ppt presentation for this document

Ontario ( public safety and security ) v. criminal lawers' association, [2010] 1 SCR 815, 2010 SCC 23 (CanLII)

The identified legislation related to the case is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Police Services Act, and the Law Society Act. In the 2010 case Ontario (public safety and security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association, [2010] 1 SCR 815, 2010 SCC 23, the Ontario government has the right to bar some criminal defense attorneys from using police databases (CanLII). The court determined that the suspension of this access was appropriate in light of the safety concerns raised by the Ontario government regarding the access of some criminal defense attorneys to personal information from police databases.

The legal question in the case is whether the Ontario government had the authority to suspend the ability of certain criminal defense lawyers to access personal information from police databases. The court answered this question in the affirmative, finding that the government had the power to suspend access in the interest of public safety and security. The court concluded that the access ban was a legitimate restriction on the right to free speech, as well as the right to a complete trial and defense. The court concluded that the right to freedom of expression was not unalienable and might occasionally be subject to reasonable restrictions. In this instance, the court determined that the restriction was reasonable in light of the potential harm to the Ontario government and required to safeguard public safety and security.

The court reasoned that the suspension of access was justified in light of the serious safety concerns that the Ontario government had raised. The court also found that the suspension of access was a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression and the right to full answer and defense. The court also determined that the right to a complete explanation and defense was not absolute and might be legitimately limited in some situations. The limitation in this case, according to the court, was proportionate to the harm that the Ontario government believed it would do and was required to safeguard public safety and security. The limitation was also deemed to be in accordance with the fundamental justice principles, according to the court. The court stated that the restriction was supported by facts, was required to safeguard public safety, and was the least invasive action possible to accomplish these purposes.

The court's willingness to support the government's ability to impose reasonable restrictions on individual Charter rights in the interest of public safety and security is demonstrated by the court's decision in this case, which is consistent with earlier cases. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the government has the right to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for specific offenses in the interest of public safety and security in the case of R. v. D.B., [2008] 2 SCR 3, 2008 SCC 25 (CanLII). There were no separate opinions.

The decision fits in with other cases in that it demonstrates the court's willingness to uphold the government's right to impose reasonable limits on the Charter rights of individuals in the interest of public safety and security.

Recommendations include: Ensure that any limits placed on rights are reasonable and necessary to protect public safety and security. Ensure that any decision to suspend access to information is based on evidence and is necessary to protect public safety and security. Ensure that any limit placed on rights is consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. Consider the implications of suspending access to information on individuals' rights.

In conclusion, the case of Ontario (public safety and security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association, [2010] 1 SCR 815, 2010 SCC 23 (CanLII) serves as an illustration of the court's willingness to uphold the government's right to impose reasonable restrictions on individual Charter rights in the interest of public safety and security. Any restrictions on rights must be reasonable and essential to preserve the public's safety and security, and any decision to restrict access to information must be supported by facts and be required to do so. The effects of restricting access to information on people's rights must also be taken into account.

Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Chambre des notaires du Quebec, [2016] 1 SCR 336, 2016 SCC 20 (CanLII)

The identified legislation related to the case is the Quebec Civil Code, the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The identified legislation related to the case is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act, 1982. This case is a constitutional challenge to the Professional Code, RSQ c C-26, as amended in 2014 by the Quebec National Assembly. It is brought by the Attorney General of Canada and alleges that the provisions of the Code that restrict the right to practice notarial law to members of the Chambre des notaires du Quebec (the "Chamber") violates s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of expression.

The legal question in the case is whether the Chambre des notaires du Qubec's exclusive right to provide notarial services is constitutionally valid, and if so, whether the restrictions imposed on the right to practice notarial services is consistent with the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"). The Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") answered this question in the affirmative. The court held that the Professional Code provisions, which limit the right to practice notarial law to members of the Chamber, violate s. 2(b) of the Charter because they deny Canadians the right to express themselves in a professional capacity.

The SCC reasoned that the Chambre des notaires du Qubec's exclusive right to provide notarial services is constitutionally valid and that the restrictions imposed on the right to practice notarial services is consistent with the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Charter. The SCC held that the right to freedom of expression in the Charter does not encompass the right to engage in a specific profession or trade. The SCC noted that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and may be restricted if the restriction is reasonable and proportional to the objectives it seeks to achieve. The SCC found that the restrictions imposed by the Chambre des notaires du Qubec were reasonable and proportional to the objectives it sought to achieve, which were to protect the public interest and ensure the quality of notarial services. The SCC held that in order to protect the public interest, it was necessary for the Chambre des notaires du Qubec to have exclusive control over the practice of notarial services and to impose restrictions on who can practice as a notary.The court reasoned that the right to freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy and to any meaningful participation in the political, social, and cultural life of the country. The court also reasoned that the Professional Code provisions limit the right to practice notarial law to members of the Chamber, and this restriction is not "minimally impairing" of freedom of expression. The court held that the restriction fails to meet the minimal impairment test because it does not allow for any meaningful access to the profession for those who are not members of the Chamber.

There were two separate opinions written by the court. Justices Abella and Karakatsanis both wrote dissenting opinions in which they argued that the Professional Code provisions do not violate s. 2(b) of the Charter.

This decision fits in with other cases in which the SCC has held that a restriction on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and proportional if it serves to protect the public interest and ensure the quality of the service or profession. For example, in the case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 SCR 295, the SCC held that a law prohibiting Sunday shopping was reasonable and proportional to the objectives of protecting the public interest and promoting morality.

Recommendations: It is recommended that individuals and organizations engaging in activities related to the practice of a profession or trade should be aware of the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Quebec, [2016] 1 SCR 336, 2016 SCC 20 (CanLII) and understand the SCC's reasoning in determining that the exclusive right of the Chambre des notaires du Qubec to provide notarial services is constitutionally valid and that the restrictions imposed on the right to practice notarial services is consistent with the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Charter. Individuals and organizations should also be aware that the SCC has held that a restriction on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and proportional if it serves to protect the public interest and ensure the quality of the service or profession. As such, it is important to consider the potential implications of any restriction on the right to freedom of expressionwhen engaging in activities related to the practice of a profession or trade.

In conclusion, the SCC in Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Quebec, [2016] 1 SCR 336, 2016 SCC 20 (CanLII) held that the exclusive right of the Chambre des notaires du Qubec to provide notarial services is constitutionally valid and that the restrictions imposed on the right to practice notarial services is consistent with the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Charter. This decision fits in with other cases in which the SCC has held that a restriction on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and proportional if it serves to protect the public interest and ensure the quality of the service or profession.