Essential Legal Concepts and Landmark Canadian Cases
Understanding Key Legal Terms and Concepts
Criminal Law Terms
- Charge Approval:
- Formal process where a prosecutor reviews evidence to decide whether to proceed with charges. Example: The Crown reviews police reports before approving theft charges.
- Conviction:
- A court’s formal declaration that someone is guilty. Example: The defendant was convicted of impaired driving after trial.
- Duress:
- A defense claiming a crime was committed due to threats of immediate harm. Example: Stealing a car under threat of violence.
- Hybrid Offenses:
- Crimes prosecuted summarily or by indictment, depending on circumstances. Example: Assault can be tried summarily or by indictment.
- Mistake of Fact:
- A defense claiming an honest, reasonable belief in a fact that would make an act innocent. Example: Taking the wrong umbrella, believing it was yours.
- Objective Intention:
- What a reasonable person would infer about an accused’s intention from their actions. Example: Firing into a crowd shows an intention to harm.
- Subjective Intention:
- An accused’s actual mental state or purpose when committing an offense. Example: Planning to harm someone specifically.
- Sentencing:
- A judicial decision on punishment for a convicted offender. Example: The judge sentenced the offender to two years for robbery.
- Strict and Absolute Liability Offenses:
- Offenses requiring no proof of intent; absolute liability allows no defense; strict liability allows defenses like due diligence. Example: Traffic violations are strict liability offenses.
- Summary Conviction Offenses:
- Less serious offenses tried without a jury, usually with lighter penalties. Example: Public intoxication is a summary conviction offense.
Family and Common Law Relations
- Common Law Relations:
- Partners living together in a marriage-like relationship without formal marriage. Example: A couple living together for 5 years without marrying is considered common law partners.
- Spousal Support:
- Financial support paid post-separation or divorce. Example: A husband pays his ex-wife spousal support for living expenses.
Tort Law Terms
- Balance of Probabilities:
- The civil standard of proof, meaning more likely than not. Example: The plaintiff must prove the defendant probably caused harm.
- Compensatory Damages:
- Money awarded to compensate for actual loss or injury. Example: Medical bill payments after an accident.
- Contributory Negligence:
- When a plaintiff is partly responsible for their own harm, reducing damages. Example: A jaywalking pedestrian hit by a car.
- General Damages:
- Compensation for non-monetary losses, such as pain and suffering. Example: An emotional distress award after an injury.
- Intentional Tort:
- A civil wrong committed deliberately. Example: Assault.
- Liability:
- Legal responsibility for actions or omissions. Example: A business is liable for product injuries.
- Negligence:
- Failure to take reasonable care, causing injury or damage. Example: A store failing to clean a spill, causing a slip.
- Plaintiff:
- A person bringing a lawsuit in a civil case. Example: An injured party suing for damages.
- Punitive Damages:
- Money awarded to punish a defendant and deter wrongdoing. Example: Large damages for malicious conduct.
- Reasonable Person:
- The legal standard for how an average person would act responsibly. Example: Whether a driver acted reasonably to avoid an accident.
- Social Host Liability:
- Hosts are responsible for harm caused by intoxicated guests. Example: A homeowner is liable if a minor causes an accident after being served alcohol.
- Tort:
- A civil wrong causing harm or loss. Example: Trespass and negligence.
- Trespass Tort:
- Unauthorized entry onto another’s property. Example: Entering a fenced yard without permission.
- Vicarious Liability:
- Holding one liable for another’s actions, e.g., an employer for an employee. Example: A company is liable if an employee causes an accident at work.
Legal System and Procedure
- Adversarial System:
- A legal system with opposing parties presenting cases to an impartial judge or jury. Example: Canadian criminal trials.
- Burden of Proof:
- The obligation to prove allegations in court. Example: The Crown’s burden in a criminal trial.
- Conflict Resolution:
- Methods to resolve disputes outside or inside court. Example: Mediation.
- Defendant:
- A person accused in a criminal or civil case. Example: A person charged with theft.
- Federal Court of Canada:
- A court handling federal matters, such as immigration and intellectual property (IP). Example: Appeals on federal tax issues.
- Indictable Offenses:
- Serious crimes proceeding by indictment, with harsher penalties. Example: Murder.
- Injunction:
- A court order requiring someone to do or stop doing something. Example: A court orders a company to stop illegal waste dumping.
- Inquisitorial System:
- A system where a judge actively investigates facts (used in some countries). Example: Unlike the Canadian adversarial system.
- Peremptory Challenges:
- Lawyers’ right to dismiss potential jurors without reason. Example: The defense removes biased jurors.
- Provincial Court:
- Handles most criminal, family, and small claims cases in provinces. Example: Traffic violations are tried here.
- Restorative Justice:
- A system focusing on repairing harm caused by crime. Example: Victim-offender mediation.
- Standard of Proof:
- The level of certainty required to prove a case. Example: Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
- Star Chamber:
- A historical English court known for secretive, unfair procedures. Example: A symbol of injustice.
- Superior Courts of the Province:
- Courts with broad jurisdiction over serious civil and criminal cases. Example: A serious criminal trial is held here.
Constitutional Law
- Amending Formula:
- The process for changing the Canadian Constitution. Example: Charter changes require approval by Parliament and provinces.
- Bicameral Parliament:
- A legislature with two chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. Example: Canada’s federal Parliament.
- British North America Act, 1867:
- The original Constitution Act creating Canada’s federal structure. Example: Divided federal and provincial powers.
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
- Constitutionally protects fundamental rights and freedoms. Example: Freedom of expression is guaranteed.
- Charlottetown Accord:
- A failed 1992 proposal for greater provincial powers. Example: Rejected in a referendum.
- Constitution Act, 1982:
- Patriated Canada’s Constitution, including the Charter. Example: Made Canada fully sovereign.
- Constitutional Law:
- Law governing government structure and powers. Example: Charter interpretation cases.
- Intra Vires:
- Acting within legal power or authority. Example: Provincial education law.
- Limitations Clause:
- A Charter part allowing reasonable limits on rights. Example: Limits on hate speech.
- Meech Lake Accord:
- A failed constitutional amendment in the late 1980s. Example: Tried to recognize Quebec as a “distinct society.”
- Notwithstanding Clause:
- Section 33 allowing temporary government override of rights. Example: A province maintains a law despite a Charter challenge.
- Oakes Case:
- A Supreme Court case setting the test for justifying Charter limits. Example: Determines the reasonableness of a law’s limits.
- Parliamentary Supremacy:
- Parliament’s highest lawmaking authority. Example: Parliament can override provincial laws.
- Patriation:
- The process bringing Canada’s Constitution under Canadian control. Example: Done in the 1982 Constitution Act.
- Sections 91 and 92, BNA Act:
- Sections outlining federal (91) and provincial (92) powers. Example: Provinces control property law (section 92).
- Ultra Vires:
- Acting beyond legal power or authority. Example: A municipality enacting a law outside its jurisdiction.
Statutory Interpretation
- Ambiguous Term:
- A word or phrase with more than one meaning. Example: “Vehicle” could include bicycles or not.
- Binding:
- A legal decision lower courts must follow. Example: Supreme Court rulings are binding on all Canadian courts.
- Canons of Construction:
- Established rules for interpreting statutes. Example: Interpret laws by their plain meaning.
- Case Law:
- Law developed by judges’ decisions. Example: Precedents set in court rulings.
- Common Law:
- Law from judicial decisions rather than statutes. Example: Contract law principles.
- Golden Rule:
- An interpretation rule to avoid absurd results. Example: Modify literal meaning to prevent injustice.
- Judgment:
- A court’s decision resolving a dispute. Example: The judge dismissed the lawsuit.
- Literal Meaning Rule:
- Interpret words in their ordinary dictionary sense. Example: “Vehicle” means any mode of transport.
- Persuasive:
- Legal arguments influencing but not binding on courts. Example: US cases as persuasive authority.
- Plain Meaning Rule:
- Interprets statutes by their ordinary meaning. Example: “Day” means 24 hours.
- Precedent:
- A prior decision guiding future similar cases. Example: Courts follow precedent in negligence rulings.
- Rule in Heydon’s Case:
- Interpretation considering the old law, the mischief, and the remedy. Example: Clarifies ambiguous law.
- Statutory Interpretation:
- Courts’ process of determining law meaning. Example: Applying a new traffic law.
Historical & Other Legal Terms
- Constitution Act of 1791:
- Divided Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada. Example: An early Canadian constitutional document.
- Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
- Federal drug regulation law. Example: Penalties for cocaine possession.
- Custom:
- Established practices treated as law. Example: Indigenous customs recognized legally.
- Domestic Law:
- Law governing a country’s internal affairs. Example: Criminal law.
- Feudalism:
- A historical land-based social system. Example: Early English legal influence.
- Hansard:
- Official parliamentary debate transcripts. Example: Used to interpret legislation intent.
- Headnote:
- A summary at the start of a court decision. Example: Outlines legal issues.
- International Law:
- Governs relations between nations. Example: Treaties.
- Keywords:
- Important words identifying legal issues. Example: “Negligence.”
- Magna Carta:
- A 1215 document limiting a monarch’s power, a foundation of constitutional law. Example: Influenced Canadian law.
- Mens Rea:
- The mental or guilty mind element in a crime. Example: Intentional theft.
- Party:
- A person involved in a legal proceeding. Example: Plaintiff or defendant.
- Plaintiff:
- A person initiating a civil lawsuit. Example: Suing for damages.
- Pluralist Legal Framework:
- A system recognizing multiple law sources. Example: Canada’s common law and Indigenous laws.
- Private Law:
- Governs relationships between individuals. Example: Contract law.
- Procedural Law:
- Rules for enforcing rights. Example: Lawsuit filing procedures.
- Public Law:
- Governs the state and its citizens. Example: Criminal law.
- Quebec Act:
- A 1774 act allowing French civil law in Quebec. Example: Quebec’s civil law tradition.
- Royal Proclamation of 1763:
- A British decree regulating Indigenous lands. Example: Basis for Indigenous claims.
- Style of Cause:
- A formal legal case title. Example: R v Smith.
- Substantive Law:
- Defines rights and duties. Example: Criminal offenses.
Legal Theories & Perspectives
- Anarchist Perspective on Law:
- The view that law is unnecessary or oppressive. Example: Rejecting state authority.
- Colonial Perspective of Law:
- Law as a tool of colonial control. Example: Laws imposed on Indigenous peoples.
- Dialectical Materialism:
- Marxist theory of social change via class conflict. Example: Law reflects economic power.
- Feminist Theory of Law:
- Examines law’s role in gender inequality. Example: Critique of family law bias.
- Indigenous Perspective of Law:
- Indigenous legal traditions and worldview. Example: Restorative justice.
- Injustice:
- Absence of fairness or justice. Example: Unequal treatment under law.
Expanded Defenses & Application Tips
Self-Defense (s.34 Criminal Code)
Force is justified if assaulted or reasonably believes assault is imminent; response must be reasonable. Apply: The accused reacted to a threat, protecting self, others, or property. Red flags: Disproportionate force, accused started the fight, time to escape. Answer: Identify the threat, response force, and apply the proportionality test.
Necessity (Common Law)
Offense committed to prevent immediate danger with no legal alternative. Apply: Immediate serious threat, no alternatives, harm caused less than harm avoided. Red flags: Danger not imminent, other options existed, serious crimes are rarely justified. Answer: Describe the danger, options available, and compare the harms.
Duress (s.17 Criminal Code + Common Law)
Crime committed due to threat of death or serious harm with no safe escape. Apply: Forced by a threat, believed harm was imminent. Red flags: Threat not immediate or serious, safe escape possible, certain crimes excluded (e.g., murder). Answer: Identify the threat, timing, and escape possibilities.
Extreme Intoxication (Post-R v. Brown 2022)
Acquittal if intoxication caused an involuntary, automatism-like state. Apply: Drugs or alcohol led to a dissociative state, and medical evidence supports involuntary action. Red flags: Mere drunkenness is not enough, violent crimes are treated cautiously, and one must prove loss of control. Answer: Was the intoxication extreme? Is there medical proof? Was it foreseeable?
Standard of Proof
The Crown must prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; the accused must prove defenses on a balance of probabilities. Apply: Conflicting evidence, unclear facts, and witness credibility. Red flags: Confusing “reasonable doubt” with “no doubt,” or using speculation. Answer: Assess evidence sufficiency, doubt based on facts, and the defense’s role.
Right to Timely Trial (Charter s.11(b) & R v. Jordan)
Trial within 18 months (provincial court) or 30 months (superior court/preliminary inquiry). Apply: Delays beyond the ceiling, the defense did not cause the delay, and the Crown lacks exceptional justification. Red flags: Defense-caused delays are excluded, complexity may justify longer periods, and the accused must raise the issue. Answer: Calculate the delay length, who caused it, and any exceptional circumstances.
Landmark Canadian Legal Cases
Tort Law Cases
Miller v Jackson
Residents sued a cricket club for nuisance. The court prioritized public interest over private inconvenience; injunction denied, damages awarded.
Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse
Police officers were sued for failing to cooperate in an investigation. Established misfeasance in public office as a tort.
Donoghue v Stevenson
A woman fell ill from a snail in ginger beer. Established modern negligence and the “neighbour principle.”
More v Bauer Nike Hockey Inc
Injury from sports gear. The court ruled the manufacturer not liable due to assumed risk in contact sports.
Crocker v Sundance
An intoxicated man was injured in a tubing contest. The resort owed a duty of care; the waiver was unenforceable. Intoxicated participants require higher caution.
Bazley v Curry
An employer was vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an employee. Test: Was the wrongful act closely tied to employment?
John Doe v Bennett
A church was held liable for a priest’s abuse. Reinforced institutional vicarious liability in power-trust contexts.
Childs v Desormeaux
Hosts were not liable when a drunk guest caused harm unless they created the risk. Clarified limits of social host liability.
Jones v Tsige
A bank worker snooped on an ex’s finances. Recognized a new privacy tort: intrusion upon seclusion.
Caplan v Atas
Cyberbullying led to the tort of false light publicity. Extended protection for online reputational harm.
Huang v Fraser Hillary’s Ltd
Ongoing pollution from a dry cleaner was upheld as a continuing nuisance. Long-term tort liability for environmental harm.
Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto
Indigenous nations sued for river damage. Tort claims were allowed without Crown title; a key case in Indigenous environmental rights.
McIntosh v Bell
A maritime collision reaffirmed negligence principles, such as foreseeability and duty in maritime law.
Criminal & Constitutional Law Cases
R v Southam Inc
A search of media offices violated Section 8. Charter privacy protections apply to corporations.
R v Quesnel
Improperly obtained evidence is admissible if it doesn’t harm trial fairness. Flexible exclusion approach.
R v Lefebvre
Stricter view of criminal negligence. Clarified the mental fault required for conviction.
R v Chouhan
Removal of peremptory jury challenges upheld. Not a Charter violation.
R v Jordan
Trial delay limits set: 18 months (provincial), 30 months (superior). Charter s. 11(b) enforced.
R v Gladue
Sentencing must consider Indigenous backgrounds. Established Gladue principles promoting restorative justice.
R v Askov
Charges stayed due to unreasonable trial delay. Reinforced s. 11(b) right to timely justice.
R v Barton
Mistrial due to lack of proper jury instruction on consent and Indigenous stereotypes. Reaffirmed informed, voluntary consent.
R v Bissonnette
Consecutive parole ineligibility for mass murder ruled unconstitutional. Human dignity applies even to serious offenders.
R v Butler
Obscenity laws upheld as valid limits on expression if material harms society. Community standards matter.
R v Sault Ste Marie
Created strict liability: The Crown proves the act; the accused may show due diligence. Middle ground offense category.
R v Cooper
Mental illness doesn’t always remove intent. Automatism must truly negate capacity to form intent.
R v Drybones
A law punishing Indigenous people for off-reserve intoxication was found discriminatory. Early human rights win.
R v Ewanchuk
“Implied consent” rejected in sexual assault. Consent must be explicit and ongoing.
R v Ferguson
Mandatory minimums cannot be avoided through case-by-case exemptions. Unconstitutional laws must be struck down.
R v Grant
Framework for excluding evidence obtained via Charter violations. Focus on fairness and justice system integrity.
R v Greffe
A stomach search without proper procedure was excluded as a Charter breach. Highly invasive searches need justification.
R v Hauser
Drug laws are federal criminal law, not provincial. Clarified criminal law powers under the Constitution.
R v Hebert
An undercover officer obtained statements while the accused lacked counsel. Violated the right to silence.
R v Hutchinson
Sabotaged condoms invalidated consent. Consent includes the method of sexual activity.
R v Ipeelee
Gladue principles must be seriously applied—even for serious crimes. Colonialism impacts sentencing.
R v Johnston and Tremayne
Likely involved youth justice or joint liability. Reinforces co-accused principles.
R v Kapp
An Indigenous-only fishing license was upheld. Affirmative action allowed under Charter s. 15(2).
R v Lacasse
A severe sentence for drunk driving was upheld. Emphasized deterrence in dangerous driving cases.
R v Lavallee
Self-defense was validated via battered woman syndrome. Psychological context matters in perceived threat.
R v Lloyd
A minimum sentence for drug possession was struck down. Sentences must fit the individual case.
R v Luxton
A mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder was upheld. Exceptionally severe crimes justify harsh punishment.
R v Morgentaler
Abortion law was struck for violating security of the person. Landmark case in reproductive rights.
R v Morin
Delay was found excessive, but the standard was more lenient pre-Jordan. Built toward Jordan timelines.
R v Morris
The trial judge failed to apply Gladue factors properly. Reinforces systemic racism must be weighed in sentencing.
R v Myers
Detained persons must have bail reviewed regularly. Protects against excessive pre-trial detention.
R v Oakes
Reverse onus for drug possession was unconstitutional. Created the Oakes test for justifying Charter limits.
R v Olson
Confirmed even notorious criminals deserve a fair trial and rights. Media scrutiny doesn’t eliminate protections.
R v Peters
A judge factored colonial history into sentencing. Modern application of Ipeelee.
R v Scott
Entrapment was found where police pushed crime. Police can’t induce illegal behavior unfairly.
R v Smith
A 7-year minimum for drug importation was struck as cruel punishment. Harsh penalties must be proportionate.
R v Stinchcombe
The Crown must disclose all relevant evidence. Ensures a fair trial and prevents trial by ambush.
R v Wagar
A judge’s sexist comments in a sexual assault trial led to concerns about judicial bias. Fair trial requires impartiality.