In Jesse Root’s post on case of Kanthasamy V.Canada, she gave her explanation on how Supreme Court issues decision in Kanthasamy. I would like to further discuss how the Supreme Court changes the previous understanding of the legal test for application for humanitarian and compassionate discretion.
As Jesse Root states, 17-year-old Kanthasamy ‘s application for permanent residency on Humanitarian and Compassionate was denied.
Prior to Kanthasamy, the criterion for an H&C application was based on whether applicants would suffer “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship” and the court will also take into account of the best interests of a child directly affected. The visa officer should analyze the factors such as the person’s establishment in Canada, their family ties to Canada, the best interests of any children involved, and what could happen to the applicants if their H&C applications are not
…show more content…
Instead, officers are to analyze applications holistically to simply determine whether there are sufficient H&C considerations to warrant approval. When viewed in context, the officer concluded that Kanthasamy had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his statements that he would be personally discriminated against simply reiterated the wording of his submissions. Further, the officer concluded on Kanthasamy’s best interests as a child were also reasonable. It was highly relevant that Kanthasamy was only one day away from turning 18 when he initially applied for H&C relief. Kanthasamy was a teenager on the verge of adulthood. Lastly, the officer concluded that removal to Sri Lanka would not impair Kanthasamy best interests, because he would be returning to his immediate family rather than being separated from
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries.
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature. To insert this so inspired clause into an intended sanctuary from capricious legislative acts appears tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. Conceivably the same legislative majority that would create the laws abridging rights could exem...
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
celebration among the First Nations an the Pacific Coast) for they believe it was a corrupt
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Is it possible for a six-year-old boy to successfully seek asylum in the United Sates against his father’s wishes? This is the main point of exploration in the April 21, 2000 article (off the wire) that appeared in The Plain Dealer. The article relates, “to be granted asylum, people must show that they were persecuted or had a legitimate fear of persecution in their home country because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinions.” According to the article, the case has not reached a decision because of the debate over whether Elian Gonzalez has the right to seek asylum. For the time being, he is allowed to remain with his Miami relatives until the matter is resolved. There may be several levels of appeals and years of debate if the case is sent to an asylum hearing.
Imagine that you are a suspect of murder in 1892. You have no solid evidence that you are innocent, but there is no evidence that you're guilty either. No matter how much you argue, you are sentenced to a public hanging even though you didn't commit the crime. This is one example the Criminal Code of Canada would have sentenced you to if they suspected that you committed manslaughter. The Criminal Code of Canada is a book of laws that was developed in 1892. It determines sentences for certain crimes and thankfully, it has been revised numerous times. It is a big part of the Canadian justice system. The system is fair-minded now since the death sentence is forbidden, sentences are equal for both sexes, and children are persecuted differently from adults.
The Indian Act was an attempt by the Canadian government to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society through means such as Enfranchisement, the creation of elective band councils, the banning of aboriginals seeking legal help, and through the process of providing the Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs extreme control over the aboriginals, such as allowing the Superintendent to decide who receives certain benefits, during the earlier stages of the Canadian-Indigenous' political interaction. The failure of the Indian Act though only led to more confusion regarding the interaction of Canada and the aboriginals, giving birth to the failed White Paper and the unconstitutional Bill C-31, and the conflict still is left unresolved until this day.
The criminal case of R v. Smith (Edward Dewey) had a significant impact on Canadian law for narcotics punishments, as well as redefined the concept of crueal and unusual punishment. Throughout the course of this case, the base concept of cruel and unusual punishment was re-defined and put into effect. Since cruel and unusual punishment is a changing concept as time goes on, the redefinition of it was entirely necessary. As for the Canadian citizens that this has affected, many non-violent people who are affiliated with drug trafficking, either voluntary or non-voluntary, will have reasonable punishments instead of grossly disproportionate ones. The case of R v Smith in 1987 had a meaningful influence on Canadian law pertaining to narcotics
In order to satisfy Sch 3 Criteria, the applicant submitted “compelling reasons” to the Case Officer DIBP as well as to the Tribunal in order to meet the relevant criteria 3001. The reasons put forwarded by the applicant were:
The Bank of Canada decided to maintain its overnight rate target at 0.5%. This means the bank rate is 0.75% and the deposit rate is 0.25%. The bank rate is the highest interest rate for a one-day loan and it is calculated by the overnight interest rate plus 25 basis points. With the overnight interest rate is 0.5%, the bank rate is 0.5% + 0.25% which is 0.75%. On the contrary, the deposit rate is the lowest interest rate for a one-day loan and it is determined by the overnight interest rate minus 25 basis points. Consequently, the deposit rate is 0.5% - 0.25% which is 0.25%.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
n 1991, the claimant and her husband migrated from Pakistan to Germany where her husband’s application for asylum was approved, however her application was denied by the authorities. In 1994, a temporary residence permit was granted to her as a refugee’s spouse and in 1995 her son was born. In 1998 Mrs. Khan separated from her husband and in 2001 received a permanent residence permit. In 2004, she became unemployed as a result of psychological issues and in that year murdered a neighbor. The Gießen Regional Court ruled that Mrs. Khan committed manslaughter in a state of severe mental disorder and came to the conclusion that she continued to be a danger for the general public. Subsequently, a legal guardian was assigned to her and she was required to stay in a psychiatric hospital. Mrs. Khan’s expulsion was ordered by the administrative power on account of being a danger to public safety. Other reasons were that she was not well integrated in Germany, that she merely was in