At trial level, it was found by the court that Insite was not entirely exempted from the Controlled Drug and Substance Act and also that the doctrine of Interjurisdictional immunity did not apply. Meaning that though the overlap of Health Care which is provincially controlled and the Criminal Code which is Federally Controlled, Insite was still bound by both levels of government but through the doctrine of federal paramountcy federal legislation still prevailed. In the claim of violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Section 7 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” It was found that sections 4(1) and 5(1) in the case of Insite were unconstitutional because it did not take into consideration the management of addiction and the risks accompanied. It was noted that the ministers choice to retract the exemption was unjustified and the Violations of Section 7 could not be upheld by section 1 of the Canadian Charter claiming an action of good
It was said that the marriage didn’t guarantee “the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” Also it was said that the marriage exclusion does not offend the liberty, freedom, equality, or due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. From my knowledge, I know that you can only get married to the same sex in San Francisco, California and in Canada. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the Fourteenth Amendment was on their side by stating that marriage shouldn’t be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and
Using the predominate purpose test the blood transfusion was a service performed to provide healthcare not to sell the patient blood, so, Article 2 would not apply, it would fall under common law. I don’t think there is really a right answer here because the U.C.C. doesn’t give guidance on mixed contracts and courts have come up with varying conclusions on how to tackle this issue. In Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital the court refused to impose liability for a breach of warranty because it found that the predominant purpose of the contract between the patient and the hospital was for restoring the patient’s health which is a service. The blood transfusion was considered an incidental transfer of property made while performing that service.
There have been many tests to establish the bounds of duty such as Donaghue v Stephenson to more recently the Caparo test which states that for there to be a duty of care the act or omission must be foreseeable, proximate and just, reasonable and fair. The last Caparo test has been included as a matter of public policy, the main focus on this essay is to establish whether courts have the intention of limiting liability for the defendant when establishing duty of care. Many public authorities such as doctors escape liability due to public policy for example in the case of Hill it was held that there was no liability for the police because there was no proximity, this case meant that police could receive immunity of liability based on public policy this is because according to Lord keith the process of trying to prove liability is time consuming and deters the police from completing their main job which is protecting the main public, however it can be argued that police escaping liability may lead to absurdity and injustice on behalf of the claimant, if the police are at fault then they should be made to be liable, we can conclude that courts in this case use public policy to prevent any responsibility towards the defendant, this was further supported by Elguzouli-daf v commissioner of police where no duty of care was owed by the CPS because it was too time consuming, according to Lord Bingham in this case the police should have taken reasonable steps to prevent the crime from happening since they had the necessary means to do so and failing to do so should result in liability. Another reason why the bounds of duty may be a matter of public policy may be to limit floodgates, this is because public authorities are high respected and have specialist expertise therefore the concept of fair just and reasonable limits the liability for police officers, If
In 1978, the federal government amended Canada’s Immigration Act, removing a ban on homosexuals as immigrants. In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to the Constitution. The Charter did not explicitly grant equality rights to gays and lesbians. However, in 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in Egan v. Canada, that the Charter would be interpreted in a manner that prohibited discrimination on the basis of “sexual
Canada’s socio-demographic profile increasingly requires a justice system that is blind to such subjectivity. Personal morality opens the door to personal bias and allows us to stray from the core values of the rule of law, leading to inconsistent
This also means that it would not allow information to be given out over the phone. When a physician refuses to give out a patient's information, it lowers the chance of the wrong person getting the information. This rule also gives the patient the rights over all his or her health information. However, this also means that the patient has the right to examine and obtain copies of any health records at any given time. The physician cannot refuse for any reason.
Birch was preceded by a path-breaking line of cases in which Canadian appellate courts signalled their willingness to depart from the strict common law rule against enforcing a stipulated remedy that amounts to a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.2 Those cases marked a positive development in Canadian contract law, as adherence to the traditional rule against penalty clauses is difficult to justify. This is not to say that all penalty clauses ought to be enforced. But some of them should be enforced, while the reasons not to enforce the rest are more or less the same as the reasons not to enforce other contractual provisions. Consequently, doctrines such as unconscionability, mistake, and contra proferentem ought to be capable of addressing concerns relevant to the enforceability of stipulated remedies. There is no need for a rule that singles out penalty clauses for special treatment.
Our nation was made for the federal government and state governments to have their own separate laws, and that whatever federal law there is in place, states can’t make laws that affect the federal ones. In response to this, I feel that the federal government should let the state governments have medical marijuana laws, but work together to make the state laws legal on the stance that it doesn’t affect the federal laws that are already in place. Speaking on behalf of the federal government thinking that with state medical marijuana laws in place, will make the controlled substance act ineffective, my argument, which is also the state governments argument, would be that the state laws won’t make the act ineffective because the marijuana isn’t being sold from state to state. In addition, if it does end up effecting interstate commerce then the federal government can then prosecute those people not following the Act. All in all, if the medical marijuana is regulated properly then the federal government won’t lose oversight of illegal drugs.
2008. p. 1). Nurse’s rights and the ability to refuse care is a controversial topic, with many different opinions. This paper will argue that nurses should have the right to personal feelings and beliefs and not be judged or scrutinized for what they believe. In Canada, nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a person based on their own moral and conscientious beliefs. Healthcare in Canada is publicly funded and subsidized by tax dollars.