3 total
NCR regime upheld as constitutional.
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code regime governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, arguing that s. 672.54 violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter by creating an improper burden, vagueness, overbreadth, and discriminatory treatment.
The Court held that Part XX.1 created an individualized assessment-and-treatment regime directed to public safety and fairness, not punishment, and that an NCR accused must receive the least onerous and least restrictive disposition compatible with the statutory objectives.
The majority interpreted s. 672.54 to require an absolute discharge unless the court or Review Board positively finds a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Court further held that the regime did not discriminate against mentally disordered accused, but instead promoted substantive equality through individualized treatment.
Appeal dismissed.
Charitable registration denied because the organization’s purposes were not exclusively charitable.
Appeal from the denial of charitable registration to an organization serving immigrant and visible minority women through employment-related workshops, counselling, and referral supports.
The majority held that the organization’s primary educational purpose could fit within an expanded understanding of the advancement of education, but the organization still failed because its purposes and activities were not exclusively charitable and were too vague and broad to confine it to charitable activities alone.
The Court declined to undertake wholesale reform of the common law definition of charity, leaving any major expansion to Parliament.
The equality challenge under s. 15 of the Charter was also rejected.
University services provided to enrolled students are customarily available to the public under human rights legislation.
The appellant, a graduate student with a mental disability, was denied a key to a university building and a rating sheet required for an internship application.
She filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to a service customarily available to the public.
The member-designate found in her favour, but the decision was overturned on judicial review on the basis that the services were not customarily available to the public.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the 'public' should be defined in relational terms rather than quantitative terms.
The Court found that the university and its students have a public relationship, and the provision of the key and rating sheet were incidents of that relationship.
The member-designate's finding that the denial was based on mental disability was restored.
