Abortion used to be illegal under s. 251 CC (section 251 of the Criminal Code). But on January 28, 1988, Dr. Henry Morgentaler finally won his battle against the courts, arguing that s. 251 CC went against s. 7 C (section 7 of the Charter). The court finally decided that s. 251 CC was invalid and of no cause and effect.
Here is another example:A BC law stated that you had to be a Canadian citizen to practice law in BC (s. 42 Barristers and Solicitors Act). Andrews, a British subject who resided permanently in BC, had fulfilled all the requirements to be a lawyer, except for the citizenship. He fought this, saying that s. 42 BaSA violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He was dismissed, but the he appealed and won. The Law Society then appealed, saying that s. 42 BaSA was valid, justified by s. 1 C. Their appeal was dismissed, because s. 42 BaSA was not justified by s. 1 C.
In 1995, a section of the Tobacco Control Act was struck down, as it prohibited the promotion of cigarettes. It was not justifiable under s. 1 C to deny the tobacco companies rights to advertise, because even though cigarettes are seen as "bad, wrong, disgusting, etc.," and that the government should try and rid the country of them, they make a heck of a lot of money off the sales of tobacco. It's basically like saying that no one should be able to buy cookies, while you hand is in the cookie jar.The Charter has also struck down s. 181 CC (spreading false news) as unconstitutional because anyone with different opinions could say that someone else is spreading "false news." People have the freedom to express their beliefs and opinions.There are two cases dealing with religion. The first one is the "Lord's Day" (Sunday). No one was allowed to work on that day because it was religious. It was actually the law and Big M Drug Mark Ltd. was charged with violating s. 4 of the Lord's Day Act. They argued and said that s. 4 LDA was unconstitutional as it violated their s. 2(a) C right to freedom of religion. Also, it was not part of the federal government's jurisdiction over criminal law. Both arguments were accepted and s. 4 LDA was of no force or effect. But it isn't done yet. The Attorney General of Alberta (as this took place in Alberta)appealed the acquittal to the Court of Appeal. The CoA rejected the argument that the LDA was not part of the federal government's jurisdiction, but did agree with the s. 2(a) C violation. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was found that s. 4 LDA violates s. 2(a) C and was not a justifiable limit under s. 1 C.A man was accused of robbery, but invoked his right to say nothing, after speaking with a lawyer. The police then tricked him into confessing to an undercover officer, acting like a fellow suspect (for another crime). The accused implicated himself by making several statements. This was the only evidence the police had and it was sufficient enough to arrest him. However, under s. 7 C, you have a right to silence. Being fooled into confessing after explicitly stating that you were invoking your rights is a violation of that right. Therefore, what he said was inadmissable.
