2.

2- Landmark Cases Worksheet

1. What is a landmark case?

A landmark can be defined by any of the following: ruling made by court, a sentence passed by a judge, the first time a
law is prosecuted. It’s important to note that it’s not a legal term, but is a definitive phrase used to refer to cases that
involved the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Charter, occasionally involves problems concerning the Charter and
the Criminal Code of Canada. These cases happen due to the differing Canadian social factors like changing political and
social values.

2. How would you describe the term “precedent” to someone? Use your own words.
A verdict from a case that becomes somewhat of an unspoken rule; paves the future decisions for similar cases and
allows the general public to hypothesize the final outcome of a case.

3. Why do laws change?

Laws change because people’s values change. Laws need to follow the majority’s social values.

4. What are 3 factors that contribute to people being in conflict with the law?
The three factors that contribute to people being in conflict with the law are political, social, and technological (law has
to change ever so often with technology as it affects all aspects of normal life–i.e. labour regulations).

5. What is the highest level of court in Canada?

The highest level of court in Canada is the Supreme Court.

6. Why was Delwin Vriend fired from his job?

Delwin Vriend was fired from his job (professor at a private Christan college) because he was gay.

7. Which section of the Charter did Alberta’s human rights legislation violate?
Alberta’s human rights legislation violated Vriend’s equality rights (s. 15(1)), for they refused to hear his discrimination
complaint. This is because Ralph Klein’s government willingly excluded sexuality from Alberta’s human rights legislation.
The Supreme Court found their unwillingness to protect the gays was unconstitutional.

LANDMARK CASES ORGANIZER

As you watch the videos on each Landmark Case, make notes on it in the chart below.
CASE YOUR NOTES WHAT FACTOR(S) CONTRIBUTED TO THE CHANGE?

R. v. Marshall -Marshall arrested for illegal sale of eels -contrary to Fisheries
[1993] Act
-More a test case (for Marshall to have the rights to commercial
harvesting of fish recognized)
-First time Supreme Court recognized validity of Mi’kmaq
Treaties in the Simon decision (Simon v. The Queen: possession
of a rifle + shotgun cartridges) – 1985
-Mi’kmaq wanted the trade component of the treaty to be
recognized
-Marshall charged in all lower courts
-The right to trade recognized in Supreme Court –1999
-Significant victory to the Mi’kmaq (recognition of the right to a
moderate livelihood with the resources of the land and waters)
-The treaty recognized (Treaty of 1761–2 years before Royal
Proclamation) RP was meant to apply to Indigenous nations
further west.
-Believed that Maliseet and Mi’kmaq were the targeted groups
Marshall’s arrest regarding the illegal sale of eels led to
the discovery and play of the Treaties of 1760-61, which
highlighted on their right to trade (and legalized the
trading of eels, recognized that some federal fishery
regulations implemented were infringing on their rights).
Although denied by all the lower courts, his case was then
taken to the Supreme Court, leading to the recognition
and play of said treaties in 1999. This has led to the
Mi’kmaq and Maliseet people to generating tons of profit
and allowed them to fish for more exotic/higher priced
fishery like snow crab and lobster (in collaboration with
the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans). Although, the
treaty rights are still being negotiated to this day.
 of said proclamations (heading to extinction at the time)
-Cause of this, there was the belief that formalizing new title
issues wouldn’t be useful or necessary
-The forms in which the Mi’kmaq and the Mailseet rights were
discussed with the All Chiefs forms w/ Atlantic Policy Congress of
First Nations Chiefs
-Departments of Fisheries and Oceans would negotiate with said
group for temporary fishing permits (for order as well as for
profit, which generated a lot)
-The interim fisheries agreements are still in place; lots of
communities have gained access to more lucrative fisheries
(snow crab) has led to economic benefits
-Actual treaty rights to fish are still being negotiated within Nova
Scotia under a Native process

R. v. Jordan, -Earliest recognition of speaker of the Supreme Court
2016 recognizing the culture of complacency and culture of delay
-18 months without preliminary inquiry; 30 months with
-The framework beforehand (R v. Morin) was unpredictable, and
relied on bias
-The case allowed for the importance of time, after arrest,
for a trial to be held (without preliminary
inquiry–evidentiary hearing).

Little Sisters -Little Sister’s Book and Act Emporium is a bookstore that sells -The judge that originally handled this case wasn’t lying
Book and Art erotic (self-help and instructional) books as well as sex toys to when they stated that the agency’s actions were justified,
the LGBT community for it was a freedom of their own expression that
Emporium v. -Delivery of their products often didn’t arrive, were damaged delayed/prevented the shipment of products to Little
Canada [2000] (books had pages ripped out), or were being held at the Canada Sister’s for being LGBTQ. However, it took nearly 4 years
Border Services Agency (most tof shipment from US) for anything else to happen, in which the Supreme Court
-Other bookstores who had the same orders received their then looks at the case and finally decides that it was
products; owners believe that ‘big brother’ was trying to ‘knock discriminatory, for the low-level bureaucrats shouldn’t
them down’ for being LGBTQ-related have the power to sensor what the LGBT population likes
-Little Sister’s and B.C. Civil Liberties Association filed a just because they find it ‘obscene.’
constitutional challenge against CBSA (store’s freedom of
expression of rights was being violated)
-Four years after, it is taken to the Supreme Court
-2000 – judge agrees that Little Sister’s was unjustifiably being
discriminated upon
-Before going to SC, judge justified the agency’s actions under s.
1 of the Charter, later supported by B.C. Court of Appeal
-Customs officials are now in charge with proving imports are
‘obscene’ rather than the provision that required low-level
bureaucrats to do so

EXIT TICKET:
Now that you are able to identify how a social factor can alter a human rights law, make a prediction about a factor
that will result in a change in the future. Write it below:
Due to the ever-growing sex/porn industry (with the new apps and all, i.e. Onlyfans), I believe that Bill C-36 (Prostitution
Criminal Law Reform) will be amended for it infringes upon the sex workers’ right to freedom of association. Prostitution
has lived on for as long as society existed, earning the title “the oldest profession.” The values of ancient societies, such
as Ancient Greece, actually praised this profession, for they referred to it as a sacred act. With that in mind, the Canadian
society’s path to less-conservative ideologies may result in the majority agreeing that the sale of sexual services through
commercial enterprises shouldn’t be criminalized. By doing so, it’ll allow governments a better look at the sex industry,
prevent underaged residents from being involved, lessen the hold technology has with society (ultimately becoming
more controlled), and more.