翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Lawlers Gold Mine
・ Lawlers, Western Australia
・ Lawless
・ Lawless (film)
・ Lawless (surname)
・ Lawless (TV series)
・ Lawless and Tilley series
・ Lawless Court
・ Lawless Creek
・ Lawless Darkness
・ Lawless Element
・ Lawless Heart
・ Law Ting Pong Secondary School
・ Law Uk Folk Museum
・ Law Union of Ontario
Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
・ Law v. Siegel
・ Law Week Colorado
・ Law Wing-cheung
・ Law with Two Phases
・ Law without the state
・ Law Yearbook of China
・ Law's Falls, Coonoor
・ Law, Culture and the Humanities
・ Law, Dundee
・ Law, government, and crime in Winnipeg
・ Law, Legislation and Liberty
・ Law, South Lanarkshire
・ Law-enforcement activity
・ Law-Racoviță Station


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) : ウィキペディア英語版
Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

''Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)'', () 1 S. C. R. 497 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The ruling is notable because the court created the Law test, a significant new tool that has since been used by Canadian courts for determining the validity of equality right claims under section 15 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. However, the Law test has since been discredited by the Supreme Court.
==Background==
The case involved Nancy Law, a 30-year-old seeking survivor benefits under CPP which are limited only to people over 35, disabled or with dependants at the time of the deceased’s death. Otherwise, the survivor claimant is not entitled to benefits until she reaches the age of 65.
She appealed to the Pension Plan Review Tribunal on the basis that the age requirement was in violation of her equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter (which specifically names age as a grounds on which one has rights against discrimination). The tribunal held that the legislation did not violate Law's rights. The majority held that even if it did it would be justified under section 1 of the Charter. However, the dissenting opinion found that the age distinction was arbitrary and Parliament could have targeted those in need better. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's decision.
The question before the Supreme Court was "whether ss. 44(1)(d) and 58 of the Canada Pension Plan infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter on the ground that they discriminate on the basis of age against widows and widowers under the age of 35, and if so, whether this infringement is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1."
Prior to this case there had been a sharp divide in the Court in the interpretation of the section 15 test established in ''Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia''. The dispute culminated in this case where the test was reformulated to reflect both sides of the dispute.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.