翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ R v Davis
・ R v DB
・ R v Dear
・ R v Department of Trade and Industry, ex parte Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union
・ R v Dersch
・ R v DeSousa
・ R v District Auditor No 3 Audit District of West Yorkshire MCC, ex p West Yorkshire MCC
・ R v Dixon
・ R v Drybones
・ R v Du Plessis
・ R v Duarte
・ R v Dudley and Stephens
・ R v Dyment
・ R v Dytham
・ R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co
R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd
・ R v Evans
・ R v Ewanchuk
・ R v Faulkner
・ R v Fearon
・ R v Feeney
・ R v Finta
・ R v Forlee
・ R v G
・ R v George
・ R v Ghosh
・ R v Glad Day Bookshops Inc
・ R v Gladstone
・ R v Gladue
・ R v Gnango


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

R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd : ウィキペディア英語版
R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd

''R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd'' () 2 S.C.R. 713 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional validity of an Ontario provincial Sunday closing law. The Court found that the legislation was within the power of the province to legislate but it was in violation of the right to freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it could be saved under section 1.
Three issues were before the Court:
# Whether the Act was within the legislative powers of the province provided by section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867
# Whether any part of the Act violated sections 2(a), 7, or 15 of the Charter
# Whether any violation could be saved under section 1
The Court found that the law was within the power of the province, that it violated section 2(a), but could be saved under section 1. They dismissed the appeals of Edwards, Longo, and Magder, and allowed the Crown's appeal of the Nortown decision, entering a conviction against.
==Opinion of the Court==
The majority opinion was written by Dickson C.J., with Chouinard and LeDain JJ. concurring. A second opinion was given by LaForest J., agreeing with Dickson's judgement with a slight disagreement on his application of section 1. A third opinion was given by Beetz J., with McIntyre J. concurring, agreeing with Dickson's result but for different reasons, and also found that there was no violation of section 2(a).

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「R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd」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.