The Road Taken by the Supreme Court of Canada
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 8:34AM
Lisa A. Silver in Charter of Rights and Freedoms, canadian law, charter, controlled drugs and substances act, criminal law, defamatory publication, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, human rights, insite, jurisprudence, law, poetry, robert frost, ronald dworkin, safe injection site, supreme court of canada, supreme court of canada, taking rights seriously, trump, whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada, this Fall has already released a number of important judgments. The PHS Community Services Society decision on Ministerial discretion, or lack thereof, under s.56 of the CDSA for an exemption of a safe injection site in Vancouver is one such case. Another, is the Crookes v. Newton case in which the Court described a hyperlink in a website article as a reference and not a defamatory publication. 

The Court has also heard and reserved on some controversial cases such as the Whatcott case involving the constitutionality of the hate speech provisions in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Whatcott is a good example of the difficult issues found in a Charter case involving conflicting fundamental freedoms as the freedom to express competes with freedom of religion. Not unusually with these conflicts, there is rarely a clear winner. As Ronald Dworkin, an American constitutional scholar, would say, one right does not "trump" another. For our rights in Canada, although guaranteed, are limited within the Charter itself. Ever reasonable, we Canadians prefer the balanced route, the road taken so to speak.

For tomorrow's blog we will be "taking rights seriously" as I speculate on the case the SCC has not yet heard, but should, and possibly, will. 

 

Article originally appeared on law blog (http://ideablawg.squarespace.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.