Stare Decisis
Stare decisis [Latin, "let the decision stand"] refers to the doctrine of precedent, according to which the rules formulated by judges in earlier decisions are to be similarly applied in later cases.
Signing up enhances your TCE experience with the ability to save items to your personal reading list, and access the interactive map.
Create AccountStare decisis [Latin, "let the decision stand"] refers to the doctrine of precedent, according to which the rules formulated by judges in earlier decisions are to be similarly applied in later cases.
This case was a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that arose out of a challenge by the Province of Alberta as the constitutionality of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) as enacted by the federal Excise Tax Act.
Several decisions of the Supreme Court relate to environmental protection: Dryden Chemicals, Crown Zellerbach and Friends of the Oldman River Society.
In the RJR-MacDonald case (1995), a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the federal law regulating the use of tobacco products rested on Parliament's jurisdiction in the criminal law area, in the division of powers sector, as set out in section 91 (27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
In its first decision relating to the Finta war crimes case (1993), the Supreme Court of Canada permitted 3 interested groups to intervene - the Human Rights League of B'nai B'rith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and InterAmicus.
In 1985, in the Valente case, the Supreme Court dealt for the first time with judicial independence. On the second occasion, it was with the MacKay case, which dealt with military justice.
The Supreme Court of Canada (1994) emphasized that the Québec Sales Tax (QST) was similar to the GST which is an added tax on value. It was not an indirect tax for it was ultimately assumed by the person who bore the tax burden, namely the consumer.
In the Stillman case (1997), a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law power to carry out a search incidental to an arrest did not include the right to forcibly seize samples of body substances.
The A judge of the Provincial Court of Ontario declared that he had no jurisdiction to hear a case under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario because he did not preside over an independent court in the sense of s11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Dionne Case (1978), known as Re Public Service Board et al, Dionne et al, and Attorney General of Canada et al.
The main question in dispute in the reference on judges' salaries (1997) concerned the financial security of judges of provincial courts. In this case the governments of Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Alberta had reduced the salaries of their provincial court judges without prior consultation.
The Pamajewon case (1996) (also known as R. v. Pamajewon) was the first case in which First Nations in Canada argued an inherent right to self-government before the Supreme Court. Spearheaded by two Anishinaabe First Nations, Eagle Lake and Shawanaga, the claimants argued that the Indigenous right to self-government included a right to control gambling practices on reserves. The Supreme Court ruled that these First Nations did not have rights to high-stakes gaming under self-government.
Technically, there is no "intoxication" defence to criminal charges in Canadian law.
Trying to elicit straight talk from politicians on gay marriage can be tricky. Prime Minister Paul Martin looks painfully uncomfortable when the subject arises, far more so than he does when asked about, say, political ethics.
DAWN SANGRET, 19 years a resident of Port Coquitlam, B.C., arrives at the city's provincial court last week seeking answers. "I have my suspicions about a lot of things," she says.
In the Cooper case (1996), a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Commission did not have the power under its enabling statute to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of the mandatory age of retirement.
In the Kindler case (1991), the majority of judges on the Supreme Court ruled that the Canadian procedure in extradition matters did not violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifies that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
Walter v Attorney-General of Alberta (1965-69) tested the constitutional validity of the Communal Properties Act (1955), which had the effect of restricting the amount of lands that could be owned communally by religious groups such as the HUTTERITES and the DOUKHOBORS.
n the Cook case (1998), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to an interrogation by Canadian police operating in the United States of a person suspected of committing murder in Canada.