Assignment 1 - Canadian Law - Andrea Arkell

Andrea Arkell, Student # 100146691
Canadian Law Assignment #1
GNED-1308-AA3- Canadian Law
Find a current bill that has not reached Royal Assent. Name the bill and explain what part of the
process it is currently at.
I found Bill 242, Caregiver and Homeworker Protection Act, 2020. The bill had the first reading on
December 8, 2020 and was carried. It is now going on to the Second Reading.
Using the Canlii website, find a statute under the first letter of your last name. Write out the name of
this statute and provide a brief description of it.
Automobile Insurance Act, CQLR c A-25 is the statute that I found that has the same first starting letter
as my last name Arkell. The chapter that I located, chapter A-25 deals with compensation for bodily
harm. This act covers those who were in an automobile accident and injured before January 1, 1990. The
act goes over different situation and lists out what the person would be entitled to based upon the
injuries acquired.
How many regulations are associated with the statute that you have found?
There are 39 Regulations that are associated with this statute, 18 of which are in force and the
remaining are repealed or spent.
In your own words describe a regulation, then describe a statute, and explain the difference.
Regulations are basically a general set of rules that are used to manage an act.
Statutes which are also known as Acts, are laws that are created by Parliament.
Parliament creates Acts/Statutes, then regulations are created to manage the act/statute. The Statutes
must be passed by Parliament through a process of hearings and to Royal Accent where regulations are
created and are guidelines on how the law should be applied.
Using Canlii, look up the 3 cases that follow and for each case.
a) Explain/breakdown the citations or each of these cases.

b) Summarize each of the cases in 1 paragraph.
c) Describe the outcome of each case. Be sure to report what the Supreme Court of Canada
disposition was.
1)
R. v. Oakes (1986) Court of 141 S.C.C 1 103

Appeal of
Ontario
Rex or versus defendant year Court volume Title of series or page

Regina (Latin, or decision number reporter edition number
(Latin, “against” accused was in which
King or given case is
Queen) listed
Oakes was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. Oakes was only
convicted of unlawful possession of a narcotic. There was a recent challenged to the constitution that
indicated that if an accused had possession of a narcotic and had no evidence showing it was not for
trafficking, that they had to be charged with trafficking. The Crown argues that it is violating the charter
and violation the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The conclusion to this trial was that the Ontario court of appeal was right that Section 8 of the Narcotics
Control act violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Narcotic Control Act is
inconsistent with section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and can not be in effect. In
this case the appeal was dismissed. In this case particularly the Supreme Court of Canada established
new criteria based on this case. The new criteria had to be able answer these questions – is it important
enough to override the right or freedom and is the way it is being limited reasonable?
2)
R. v. Askov (1990) Court of 45 S.C.R 2 1199

Appeal
for
Ontario

Queen) listed
The accused in this case were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion. There was a delay of almost
two years after the first hearing. They were appealing based on the Charter of Rights Section 11b and
being tried within a reasonable time frame. They appealed for a stay as they did not do anything to
hinder the trail or cause delays and argued that the delays were due to the system itself and not them
interfering with the process.
The court granted the stay of proceedings as the delays were caused by systematic / institutional causes.
The delay was unreasonable and against the appellants-chartered rights. It was a violation of their
charter rights.
3)
R. v. Kokesch (1990) Court of 55 S.C.R 3 3

Appeal
British
Columbia

Queen) listed
Kokesch was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and with cultivation
marijuana. When the police were investigating the accused house, they conducted a search without a
warrant and then the police assumed that the offences took place on the property. The police, then got
a warrant after the unwarranted search because they had gathered enough information to do so. They
seized plants and had enough information to create two charges. The charter issues that were
mentioned were section #10 Unreasonable search and seizure and section #24 – admissibility of
evidence. They also mentioned Section #1 of the Charter.
The conclusion of this case was that the charter was violated. Section 8 and Section #24 and because of
this this the appeal was allowed, and the acquittal restored. It was because of the actions that lead to
the violations of the charter that the decisions were made. They even made mention that police should
not predict the outcome of a Charter challenge and the actions should be taken very seriously as they
were not in good faith.

Assignment 1 - Canadian Law - Andrea Arkell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 1 - Canadian Law - Andrea Arkell

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 1 - Canadian Law - Andrea Arkell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the three cases discussed and what were they about?

What criteria did the Supreme Court establish in R. v. Oakes?

Andrea Arkell, Student # 100146691

Canadian Law Assignment #1

GNED-1308-AA3- Canadian Law

a) Explain/breakdown the citations or each of these cases.

R. v. Oakes (1986) Court of 141 S.C.C 1 103

Rex or versus defendant year Court volume Title of series or page

R. v. Askov (1990) Court of 45 S.C.R 2 1199

Rex or versus defendant year Court volume Title of series or page

R. v. Kokesch (1990) Court of 55 S.C.R 3 3

Rex or versus defendant year Court volume Title of series or page

You might also like