Case 1: Harris v. Cooper
Introduction
This historic case concerned the property rights of the son of a man who was married while he was a slave in the United States. The marriage was solemnized by the traditional rites and had all the characteristics of a "legal" union, according to the jus gentium, except for one thing—under the laws of slavery in the United States the couple could not obtain a marriage licence. The court ruled that even though the institution of slavery violated all principles of natural law, a marriage undertaken in a state that did not recognize the marriage could not give rise to legitimate heirs recognized by British law.

Case 2: R. v. Oakes
Introduction
When is it permissible to limit a person's Charter rights? Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the charter) states that these rights are guaranteed "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." R. v. Oakes is one of two landmark cases (see also R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.) that tackled the question of when a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified. In the end, it came down to "a form of proportionality test" that requires the courts to balance the interests of society and those of individuals and groups.

Case 3: R. v. Latimer
Introduction
The extraordinary history of the case of R. v. Latimer has been well documented in both the courts and the press. Throughout the trial, questions arose about several important issues, including the competence of the judge, the use of the defence of necessity, jury nullification, i.e., the right of the jury to refuse to impose the law, and whether, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed could be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Could the case of young Tracy Latimer set a dangerous precedent that would endanger the rights, and lives, of all disabled people?

Case 4: Halpern v. Canada
Introduction
Is a gay person less capable or worthy of recognition as a human being or member of Canadian society? If the answer to this question were "no," then the existing common-law definition of marriage in 2003—restricted to the union of one man and one woman—would have to be considered invalid. This was one of the rulings in this case, one of a series that challenged the legal definition of marriage and opened the door to same-sex marriage in Ontario. The case represents a classic confrontation between modern notions of equality rights and traditional values implicating freedom of religion.

Case 1: Sparrow v. The Queen
Introduction
In this case, although the defendant Mr. Sparrow, of the Musqueam Band in British Columbia, claimed he was only exercising his treaty right to fish for food, he was charged with breaking the rules of the band's fishing licence. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognized and affirmed "existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada." Though a number of legal issues are involved in this case, it was the first in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to interpret Section 35—specifically, whether regulations governing the rights of non-Aboriginal people to fish for food "extinguished" or merely controlled a constitutionally guaranteed right of Aboriginal Canadians.

Case 2: R. v. Sauls
Introduction
The Aboriginal people involved in this case claimed to be acting with colour of right-a legal defence that means that a person's actions were not criminal because they were the result of an honest but mistaken belief. Mark Sauls and his fellow band members claimed they acted in the belief that the site on which a golf course was being built was on Aboriginal land, and that this justified their actions. Mr. Sauls also argued that, in any event, he was subject only to natural law, not the laws of Canada. Based on their testimony at trial, were the defendants' acts justified? Did they act under an honest but mistaken belief, with colour of right?

Case 3: R. v. Fleury
Introduction
If there is proven, widespread prejudice against the race of a defendant within his or her community, can a defence lawyer question potential jurors for the purpose of challenges for cause? Challenges for cause allow lawyers to argue that certain individuals should be disqualified from serving on a jury for a specific reason, usually because of a bias that could impair their ability to judge a defendant fairly. In this case, the defence contended that the widespread racism against Aboriginal people that existed in Saskatchewan justified questioning jurors about any possible racial prejudices before accepting them onto the jury for this trial. Was this a correct statement of the law? Did such widespread racism exist? If so, what questions could the defence ask?

Case 1: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union (B.C.G.S.E.U.)
Introduction
This case explores questions related to when and how employment requirements become discriminatory. If an employee is performing her job satisfactorily, but the employer introduces new standards for qualification that she cannot meet because of her sex, is the qualification discriminatory? Tawney Meiorin, a firefighter in British Columbia, was laid off because she could not meet what was, on its face, a neutral standard for physical fitness for her job. According to an arbitrator this constituted adverse-effect discrimination under the British Columbia Human Rights Code. Was the fitness test in question a bona fide occupational requirement? To what extent was the employer required to accommodate the personal characteristics of the employee?

Case 2: Kalbfleisch v. 1321257 Ontario Ltd. and Ruel Carillo
Introduction
Jodi Kalbfleisch filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission because she felt she had been discriminated against on the basis of her disability-she had epilepsy. Though Jodi had assured her employer that her disease would not interfere with her performance, two weeks into her employment she suffered a seizure at her workplace. Soon after this, her employer told her not to return to work. Jodi had performed the duties of her job satisfactorily, and Mr. Carillo, her boss, had shown no reservations about keeping her on. Yet Mr. Carillo obviously held stereotypical views about the nature of Jodi's condition. He had fired her because he was afraid he would lose customers, and money, should Jodi have another seizure on the job. Were his actions justified, or discriminatory? If they were discriminatory, what remedies were appropriate?

Case 3: R. v. Sharpe
Introduction
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Is child pornography a form of self-expression protected by the Charter? Does prohibiting the possession of child pornography restrict rights protected under the Charter? While the offensive nature of child pornography may reduce its worth constitutionally, does it negate its value as a form of expression? If the legal prohibition against possessing child pornography does violate free expression, are there sufficient reasons for justifying the prohibition as a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter?

Case 4: R. v. M.R.M.
Introduction
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, young and old, from unreasonable search and seizure. Section 10 allows all Canadians, on arrest or detention, to obtain counsel (a lawyer). Section 24 provides that any evidence obtained under circumstances where an individual's Charter rights were violated can be excluded at trial. All these Charter rights were at issue in this case. Did the search conducted by M.R.M.'s school principal violate the student's rights and, if so, should the proceeds of that search be used against him in court?

Case 5: R. v. M. (B.)
Introduction
At the centre of this case is the question of the defendant B.M.'s right to be tried within a reasonable time. This issue brings into play other Charter rights and related legal questions, including whether the Crown gave proper disclosure of evidence, provided a process of proper identification by witnesses, and by its actions subjected B.M. to an abuse of legal process. The charges against B.M. were eventually withdrawn, and his lawyer brought a case against the Crown for legal costs and breach of B.M.'s Charter rights. By that time, B.M. had appeared in court no less than 10 times over a period of nearly one and a half years.

Case 6: Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
Introduction
The appellant in this case against the Minister of Employment and Immigration maintained that her Section 15 rights under the Charter were being violated, that she was being discriminated against on the basis of her age. After the death of her husband, Ms Law was deemed too young to receive survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. As it stood, the survivor benefits scheme reflected the belief that younger persons are generally better able themselves to replace the lost income resulting from their spouses' deaths. After her initial appeals regarding her disentitlement were dismissed, Ms Law appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court's benchmark decision in this case established important criteria for the approach that courts could use in Section 15 cases, as well as setting out the core elements of the meaning of discrimination.

Case 7: Hall (Litigation Guardian of) v. Powers
Introduction
This case concerns an application for an interlocutory injunction. High school student Marc Hall had been told by his school principal that he would not be allowed to attend the school prom with his date. Marc was gay; his date was his boyfriend. Marc decided to bring legal proceedings against the school and the principal, alleging that he was being discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The injunction would allow Marc and his date to attend the prom while waiting for the trial that would decide whether Marc's Charter rights had been violated. The case was complicated by the Roman Catholic school board's claim that its denial of Marc's request was protected from a Charter challenge by its denominational educational rights under the Constitution Act, 1867.

Case 1: R. v. McSorley
Introduction
When does aggressive, hard-hitting hockey become criminal? When does rough play become dangerous violence? The National Hockey League game that gave rise to this case witnessed numerous fist fights and plenty of very rough play. But when one player, a known "enforcer," knocked another known "enforcer" to the ice, causing a concussion and a seizure, high-sticking became assault with a weapon.

Case 2: R. v. C.A.V.
Introduction
The defence of necessity, when used in cases involving the protection of a child, requires that the actions of the defendant be seen to have been necessary to protect the young person(s) from the danger of imminent harm. After losing custody of her children, C.A.V. abducted them and took up residence in foreign countries to protect her children from being placed into the full custody of their father. Given the actions of C.A.V., was the judge justified in allowing the jury to consider the defence of necessity in this case? Did the judge make an error of law?

Case 3: R. v. Jimmy
Introduction
When is a knife not a knife but a dangerous weapon? Is it legal to carry a knife to protect yourself? The accused, Mr. Jimmy, was charged with carrying a weapon for a purpose that was dangerous to the public peace. He carried a knife to protect himself because he felt threatened by a gang. Mr. Jimmy had not used the knife to injure anyone and the Crown had no way of knowing whether he would ever actually use the knife if confronted by an attacker. Was Mr. Jimmy guilty of anything other than being afraid?

Case 4: R. v. D.L.C.
Introduction
While on probation, D.L.C., a sixteen-year-old girl with a record of repeated offences that included breaking and entering and possession of controlled substances, was again in court for another break-in. Though she was arrested under the Young Offenders Act, D.L.C. found herself subject to the penalties provided by new legislation, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Since D.L.C. had pleaded guilty to these new charges, she could now look forward to another sentence. But how would the court, using the new act pertaining to young people charged with crimes, determine her sentence and what would it be?

Case 5: R. v. Parker
Introduction
The marijuana that Mr. Parker needed to control his severe epilepsy was not legally available to him, so he grew his own. In time, Mr. Parker was charged with both growing and possessing an illegal substance and faced a possible prison term. Though the federal government acknowledges the possible medical value of marijuana, thus allowing physicians to prescribe it under certain conditions, there is no legal way to buy the drug in Canada. The question then becomes, if a physician prescribes an illegal drug, does a person have the right to obtain this drug, through whatever means possible, in order to maintain the liberty, security of the person, and fundamental justice he or she is guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter?

Case 6: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada
Introduction
After losing in the Ontario Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal, a group of children's rights advocates took the constitutional challenge described below to the Supreme Court of Canada. The children's rights advocates believed that Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows parents, schoolteachers, and others acting like parents to use force to discipline children, violated children's rights under three sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does spanking violate the principles of fundamental justice? Is it cruel and unusual treatment? Does it violate children's equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter?

Case 7: R. v. D.S.
Introduction
How do we know when someone's actions are criminal? The simple answer is, when they have violated a section of a criminal statute, the most common being the Criminal Code. But it is not always easy to determine what the meaning of the words describing a crime, and their application, mean under certain circumstances. In legal theory, crimes are composed of two elements: actus reus—the forbidden act or acts—and mens rea—the mental element, made up of the accused's intent and knowledge concerning the forbidden act. In the following case the court had to decide whether acts of sexual intercourse that had been coerced by threats of releasing embarrassing pictures constituted a sexual assault.

Case 1: Nippa v. C.H. Lewis (Lucan) Ltd
Introduction
Protection of the environment occurs in a variety of ways under Canadian law. One of these relies on individuals who are threatened or harmed by conduct that is environmentally harmful to begin civil law suits. Such suits can result in judicial remedies that include injunctions and damages on the basis of claims concerning issues such as riparian rights, private and public nuisance, strict liability, and negligence. In the following case, an organic farmer who lived next to a landfill site sued the site's owner for nuisance due to interference with his enjoyment and use of his property.

Case 2: R. v. Toronto Electric Commissioners
Introduction
Since reliance on private individuals to take action under the common law has historically proven insufficient to deter would-be polluters from harming the environment, governments have passed environmental protection legislation that provides penalties for individuals and corporations whose actions threaten harm to the environment and human health. The following case illustrates some of the issues involved in the prosecution of a public authority for permitting the discharge of PCBs into the Great Lakes, contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Case 3: R. v. Domtar
Introduction
What should happen to those who pollute or otherwise degrade the environment, threatening the health and safety of human beings and other forms of life? Environmental protection occurs through both civil remedies that aim to compensate individual victims for their specific losses through awards of damages, and environmental protection legislation. This legislation provides prohibitions against acts that threaten the environment, orders to clean up environmental spills and the like, and penalties for those who disregard such legislation. International treaties also attempt to deter and sanction anti-environmental actions on the global stage. In the following case the court had to determine the sentence that should be imposed on a large corporation that violated the Canada Fisheries Act by depositing a harmful substance into the Welland Canal. The judge reviewed a host of relevant factors in levying penalties for environmental offences.

Case 1: Waldman v. Canada
Introduction
Most people take it for granted that elementary and secondary schooling will be free because their children attend public schools financed through the payment of taxes. Some, however, pay tuition for their children to attend non-public schools that they believe better suit their religious, philosophical, or educational needs and views. Some of these parents argue that Ontario's policy of funding only public schools and Roman Catholic separate schools is discriminatory and violates their right to religious freedom. Nevertheless, in a 1996 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ontario's system did not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2000, a Jewish parent complained to the United Nations that Canada was violating its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Case 2: Netherlands v. United States
Introduction
International law serves many purposes. One of its fundamental tasks is to provide a peaceful means of resolving territorial disputes between nations. Historically, when two nations have claimed sovereignty over the same territory, war has often resulted, as seen in the brief war that occurred between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands in 1982. Where the disputants are willing, however, such conflicts can be referred to an international court of arbitration. The effectiveness of the arbitrated resolution still relies on the goodwill of the parties involved. The following landmark case established important international jurisprudence dealing with conflicting sovereignty claims.

Case 3: Prosecutor v. Dragan Obrenovic
Introduction
Wartime atrocities comprise some of the grimmest chapters of human history. They speak to the dark side of human nature, to one human being's potential to commit unspeakable acts against another. Done variously in the name of war, country, nationality, religion, ethnicity or vengeance, such acts feed on a culture of hatred and violence. The international community has recognized the need to establish norms or conventions governing the conduct of warring nations and individuals to attempt to lessen the horrors of warfare for combatants and innocent civilians alike. From time to time, international courts and tribunals have been established to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice. One of the most recent examples is the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, established in 1993 by United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 to deal with violations of international humanitarian law during the civil war that raged in the region throughout the 1990s. The Tribunal, situated in The Hague, The Netherlands, has authority to prosecute and try serious "breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity" that occurred in the former Yugoslavia after 1991. The following case represents the sentencing of only one of scores of individuals who have been indicted by the Tribunal. Many still await trial or disposition; others remain at large.

Case 1: Vaquero Energy Ltd. v. Weir
Introduction
In a democracy, while people have the right to make comments about others, the common law has historically limited that right to statements that are true. Speaking or writing false statements, referred to as slander, libel or defamation, about another person can result in a civil lawsuit for damages to compensate for the damaged reputation suffered by the target of the defamatory remarks. The Internet has provided a new medium in which people can publish "facts" and opinions about others instantly, and anonymously, to the whole world. The following case is an example of how an historical tort remedy was applied in today's cyberworld.

Case 2: R. v. Harper
Introduction
Individuals and corporations trade trillions of shares annually in the world's stock markets. Not surprisingly, the markets require legal regulation to ensure fairness, especially when there is such uneven access to information that could severely impact market prices. Rules against insider trading are designed to ensure that people in powerful corporate positions, and those with whom they privately share their knowledge, do not exploit that knowledge at the expense of ordinary investors. Timely sales or purchases based on insider information can spell the difference between a financial windfall and ruin. Fairness and honest reporting in the markets became a prominent issue in the 1990s and beyond, as one scandal after another rocked the investment world. One of the most notorious concerns the insider trading charges brought against celebrity homemaking mogul Martha Stewart. In the context of Ontario securities regulation law, the following case deals with some of the same kinds of broad issues involved in the Martha Stewart case.

Case 3: Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers
Introduction
Do people in some occupations enjoy fewer freedoms or rights simply because of the nature of their employment or professions? Can extending such limitations beyond the place and hours of work ever be justified? In what occupations or professions? Based on what public policy rationales? Questions such as these are very important in the following case involving a British Columbia teacher whose public criticism of homosexuality landed him in trouble with the provincial College of Teachers (BCCT). He was suspended for conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.