons. If this document contains excerpts or the full text of briefs presented to the Committee, permission to reproduce these briefs, in whole or in part, must be obtained from their authors. Also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire: http://www.parl.gc.ca Available from Communication Canada — Publishing, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9 ATLANTIC FISHERIES ISSUES: MAY 2003 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS Tom Wappel, M.P. Chairman November 2003 STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS CHAIRMAN Tom Wappel VICE-CHAIRS John Cummins Bill Matthews MEMBERS Andy Burton Dominic LeBlanc Rodger Cuzner Joe Peschisolido R. John Efford Carmen Provenzano Reed Elley Jean-Yves Roy Georges Farrah Peter Stoffer Ghislain Fournier Bob Wood Loyola Hearn CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE Jeremy LeBlanc FROM THE RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Alan Nixon François Côté iii THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS has the honour to present its SEVENTH REPORT Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has studied Atlantic fisheries issues and is pleased to report as follows: v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Court File No.: 35379 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from a JUDGMENT of the COURT of APPEAL for ONTARIO) BETWEEN: AN
    Court File No.: 35379 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: ANDREW KEEWATIN JR. and JOSEPH WILLIAM FOBISTER on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of GRASSY NARROWS FIRST NATION APPELLANTS (Plaintiffs) -and- MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES and RESOLUTE FP CANADA INC. (formerly ABITIBI-CONSOLIDATED INC.) RESPONDENTS (Defendants) -and- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENTS (Third Party) -and- LESLIE CAMERON on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of WABAUSKANG FIRST NATION RESPONDENTS (Interveners) -and- GOLDCORP INC. RESPONDENTS (Intervener) FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN ANDREW KEEWATIN JR. and JOSEPH WILLIAM FOBISTER on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of GRASSY NARROWS FIRST NATION APPELLANTS (Plaintiffs) -and- MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES and RESOLUTE FP CANADA INC. (formerly ABITIBI-CONSOLIDATED INC.) RESPONDENTS (Defendants) -and- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENTS (Third Party) -and- LESLIE CAMERON on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of WABAUSKANG FIRST NATION RESPONDENTS (Interveners) -and- GOLDCORP INC. RESPONDENTS (Intervener) R. James Fyfe Lynne Watt Aboriginal Law Branch Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Ministry of Justice Barrister’s & Solicitors 820-1874 Scarth Street Suite 2600, 160 Elgin Street REGINA, SK S4P 4B3 OTTAWA, ON K1P 1C3 Tel: (306) 787-7846 Tel: (613)786-8695 Fax: (306) 787-9111 Fax: (613)788-3509 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, The Attorney General for Saskatchewan The Attorney General for Saskatchewan Saskatchewan TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PART I OVERVIEW OF ARGUMENT 1 PART II STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1 PART III ARGUMENT 2 A.
    [Show full text]