Case Name
Hunter v Southam
(1984)
Charter Claim
Section
s. 8—
unreasonable
search and
seizure
Infringement
Found?
Yes—no
independent
arbiter; no
evidentiary
standard
Yes—omission of
protection of
sexual orientation
S1?
Decision
Miscellaneous
Not claimed (preOakes)
S 8 right infringed
Court and counsel found s 1
unnecessary to consider:
“reasonableness” already in s8
Sufficient
Importance:
protection of
Albertan’s rights;
failed rational
connection
N/A
S 15 right infringed;
not saved by s 1
Confusion: consider objective
of impugned provision only OR
legislative scheme as a whole
No infringement of
right
Judiciary is not considered
gov’t; gov’t action must be
basis of litigation;
Charter rights do not apply
BUT Charter principles do;
Weigh competing values—in
this case, freedom of speech vs
right to reputation (linked to
privacy)
More flexible than s.1
Doesn’t strictly overrule DD
because in Dolphin, the
picketing was assumed to be
tortious; first time injunction
against non-tortious s 2(b)
expression was considered
Vriend v Alberta
(1998)
S 15(1)
RWDSU v Dolphin
Delivery
S 2(b)
No—no offending
statute
Hill v Church of
Scientology
S 2(b)
No
N/A
No infringement of
right
RWDSU v Pepsi Cola
S 2(b)
Yes
N/A: use hill test
(private parties
only)
Injunction struck
down except for
picketing in tortious
manner
R v Oakes
S. 11(d)—
innocent until
proven guilty
Yes
S 1: failed rational
connection—no
connection to
prosecuting small
scale possessors
S 8 of Narcotics
Control Act of no
force and effect
Big M
S 15(1)
Yes
Failed on
sufficiently
important (not
pressing and
substantial)
Passes s 1
analysis:
1) suff.
Importance- YES
2A) rational
connection-YES
2B)min
impairment-YES
2C)
proportionalityYES
N/A
Legislation struck
down
Purpose: enforcing religious
holiday; struck down on
sufficiently important purpose
(rare for this to occur)
Irwin Toy v Quebec
S 2(b)
Yes
Saved under s1
Expression = content
(meaning) + activity;
expression vs physical effects
of expression (sometimes okay
to limit); Minimal Impairment:
court declined to second guess
legislative choice to set age at
13; violence includes threats of
violence (citing DD)
R v Khawaja (2012)
S 2(b)
No
N/A—no
infringement
Category of exempted
expression from s 2(b)
expanded—“violence”
exemption not just expression
of physical violence; threats of
violence also exempted;
tension w/Keegstra, Sharpes
2(b) rights recognized then
legislation saved by S1
RJR MacDonald
S 2(b)
Yes—all 3 provision
violate
Only 1 provision
saved under s1;
other two fail on
minimal
impairment
Yes—all 4
provisions violate
All 4 provisions
saved under s1
unattributed
warnings &
prohibition on
writing other than
name/brand
provisions struck
down
Legislative provisions
upheld
Canada (AG) v JTI
MacDonald
S 2(b)
Diverse claims justified under
s1
R v Butler
S 2(b)
YES
Passes s1 test
Little Sisters v
Canada
S 2(b); s 15(1)
S 2(b)-YES
S 15(1)-NO
Passes s1 test for
2(b) violation
Provision saved
under s 1
Provision saved
under s 1
R v Labaye
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
R v Sharpe
S 2(b)
YES
Generally upheld
under s 1 except
for two
exceptions
Provision saved
under s 1 except for
2 exceptions
Test for Obscenity =
community standards test
Obscenity = harm; legislation is
okay—didn’t require
discrimination
Elaboration of “Harm”
standard in Little Sisters
Exceptions:
1) representations created or
held by the accused alone for
personal use
2) visual recordings depicting
the accused (must be an
underage person) held only for
personal use