وبلاگ خانه تبدیل شباهنگ مرکز تخصصی تبدیل صدا و تصویر
Accordingly, the Tribunal found that Ms. Taylor had demonstrated a violation of her right to equality under section 15 of the Charter. [33] Step 2: If so, is the violation of this right justified as a restriction under section 1 of the Charter? · Dagenais: We must compare the beneficial effects and the harmful effects · Does the benefit of the law outweigh the seriousness of the offence? Canadian courts currently use a two-step test to determine whether a law violates section 15. [9] First, the law must create a distinction based on a ground such as that set out in section 15 of the Charter. Second, the law must create a distinction based on a reason that has a negative or detrimental effect on the group concerned. When considering a potential violation, courts will not pay attention to negative attitudes toward a group. Instead, they will focus on how the law affects the group, regardless of the attitude behind it. · The more serious the interference (impact), the more important the Objective Step 2 – Proportionality: are the means used to achieve the legislative objectives proportionate, since they do not violate Charter rights more than necessary? The Court uses the following steps to answer this question of proportionality: (a) Rational context: Is there a rational connection between legislation that violates the Charter and the objectives of the law itself? In other words, are means rationally linked to ends? b) Minimal impairment: Does the violation have a minimal impact on Charter rights? (c) Proportionate effect: Do the benefits of the legislation outweigh the harm caused by the violation of Charter law? [34] Rodriguez, aboveNote 2, pp. 613-15, cited in Carter, loc. cit. Note 1, paragraph 1165. The majority of the Rdriguez case did not conclusively decide whether the laws prohibiting assisted suicide violated Section 15. Instead, the majority of the court held that even if they had violated article 15, the violation under article 1 was justified.
Some judges disagreed with this view and reportedly confirmed the validity of the law. Their minority opinion highlighted the nature of Article 15 as a negative right, arguing that the majority decision essentially created a positive commitment for the government to achieve a certain outcome (in this case, equal pay). Given that the Pay Equity Act does not widen the wage gap between men and women, the minority said the law “does not perpetuate pre-existing disadvantages.” [11] [11] The Pay Equity Act is intended to reduce the wage gap, but does so less completely. The minority said this did not make the law unconstitutional. Of the nine judges who heard the case, a majority of five upheld the law prohibiting assisted suicide and ruled that it was constitutional. They came to this conclusion because, although Ms. Rodriguez`s right to security of the person was violated, the violation was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice (a concept discussed in more detail in the following sections) because of the sanctity of human life and the need to protect vulnerable persons. At the time Rodriguez was decided, there was a principle of fundamental justice that was relevant in this case: the principle that a law should not be arbitrary. [54] In other words, a law must be logically linked to the objectives of the law and must not be based on whim or imagination. In Rodriguez, a majority of the Supreme Court concluded that the law prohibiting assisted suicide is not arbitrary. Accordingly, the majority in Rodriguez decided that the deprivation of Ms. Rodriguez`s security was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice and therefore there was no violation of her rights under section 7.
Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the promotion of equality, respect for human dignity and the reduction of discrimination outweighed the negative effects of a minimal violation of freedom of expression. The prohibition of hate speech strikes the right balance between respect for freedom of expression and equality rights. [62] Turning to the first point, LeBel J. noted that common law couples were historically viewed negatively and as less laudable; However, it is not enough to establish a history of discrimination. Dissent ruled that an applicant must also prove that the adverse attitude persists. Common law couples in Quebec are not currently perceived negatively by the public or by law. Therefore, the Civil Code of Quebec is not harmful because it does not promote the idea that common-law partners deserve less respect. With respect to the second condition for establishing harm, LeBel J.
noted that the Civil Code of Québec does not favour one type of association over another. Any person, including common-law partners, may be subject to the benefits and obligations of the Civil Code of Québec, provided that he consents to marriage or civil partnership. This fact shows that legislation does not give priority to one type of relationship. [74] Cost and/or administrative expediency alone have traditionally not been recognized by the Supreme Court as a pressing and essential objective to justify an offence (Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia, 2020 SCC 13, at paragraphs 152-153, 163; Health Services, loc. cit., para. 147; Nova Scotia (Workers` Compensation Board) v. Martin, [2003] 2 p.C.R. 504; Figueroa, above; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 pp.C.R. 624; Reference to: Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 p.C.R.
۳; Schachter v. Kanada, [1992] 2 p.C.R. 679; A.c. Lee, [1989] 2 p.C.R. 1384; Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 p.C.R. 177). “Demonstrably justified” means a solid basis of evidence. Convincing and convincing evidence is usually required (Oakes, loc. cit.). Where scientific or social science evidence is available, it is required; however, if such evidence is inconclusive or does not exist and could not be developed, reason and logic may suffice (Libman v.
Quebec (A.G.), [1997] 3 p.C.R. 569; RJR-MacDonald Inc.c. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 pp.C.R. 199; Thomson Newspapers Co.c. Canada (A.G.), [1998] 1 p.C.R. 877; A.c. Sharpe, [2001] 1 p.C.R. 45; Harper v. Canada (A.G.), [2004] 1 p.C.R.
۸۲۷, paragraph 77; A.c. Bryan, [2007] 1 p.C.R. 527, numbers 16-19, 29; Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 p.C.R. 3, paragraphs 143-144). In some contexts where the scope of the Charter violation is minimal, social science evidence may not be required to justify section 1 (B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2017] 1 p.C.R.
۹۳). Chief Justice McLachlin ruled that the Legislative Assembly`s decision should be respected when passing laws that address social and political concerns. That said, the negative effects of the law did not outweigh the benefits of the objective, so the Civil Code of Quebec had to be declared unconstitutional. [97] van den Berg, B., and Leenes, R. E. (2013). “Abort, retry, fail: scoping techno-regulation and other techno-effects,” in Human Law and Computer Law: Comparative Perspectives, ed.M. .
