The Charter & Criminal Law Cases Test

PART 1 s. 7 Counter-Terrorism & Security Certificate Cases

1.  Alleged to be acting as an al Qaedasleeper agent” in Canada.

2.  The Convention Against Torture sets out an absolute ban on deportation to torture.

3.  Accused of sneaking access to restricted areas at an airport.

4.  When do national security concerns override international human rights obligations?

5.  A judge must be vigilant and skeptical about the Minister’s claims that information must be kept secret from the named person challenging a security certificate.

6.  Challenged the security certificate process as discriminatory against Arab and Muslim men.

7.  The security certificate was withdrawn by the government because it refused to make public its secret evidence.

8.  Section 7 of the Charter does not require a full oral hearing.

9.  Not alleged to have used his honey business in the name of extremist activity but he was in a position to do so.

10.  The Federal Court of Canada published allegations on its website alleging that the named person was in charge of training recruits at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

11.  Entered Canada on a forged Saudi Arabian passport and sought refugee status due to the risk of political persecution in Algeria.

12.  In exceptional circumstances, deportation under a security certificate to face torture may be justified.

13.  The government lost the case on merit as the special advocate was able to show on the government’s own secret material that its informant wasn’t telling the truth.

14.  The security certificate process is not minimally impairing as less intrusive alternatives exist.

PART 2 → s. 2(b) Freedom of Expression Cases

1.  “innocent and imprudent”

2.  A “reasoned apprehension of harm”, not scientific proof, is the standard for the criminalization of expressive materials.

3.  The type of meaning conveyed is irrelevant.

4.  “the best way to truth is a society that permits a free flow of divergent ideas and images.”

5.  The falsity of the expression is relevant to its protection.

6.  It is challenging to define emotion in a criminal prohibition.

7.  A concern that criminalization may cause a chill effect on expression.

8.  Freedom of expression, “makes possible our liberty, our creativity, and our democracy.”

9.  A reverse onus provision.

10.  Whether the larger public would consider the expressive material in question harmful to society.

11.  Is simple possession rationally connected to harm?

12.  Defines the scope of s.2(b) protection.

13.  Receiving expressive materials conveys meaning.

14.  Expressive freedom can be limited even though the harm it causes cannot be measured.

PART 3 → s. 15 Racial Discrimination & s. 9 Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Cases

1.  Racial profiling is the exception, rather than the rule.

2.  Was he detained when he was stopped on the street by the police?

3.  Racial disparities in pre-trial detention decisions were studied and presented as evidence, yet ignored by the court.

4.  Alleged racism in the day-to-day discretionary power of those in the correctional system.

5.  The choice to act may be constrained by life circumstances.

6.  The answer ‘no’ to the standard question posed to potential jurors does not clearly distinguish between a juror claiming to be free of racial bias or biased but able to set that aside.

7.  The removal order process is discriminatory based on race.

8.  Unclear whether the justice system failed to be colour-blind or failed to be colour-sensitive.

9.  Racial profiling by police in exercises of discretion violates s.9.

10.  Set down the standard for when police can detain individuals on the street for a criminal investigation.

11.  Denying an accused the right to question jurors about systemic racism violates s. 15.

12.  The standard question used to detect unconscious racial bias.