CASE STUDY: R v. CONNOR

In an effort to combat gang activity, the government has passed a law called the Youth Protection Act (YPA). The purpose of this law is to help discourage people from joining gangs, and also to make it easier for police to identify gang members. The legislation was debated for one week in the legislature before it was passed by a vote of 61-46. The law took effect immediately.

A provision of this law, s. 49, prohibits all people from wearing bandanas in schools. The penalty under the YPA is 30 days in a provincial penitentiary.

Debbie Connor, a seventeen-year old high school student, was wearing a green bandana while walking to school. The principal noticed Debbies bandana and called the police. Debbie told the police that she didnt know why she was being arrested because she wears her green bandana to raise awareness about the environment.

Debbies parents hired a lawyer to defend her against the charges laid pursuant to the YPA. Debbie is also bringing a Charter claim, arguing that the law unfairly infringes freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and should be struck down.

A number of advocacy groups have also become involved in the case. An organization known as the Defenders of the Under 20, (DU20) has been protesting the new law and argue that in addition to limiting expression, it treats young people differently than adults by only applying in schools. Another lobby group called Take Back Our Schools (TBOS) has been advocating for this legislation because they feel that combating youth participation in gangs is a crucial step toward building safer communities.

Debbie was convicted at trial and has appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal.

SECTION 1 ANALYSIS

You are a judge of the Court of Appeal. You and your colleagues have just heard this case and ruled that s. 49 of the YPA violates s. 2(b) of the Charter. You must now determine if this infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Use the organizer to record your ruling for each step in the s. 1 analysis. Provide justifications for your decisions. Once you have completed all of the steps in the s. 1 analysis, give a final judgment on whether or not the Charter infringement is justified under s. 1. For more information on section 1 read Section 1 of the Charter in your Course Content for the week.

SECTION 1 OF THE CHARTER

SECTION 1 ANALYSIS

Section 1 Analysis	Reasons
Is the infringement prescribed by law?
Is the purpose of the law pressing and substantial?
Is the law rationally connected to its purpose?
Does the law minimally impair the infringed right?
Do the positive effects of the law outweigh the negative effects of the infringement?
Is the infringement justified?