Search
Full bibliography 2,399 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
In Canada (A.G.) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated three prostitution-related provisions of the Criminal Code on grounds of overbreadth and gross disproportionality. The implications of Bedford go well beyond the particular context of sex work and even of criminal law. First, the Court held that the three constitutional norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality are distinct from each other rather than aspects of a single norm against overbreadth. Second, the Court held that a Charter applicant could establish a violation of section 7 by showing that a law is overbroad, arbitrary, or grossly disproportionate in its impact on the life, liberty, or security of only one person and that the effectiveness of the law in achieving its policy objectives was not relevant to these norms. There are some difficulties in understanding this highly individualistic approach to section 7, and those difficulties lead to the third implication. By deferring any consideration of the effectiveness of the law to the question of whether it is a proportional limit on a section 7 right, the Court may be indicating a willingness to do something it has never done before: recognize an infringement of a section 7 right as a justified limit under section 1. The Court’s clarification of the relationship between the norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality is welcome, but its individualistic articulation of those norms is difficult to understand and its suggestion that section 7 violations may now be easier to save under section 1 is troubling.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (6)
- Book (818)
- Book Section (228)
- Case (242)
- Conference Paper (5)
- Dictionary Entry (81)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (985)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (3)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (16)
- Thesis (4)
- Web Page (2)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (11)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (2)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (31)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (52)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (8)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (88)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (16)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (8)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
-
Between 1700 and 1799
(8)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
- 1701 (1)
- Between 1760 and 1769 (4)
-
Between 1770 and 1779
(1)
- 1777 (1)
-
Between 1790 and 1799
(2)
- 1797 (2)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
-
Between 1800 and 1899
(14)
-
Between 1810 and 1819
(1)
- 1812 (1)
- Between 1820 and 1829 (2)
- Between 1830 and 1839 (2)
-
Between 1840 and 1849
(1)
- 1849 (1)
- Between 1870 and 1879 (2)
-
Between 1880 and 1889
(1)
- 1880 (1)
- Between 1890 and 1899 (5)
-
Between 1810 and 1819
(1)
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(472)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(2)
- 1908 (2)
- Between 1910 and 1919 (2)
- Between 1920 and 1929 (3)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (8)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (12)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (14)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (32)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (42)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (146)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (211)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(2)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(1,903)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (444)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (733)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (726)
- Unknown (2)