Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Life of a Law Student
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Law Students
: Life of a Law StudentCanadian Constitutional Law # 26: Section 1 Analysis
By Erin
If you listen to only one Canadian Constitutional Law podcast, it should be this one. Or maybe number 5, since that had both the landmark persons case and the concept of the constitution as a living tree. Well, let’s say if you listen to only two, this should be the second.
We discuss sec 1 analysis, which is used in virtually every charter challenge once it has been established that a right exists and is being infringed. Section 1 allows the government to limit a right if they can demonstrate the limit is: prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. R v. Oakes is the early charter case that established a clear test to determine whether the section 1 criteria have meet met, and this test is still used today with very few adjustments. As I promised, I am posting a little map of how a charter challenge works from my notes to make the big picture more clear:
- Is there a violation of a right?
- Is the violation a reasonable limit under sec 1?
- The limit is prescribed by law?
- Demonstrably justified in a free/demo society?
i. Purpose is related to concerns which are pressing and substantial
ii. Means used to achieve objective are not disproportionate
1. Rational connection
2. Minimal impairment
3. Balance btwn both competing interests of society and the individual AND balance btwn the benefits of the legislation and the harm caused by it (Dagenais v CBC)
NOTE - In this podcast I originally said I would discuss both section 1 and section 33, but the latter was made into a separate podcast due to length. We will discuss the notwithstanding clause in episode 27.
Osborne v Canada (Treasury Board), (1991)
R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, (1992)
R v Oakes, (1986)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG), (1989)
Irwin Toy ltd v Quebec (AG), (1989)
Thompson Newspapers Co v Canada, (1998)
RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (1995)
R v Lucas, (1998)
Download Standard Podcast
Full post as published by Life of a Law Student on March 09, 2007 (boomark / email).
Canadian Government
allegedly used Canadian soldier as test subjects for nuclear explosion radiation exposure.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
alleging government agencies and officials violated immigrant workers' constitutional rights.
Right-of-Way
City of Hastings pays preacher $1 settlement and $10,000 in legal fees for constitutional right violations.
Cowboy Hat
Lincoln County pays citizen $10,500 settlement for Constitutional Rights violations.
Canadian Government
seeks new law enabling them to search your laptop

An Historical and Constitutional Analysis of Why Section 501(C)(3) Does not Apply to Churches
Chopping Down the "Living Tree" -- Or at Least Trimming it a Little
Analysis of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Call for Papers: Constitutional Law in Crisis
Why Constitutional "Law" Should Not Be Taught in Law Schools
Constitutional Scholar Gérald Beaudoin Passes Away









