2687:
1280:
94:
Sometimes, with regard to a particular provision of a written constitution, only one court decision has been made. By necessity, until further rulings are made, this ruling is the leading case. For example, in Canada, "he leading case on voting rights and electoral boundary readjustment is
320:
One indication, however, as to whether a case is widely regarded as being "leading" is its inclusion of the ruling in one or more of the series of compilations prepared over the years by various authors. One of the earlier examples is
Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy's
441:
286:, irrespective of whether they knew about their citizenship status, will be disqualified from sitting in Parliament unless they are irremediably prevented by foreign law from renouncing their foreign citizenship as a result of the operation of
1872:
A. C. 300: establishing a doctrine that ignores "for" tax purposes the purported effect of a pre-ordained series of transactions into which there are inserted steps that have no (commercial purpose) apart from the avoidance of a liability to
105:
is the only case of disputed electoral boundaries to have reached the
Supreme Court." The degree to which this kind of leading case can be said to have "settled" the law is less than in situations where many rulings have reaffirmed the same
1986:: UKSC 5: The Government may not use prerogative powers to undertake action that would remove rights previously granted under primary legislation, and instead must introduce primary legislation to undertake such an action.
146:(Engineers' Case) (1920): Rejected the doctrines of implied intergovernmental immunities and reserved State powers and determined that each head of federal power should be interpreted simply on the words of the grant.
1989:
1417:
1881:
A.C. 474: establishing that tax can be levied on the results of a composite transaction, even if steps that are only there for the purpose of avoiding tax (do not) cancel each other out.
1209:
1202:
802:
to welfare benefits, but that "a positive obligation to sustain life, liberty or security of the person may be made out" under different circumstances than those of the instant case.
1885:
1255:
1982:
1344:
1337:
1298:
1024:
982:
951:
944:
830:
142:
434:
is not concerned with rights in any abstract sense, but rather with the more modest objective of prohibiting restrictions on rights as they existed in Canada at the time the
409:
219:
2672:
910:
868:
792:
757:
741:
706:
695:
1401:(in which the Court established precedent regarding appointment of judges while ensuring absolute independence of the judiciary from the Legislature and the Executive):
2616:
1263:
1244:
1169:
1136:
1103:
1070:
2029:
are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
2002:
is subject to judicial review; prorogation is unlawful if it has the effect of frustrating
Parliament's constitutional obligation without a reasonable justification.
1951:
2025:
may also make such decisions, particularly if the
Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from
1816:
525:
Established that all laws and regulations of the province of Quebec, as well as all courts and tribunals, must treat French and
English with absolute equality.
2012:
1450:
964:
312:
190:
120:
1521:
1319:
198:
96:
291:
1446:
661:
625:
592:
553:
528:
186:
2610:
2038:
242:
the High Court held that only the
Commonwealth had the necessary legislative head of power to reform marriage laws to encompass same-sex marriage.
2229:
1736:
1971:
214:, it was found that Australians accused of serious offences have a limited right to legal representation in order to guarantee a fair trial.
2525:
2048:
1494:
1034:-mandated rights come into existence, for purposes of applicability, only from the moment that their existence is determined by the court.
600:
495:
489:
86:
2472:
1273:
1219:
1144:
1111:
1078:
999:
957:
843:
287:
2201:
2109:
1561:
1525:
1503:
767:
2043:
1371:
1311:
812:
465:
Established that it is acceptable for
Canadian courts to examine historical material in addition to the text of the relevant statute.
1906:
1848:
1541:
1358:
1045:
805:
643:
501:
189:
to give effect to
Australia's obligations under international law, including to prevent the construction of the Franklin Dam in a
1890:
1753:
1468:
1177:
375:
230:
the High Court held that refugees could not be deported to countries that did not meet certain human rights protection standards.
130:
2636:
1760:
without paying compensation, and that a statute in force may prevail to regulate the exercise of an existing prerogative power.
1388:
1975:
1724:
308:
116:
1380:, which is the highest judicial body in India, has decided many leading cases of Constitutional jurisprudence, establishing
566:
1748:
1557:
261:
260:
the High Court held that the
Commonwealth did not have the necessary constitutional head of legislative power to fund the
1960:
1545:
2222:
2018:
1844:
2 All E.R. 575: establishing liability for pure economic loss, absent any contract, arising from a negligent statement.
1600:
374:. Prior to the abolition of appeals of Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s, most landmark decisions were made by the
79:
Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions), such as the
1999:
677:
2160:
150:
2392:
1978:
from criminal prosecution, not even if the alleged crime was undertaken in the course their parliamentary duties.
1800:
1621:
1481:
448:
70:
a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of
56:
when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian jurist
19:
2022:
1508:
1460:
631:
Establishes that aboriginal treaty rights are subject to
Canadian law, but not to provincial licensing systems.
253:
2579:
2215:
1757:
574:
919:
635:
2238:
1531:
1464:
1352:
799:
508:
295:
170:
885:
716:
2708:
2589:
1833:
1828:
1085:
468:
2646:
1420:(W.P. (C) 494 of 2012), wherein the Court held that Right to Privacy was a fundamental right under the
1381:
2548:
2399:
2256:
1902:
670:
2692:
2666:
1585:
1553:
1409:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. v. Union of India (W.P. (C) 1303 of 1987)
1392:
2133:
Michael Pal and Sujit Choudry, "Is Every Ballot Equal? Visible Minority Vote Dilution in Canada",
2088:
1485:
held that Prime Minister Robert Muldoon had purported to suspend laws in a manner contrary to the
2718:
2713:
2661:
2604:
2371:
1325:
1286:
1232:
1190:
1157:
1124:
1091:
1058:
1012:
970:
932:
898:
856:
818:
780:
729:
683:
649:
613:
580:
541:
514:
481:
454:
424:
415:
371:
247:
178:
126:
356:(published in 2008, co-edited by Russell, Morton, Knopff, Thomas Bateman and Janet Hiebert); and
2422:
1936:
1744:: only a party to a contract can be sued on it. (This principle was later reformed by statute.)
1741:
1377:
774:
752:
705:" offences (i.e. offences for which intent or negligence need not be shown) are invalidated by
298:
were either ruled ineligible to serve, or resigned on the basis of holding foreign citizenship.
235:
1507:
that restricting 16 and 17 year olds from voting was unjustified age discrimination under the
2641:
2477:
2462:
1840:
1809:
1421:
1216:
is intended to be remedial, and therefore should be given a large and liberal interpretation.
2531:
1956:
1764:
1665:
1616:
1006:
850:
475:
210:
2180:
2147:
1406:
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. (Transfer Case (civil) 19 of 1981; 1982 2 SCR 365)
879:
45:" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "
8:
2656:
2482:
2405:
2026:
1821:
1773:
1644:
1486:
2017:
Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the
1704:
9 A.C. 605: the rule that prevents parties from discharging a contractual obligation by
1305:
2626:
2569:
2512:
2351:
1940:
1805:
1688:
1681:
1676:
1577:
1398:
1052:
1039:
950:
Establishes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited under
702:
225:
162:
government's legislation to nationalise Australia's private banks was unconstitutional.
2621:
2574:
2432:
2427:
2361:
2281:
2065:
2276:
2518:
2507:
2497:
2467:
2417:
2411:
2195:
1877:
1705:
1693:
1628:
1569:
1549:
326:
329:
and a changing list of collaborators have published a series of books, including:
2599:
2584:
2452:
2442:
2341:
2266:
2176:
2070:
1897:
1789:
1653:
1649:
723:
57:
34:
1684:): the extent to which a party in breach of contract is liable for the damages.-
1607:): establishing that it was improper for any individual to be allowed to have a
2594:
2559:
2554:
2356:
2346:
2331:
2286:
1944:
1592:
1537:
1184:
362:(published in 2008, co-edited by Russell, Morton, Knopff, Bateman and Hiebert).
278:
166:
67:
63:
A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by:
2702:
2631:
2457:
2366:
2306:
2271:
2060:
1700:
1660:
1596:
1581:
1573:
1391:, (W.P. (C) 135 of 1970), was a case in which the Court formally adopted the
926:
347:
203:
72:
60:
said "a 'leading case' one that settles the law upon some important point".
37:
or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing
2564:
2487:
2336:
2326:
1923:
1868:
1781:
1777:
1717:
1712:
1669:
1389:
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
607:
283:
2316:
1966:
1853:
1456:
1437:
business PromoSalento in 2018 has been described as a "landmark ruling".
1434:
916:
Establishes that the police cannot enter a home without a search warrant.
535:
343:
317:
There is no universally agreed-to list of "leading decisions" in Canada.
159:
80:
1418:
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
384:
155:: dealt with what is a matter for the court and what the court can hear.
18:"Landmark case" and "Landmark cases" redirect here. For other uses, see
2437:
2321:
2311:
2261:
2207:
1857:
1785:
1769:
1151:
1118:
892:
269:
26:
125:
Decisions in leading cases in Australia have usually been made by the
2651:
1931:
1226:
30:
2202:
Links to Additional Information on Supreme Court Landmarks Decisions
1384:
for hearing the same. Given below are a list of some leading cases:
1861:
1729:
1608:
745:
185:, the High Court held that the Commonwealth was able to invoke its
1632:(1670) (Court of Common Pleas): establishing the principle that a
1829:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
2686:
1886:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
2447:
1910:
1793:
1472:
379:
367:
134:
52:
In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a
1983:
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
1909:
was required to suspend an "Act" of Parliament that infringed
143:
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.
1917:
1756:
to take possession of an owner's land in connection with the
1633:
220:
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1752:
A.C 508: establishing that the Crown has no right under the
340:
Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions
1637:
1515:
2161:
Addressing ‘review fraud’ in the online retail marketplace
2006:
1580:): The first case to use what would come to be called the
2673:
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute
1952:
A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
701:
Establishes that laws which impose prison sentences for "
38:
2183:, published 11 September 2018, accessed 20 November 2023
1817:
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
1664:(1848) 41 ER 1143: establishing that in certain cases a
667:
Established land title for the Tsilhqot'in First Nation.
2167:, published 14 November 2018, accessed 20 November 2023
1812:
in violation of their "duty of loyalty" to the company.
1668:
can "run with the land" (i.e., bind a future owner) in
836:
Establishes the "Andrews test" for determining whether
1433:
The criminal case against the operator of the Italian
559:
Establishes that aboriginal rights that pre-exist the
400:
Principle or rule established by the court's decision
2013:
List of landmark court decisions in the United States
1451:
List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
1038:
rights are not "discovered" in the sense proposed by
965:
Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
313:
List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
199:
Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No.2)
121:
List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
2181:
Investigations Spotlight: Jail Time for Review Fraud
1522:
List of landmark United Kingdom House of Lords cases
1498:
recognised the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
1440:
1320:
Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v British Columbia (AG)
336:(first published 1965, with several later editions);
158:
In 1948, the High Court of Australia found that the
1796:, but established the principle of "duty of care.".
1728:1 QB 256: establishing the test for formation of a
1467:, although historically some have been made by the
522:
Status of English and French in Quebec legislation.
129:, although historically some have been made by the
1308:" to be used in applying human rights legislation.
110:
1447:List of cases of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
2700:
2611:Moore v. Regents of the University of California
2039:List of European Court of Human Rights judgments
1959:without trial was found to be incompatible with
1921:: the House of Lords invalidated the defence of
1648:19 Howell's State Trials 1030: establishing the
165:In 1951, the High Court of Australia found that
302:
1804:"UKHL 1," regarding the rule against company "
1737:Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co. Ltd.
1428:
1365:
840:-protected equality rights have been violated.
462:Use of extraneous material in court decisions.
2223:
2122:Leading Cases in Canadian Constitutional Law.
1258:" determining whether laws placing limits on
1247:(limits on rights protected elsewhere in the
360:The Court and the Constitution: Leading Cases
2526:Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
2049:List of International Court of Justice cases
1495:New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General
798:Establishes that section 7 does not mandate
323:Leading Cases in Canadian Constitutional Law
2684:
2622:Medical Experimentation on Black Americans
2230:
2216:
1562:High Court of Justice of England and Wales
1526:List of United Kingdom Supreme Court cases
1504:Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General
563:cannot be infringed without justification.
342:(published in 1989, co-edited by Russell,
2044:List of European Court of Justice rulings
1696:for some inherently dangerous activities.
1652:of individuals and limiting the scope of
1479:In 1976, the Wellington Supreme Court in
1372:List of landmark court decisions in India
813:Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
25:Landmark court decisions, in present-day
2560:Albert Kligman's dermatology experiments
2237:
1849:Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
1516:Landmark decisions in the United Kingdom
354:The Court and the Charter: Leading Cases
2617:Surgery to try to improve mental health
2032:
2007:Landmark decisions in the United States
1469:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
376:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
131:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
2701:
1995:Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
1939:is not a valid defence to a charge of
1927:to reflect a changing view in society.
1832:1 KB 223: establishing the concept of
1262:-protected rights are permitted under
288:s 44(i) of the Australian Constitution
282:was clarified and it was found that a
2211:
2146:Mabo v Queensland (1989) 166 CLR 186
2137:vol. 13, no. 1 (January 2007), p. 14.
1725:Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
1205:(Minority-language education rights)
644:Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia
309:List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
276:, the High Court's earlier ruling in
117:List of High Court of Australia cases
2691:This article includes a law-related
1501:In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in
1042:, and therefore are not retroactive.
325:, published in 1914. More recently,
262:National School Chaplaincy Programme
1961:European Convention on Human Rights
1546:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
756:violated the right of women, under
13:
2204:– Constitutional Rights Foundation
2019:Supreme Court of the United States
1998:UKSC 41: The prerogative power of
1716:14 P.D. 64 (1889): the concept of
1536:Decisions in leading cases in the
14:
2730:
2189:
1749:A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd
1441:Landmark decisions in New Zealand
1412:In re Special reference 1 of 1998
678:Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act
49:", as used in the United States.
33:that determine a significant new
2685:
2196:Supreme Court Landmark Decisions
1864:to establish a criminal offence.
1776:as the foundation of the modern
1692:(1868) LR 3 HL 330: doctrine of
1492:In 1987, the Court of Appeal in
1463:before the establishment of the
334:Leading Constitutional Decisions
151:Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts
2393:Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital
2106:Leading Cases in the Common Law
2023:United States Courts of Appeals
1991:R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
1801:Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
1482:Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others
1355:to receive government services.
449:Reference Re Anti-Inflation Act
202:invalidated the declaration of
111:Landmark decisions in Australia
20:Landmark cases (disambiguation)
2637:Radioactive iodine experiments
2170:
2153:
2140:
2127:
2124:Toronto: Carswell, 1914, p. v.
2120:Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy,
2114:
2098:
2082:
1893:is subject to judicial review.
1556:; in England and Wales by the
1540:have usually been made by the
1509:New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1461:Court of Appeal of New Zealand
1455:Decisions in leading cases in
750:The abortion provision in the
370:have usually been made by the
366:Decisions in leading cases in
254:Williams v Commonwealth (No 2)
1:
2580:Guatemala syphilis experiment
2076:
1852:1 QB 43: the requirement for
575:Delgamuukw v British Columbia
1532:List of House of Lords cases
1465:Supreme Court of New Zealand
764:to "security of the person".
509:Quebec (AG) v Blaikie (No 1)
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
303:Landmark decisions in Canada
274:(The Citizenship Seven Case)
171:Communist Party of Australia
58:Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy
7:
2590:Human radiation experiments
2054:
1834:Wednesbury unreasonableness
1808:" and officers from taking
1429:Landmark decisions in Italy
1366:Landmark decisions in India
1086:Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)
996:-prohibited discrimination.
410:Robertson and Rosetanni v R
10:
2735:
2647:Stanford prison experiment
2010:
1792:, which was held later as
1529:
1519:
1444:
1369:
496:constitutional conventions
490:Constitutional conventions
306:
114:
17:
2549:Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.
2540:
2496:
2400:Commonwealth v. Twitchell
2380:
2295:
2257:Betty and George Coumbias
2245:
2093:in the English Dictionary
1903:European Court of Justice
1603:): (most widely known as
85:(in Canadian law) or the
29:legal systems, establish
2667:Willowbrook State School
2108:, Clarendon Press, 1996
1788:. This case used a wide
1586:statutory interpretation
1554:High Court of Justiciary
1393:Basic structure doctrine
1172:(Freedom of expression)
1139:(Freedom of expression)
1106:(Freedom of expression)
1073:(Freedom of expression)
878:ought to be interpreted
498:are not legally binding.
240:(Same-Sex Marriage Case)
2662:Tuskegee Syphilis Study
2605:Joseph Gilbert Hamilton
2384:parent/patient/guardian
2382:Medical opinion against
1972:Parliamentary privilege
1889:UKHL 9: the use of the
1810:corporate opportunities
1544:, or more recently the
425:Canadian Bill of Rights
372:Supreme Court of Canada
258:(School Chaplains Case)
248:Williams v Commonwealth
179:Commonwealth v Tasmania
127:High Court of Australia
2423:Archie Battersbee case
1820:K.B. 130: doctrine of
1605:The Case of Monopolies
1378:Supreme Court of India
992:test" for identifying
907:Constitution Act, 1982
775:Gosselin v Quebec (AG)
658:Constitution Act, 1982
622:Constitution Act, 1982
589:Constitution Act, 1982
561:Constitution Act, 1982
550:Constitution Act, 1982
236:Commonwealth v the ACT
187:external affairs power
173:were unconstitutional.
169:' attempts to ban the
2642:Skid Row Cancer Study
2478:Spiro Nikolouzos case
2463:Joseph Maraachli case
2011:Further information:
1976:Members of Parliament
1841:Hedley Byrne v Heller
1740:A.C. 847: confirming
1622:Court of Common Pleas
1548:; in Scotland by the
1530:Further information:
1422:Constitution of India
874:Establishes that the
430:Establishes that the
183:(Tasmanian Dams Case)
2657:Plutonium injections
2239:Medical ethics cases
2198:– Cornell Law School
2033:International courts
2027:state supreme courts
1957:Indefinite detention
1765:Donoghue v Stevenson
1758:defence of the realm
1680:(1854) 9 Exch. 341 (
1666:restrictive covenant
1617:Case of Prohibitions
1382:Constitution Benches
1007:Canada (AG) v Hislop
851:Hunter v Southam Inc
476:Patriation Reference
394:Date & citation
211:Dietrich v The Queen
2483:Aruna Shanbaug case
2406:Mordechai Dov Brody
1822:promissory estoppel
1774:neighbour principle
1742:privity of contract
1645:Entick v Carrington
1487:Bill of Rights 1689
913:(Procedural rights)
664:(Aboriginal rights)
636:R v Marshall (No 2)
634:R v Marshall (No 1)
628:(Aboriginal rights)
595:(Aboriginal rights)
556:(Aboriginal rights)
191:World Heritage Zone
2709:Lists of law lists
2627:Milgram experiment
2570:Deep sleep therapy
2532:Christiane Völling
2513:Gillick competence
2104:A. W. B. Simpson,
1941:actual bodily harm
1689:Rylands v Fletcher
1682:Court of Exchequer
1677:Hadley v Baxendale
1578:Exchequer of Pleas
1399:Three Judges Cases
1351:does not create a
1340:(Equality rights)
1301:(Equality rights)
1053:Ford v Quebec (AG)
985:(Equality rights)
703:absolute liability
226:Malaysian Solution
2682:
2681:
2433:Tirhas Habtegiris
2428:Charlie Gard case
2362:Karen Ann Quinlan
2282:Piergiorgio Welby
2066:Lists of case law
1974:does not protect
1891:royal prerogative
1754:royal prerogative
1597:77 Eng. Rep. 1260
1459:were made by the
1363:
1362:
1343:Establishes that
1334:Charter of Rights
1304:Establishes the "
1295:Charter of Rights
1254:Establishes the "
1241:Charter of Rights
1208:Establishes that
1199:Charter of Rights
1166:Charter of Rights
1133:Charter of Rights
1100:Charter of Rights
1067:Charter of Rights
1030:Establishes that
1027:(Equality rights)
1021:Charter of Rights
988:Establishes the "
979:Charter of Rights
947:(Equality rights)
941:Charter of Rights
865:Charter of Rights
833:(Equality rights)
827:Charter of Rights
789:Charter of Rights
738:Charter of Rights
692:Charter of Rights
494:Establishes that
91:(in English law).
2726:
2689:
2508:Ashley Treatment
2498:Informed consent
2468:Jahi McMath case
2418:Alfie Evans case
2412:Lantz v. Coleman
2232:
2225:
2218:
2209:
2208:
2184:
2174:
2168:
2157:
2151:
2144:
2138:
2131:
2125:
2118:
2112:
2102:
2096:
2086:
1878:Furniss v Dawson
1772:established the
1720:in contract law.
1706:part performance
1694:strict liability
1636:cannot coerce a
1550:Court of Session
744:(Legal rights),
385:
327:Peter H. Russell
54:leading decision
2734:
2733:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2683:
2678:
2600:Jesse Gelsinger
2585:Henrietta Lacks
2536:
2500:
2492:
2473:Sarah Murnaghan
2453:Ashya King case
2443:Sun Hudson case
2385:
2383:
2376:
2342:Vincent Lambert
2299:
2297:
2291:
2267:Giovanni Nuvoli
2250:
2248:
2241:
2236:
2192:
2187:
2177:TripAdvisor LLC
2175:
2171:
2158:
2154:
2145:
2141:
2132:
2128:
2119:
2115:
2103:
2099:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2071:Test case (law)
2057:
2035:
2015:
2009:
1905:ruled that the
1898:Factortame case
1790:ratio decidendi
1768:S.C.(H.L.) 31:
1654:executive power
1650:civil liberties
1558:Court of Appeal
1534:
1528:
1520:Main articles:
1518:
1453:
1445:Main articles:
1443:
1431:
1374:
1368:
800:positive rights
724:R v Morgentaler
397:Subject matter
315:
307:Main articles:
305:
296:45th Parliament
123:
115:Main articles:
113:
35:legal principle
23:
12:
11:
5:
2732:
2722:
2721:
2719:Judgment (law)
2716:
2714:Case law lists
2711:
2690:
2680:
2679:
2677:
2676:
2669:
2664:
2659:
2654:
2649:
2644:
2639:
2634:
2629:
2624:
2619:
2614:
2607:
2602:
2597:
2595:J. Marion Sims
2592:
2587:
2582:
2577:
2575:Doctors' Trial
2572:
2567:
2562:
2557:
2555:Albert Stevens
2552:
2544:
2542:
2538:
2537:
2535:
2534:
2529:
2522:
2515:
2510:
2504:
2502:
2494:
2493:
2491:
2490:
2485:
2480:
2475:
2470:
2465:
2460:
2455:
2450:
2445:
2440:
2435:
2430:
2425:
2420:
2415:
2408:
2403:
2396:
2388:
2386:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2375:
2374:
2369:
2364:
2359:
2357:Haleigh Poutre
2354:
2349:
2347:Robert Latimer
2344:
2339:
2334:
2332:Eluana Englaro
2329:
2324:
2319:
2314:
2309:
2303:
2301:
2293:
2292:
2290:
2289:
2287:Jack Kevorkian
2284:
2279:
2277:Ramón Sampedro
2274:
2269:
2264:
2259:
2253:
2251:
2246:
2243:
2242:
2235:
2234:
2227:
2220:
2212:
2206:
2205:
2199:
2191:
2190:External links
2188:
2186:
2185:
2169:
2152:
2139:
2126:
2113:
2097:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2068:
2063:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2041:
2034:
2031:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1987:
1979:
1963:
1948:
1945:common assault
1928:
1914:
1907:House of Lords
1894:
1882:
1874:
1865:
1845:
1837:
1825:
1813:
1797:
1761:
1745:
1733:
1721:
1709:
1697:
1685:
1673:
1657:
1641:
1625:
1612:
1593:Darcy v Allein
1589:
1542:House of Lords
1538:United Kingdom
1517:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1499:
1490:
1442:
1439:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1396:
1370:Main article:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1353:positive right
1341:
1331:
1328:
1323:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1302:
1292:
1289:
1284:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1252:
1238:
1235:
1230:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1206:
1196:
1193:
1188:
1185:Mahe v Alberta
1180:
1179:
1175:
1173:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1140:
1130:
1127:
1122:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1107:
1097:
1094:
1089:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1074:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1028:
1018:
1015:
1010:
1002:
1001:
997:
986:
976:
973:
968:
960:
959:
955:
948:
938:
935:
930:
922:
921:
917:
914:
904:
901:
896:
888:
887:
883:
872:
871:(Legal rights)
862:
859:
854:
846:
845:
841:
834:
824:
821:
816:
808:
807:
803:
796:
795:(Legal rights)
786:
783:
778:
770:
769:
765:
748:
735:
732:
727:
719:
718:
714:
699:
698:(Legal rights)
689:
686:
681:
673:
672:
668:
665:
655:
652:
647:
639:
638:
632:
629:
619:
616:
611:
603:
602:
598:
596:
586:
583:
578:
570:
569:
564:
557:
547:
544:
539:
531:
530:
526:
523:
520:
517:
512:
504:
503:
499:
492:
487:
484:
479:
471:
470:
466:
463:
460:
457:
452:
444:
443:
439:
436:Bill of Rights
432:Bill of Rights
428:
421:
418:
413:
405:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
364:
363:
357:
351:
337:
304:
301:
300:
299:
279:Sykes v Cleary
265:
243:
231:
215:
207:
194:
174:
167:Robert Menzies
163:
156:
147:
112:
109:
108:
107:
92:
77:
68:Distinguishing
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2731:
2720:
2717:
2715:
2712:
2710:
2707:
2706:
2704:
2694:
2693:list of lists
2688:
2675:
2674:
2670:
2668:
2665:
2663:
2660:
2658:
2655:
2653:
2650:
2648:
2645:
2643:
2640:
2638:
2635:
2633:
2632:Monster Study
2630:
2628:
2625:
2623:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2613:
2612:
2608:
2606:
2603:
2601:
2598:
2596:
2593:
2591:
2588:
2586:
2583:
2581:
2578:
2576:
2573:
2571:
2568:
2566:
2563:
2561:
2558:
2556:
2553:
2551:
2550:
2546:
2545:
2543:
2539:
2533:
2530:
2528:
2527:
2523:
2521:
2520:
2519:Marion's Case
2516:
2514:
2511:
2509:
2506:
2505:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2489:
2486:
2484:
2481:
2479:
2476:
2474:
2471:
2469:
2466:
2464:
2461:
2459:
2458:Jesse Koochin
2456:
2454:
2451:
2449:
2446:
2444:
2441:
2439:
2436:
2434:
2431:
2429:
2426:
2424:
2421:
2419:
2416:
2414:
2413:
2409:
2407:
2404:
2402:
2401:
2397:
2395:
2394:
2390:
2389:
2387:
2379:
2373:
2372:Gloria Taylor
2370:
2368:
2367:Terri Schiavo
2365:
2363:
2360:
2358:
2355:
2353:
2350:
2348:
2345:
2343:
2340:
2338:
2335:
2333:
2330:
2328:
2325:
2323:
2320:
2318:
2315:
2313:
2310:
2308:
2307:Andrew Bedner
2305:
2304:
2302:
2294:
2288:
2285:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2275:
2273:
2272:Sue Rodriguez
2270:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2260:
2258:
2255:
2254:
2252:
2244:
2240:
2233:
2228:
2226:
2221:
2219:
2214:
2213:
2210:
2203:
2200:
2197:
2194:
2193:
2182:
2178:
2173:
2166:
2162:
2156:
2149:
2143:
2136:
2130:
2123:
2117:
2110:
2107:
2101:
2094:
2092:
2085:
2081:
2072:
2069:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2061:Case citation
2059:
2058:
2050:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2030:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2014:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1984:
1980:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1968:
1964:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1835:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1719:
1718:implied terms
1715:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1701:Foakes v Beer
1698:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:Tulk v Moxhay
1658:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1629:Bushel's Case
1626:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1613:
1611:over a trade.
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1583:
1582:mischief rule
1579:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1570:Heydon's Case
1567:
1566:
1565:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1533:
1527:
1523:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1452:
1448:
1438:
1436:
1423:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1383:
1379:
1373:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1326:Supreme Court
1324:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1299:section 15(1)
1296:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1287:Supreme Court
1285:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1233:Supreme Court
1231:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1191:Supreme Court
1189:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1158:Supreme Court
1156:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1125:Supreme Court
1123:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1092:Supreme Court
1090:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1059:Supreme Court
1057:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1013:Supreme Court
1011:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
991:
987:
984:
983:section 15(1)
980:
977:
974:
972:
971:Supreme Court
969:
967:
966:
962:
961:
958:
956:
953:
952:section 15(1)
949:
946:
945:section 15(1)
942:
939:
936:
934:
933:Supreme Court
931:
929:
928:
927:Egan v Canada
924:
923:
920:
918:
915:
912:
908:
905:
902:
900:
899:Supreme Court
897:
895:
894:
890:
889:
886:
884:
881:
877:
873:
870:
866:
863:
860:
858:
857:Supreme Court
855:
853:
852:
848:
847:
844:
842:
839:
835:
832:
828:
825:
822:
820:
819:Supreme Court
817:
815:
814:
810:
809:
806:
804:
801:
797:
794:
790:
787:
784:
782:
781:Supreme Court
779:
777:
776:
772:
771:
768:
766:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:Criminal Code
749:
747:
743:
739:
736:
733:
731:
730:Supreme Court
728:
726:
725:
721:
720:
717:
715:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:
693:
690:
687:
685:
684:Supreme Court
682:
680:
679:
675:
674:
671:
669:
666:
663:
662:section 35(1)
659:
656:
653:
651:
650:Supreme Court
648:
646:
645:
641:
640:
637:
633:
630:
627:
626:section 35(1)
623:
620:
617:
615:
614:Supreme Court
612:
610:
609:
605:
604:
601:
599:
597:
594:
593:section 35(1)
590:
587:
584:
582:
581:Supreme Court
579:
577:
576:
572:
571:
567:
565:
562:
558:
555:
554:section 35(1)
551:
548:
545:
543:
542:Supreme Court
540:
538:
537:
533:
532:
529:
527:
524:
521:
518:
516:
515:Supreme Court
513:
511:
510:
506:
505:
502:
500:
497:
493:
491:
488:
485:
483:
482:Supreme Court
480:
478:
477:
473:
472:
469:
467:
464:
461:
458:
456:
455:Supreme Court
453:
451:
450:
446:
445:
442:
440:
437:
433:
429:
427:
426:
422:
419:
417:
416:Supreme Court
414:
412:
411:
407:
406:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
348:Rainer Knopff
345:
341:
338:
335:
332:
331:
330:
328:
324:
318:
314:
310:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
275:
272:
271:
266:
263:
259:
256:
255:
250:
249:
244:
241:
238:
237:
232:
229:
227:
222:
221:
216:
213:
212:
208:
205:
204:terra nullius
201:
200:
195:
192:
188:
184:
181:
180:
175:
172:
168:
164:
161:
157:
154:
152:
148:
145:
144:
140:
139:
138:
136:
132:
128:
122:
118:
104:
100:
99:
93:
90:
89:
84:
83:
78:
75:
74:
73:stare decisis
69:
66:
65:
64:
61:
59:
55:
50:
48:
47:landmark case
44:
40:
36:
32:
28:
21:
16:
2671:
2609:
2565:David Reimer
2547:
2524:
2517:
2501:to treatment
2488:David Vetter
2410:
2398:
2391:
2337:June Hartley
2327:Baby Doe Law
2172:
2164:
2159:Davies, G.,
2155:
2142:
2135:IRPP Choices
2134:
2129:
2121:
2116:
2105:
2100:
2091:leading case
2090:
2084:
2016:
1994:
1990:
1981:
1965:
1950:
1930:
1924:marital rape
1922:
1916:
1896:
1884:
1876:
1869:Ramsay v IRC
1867:
1847:
1839:
1827:
1815:
1799:
1782:English tort
1778:Scots delict
1763:
1747:
1735:
1723:
1713:The Moorcock
1711:
1699:
1687:
1675:
1659:
1643:
1627:
1614:
1604:
1601:King's Bench
1591:
1568:
1535:
1502:
1493:
1480:
1454:
1432:
1375:
1348:
1333:
1318:
1306:Meiorin test
1294:
1279:
1267:
1259:
1248:
1240:
1225:
1213:
1198:
1183:
1170:section 2(b)
1165:
1150:
1137:section 2(b)
1132:
1117:
1104:section 2(b)
1099:
1084:
1071:section 2(b)
1066:
1051:
1035:
1031:
1020:
1005:
993:
989:
978:
963:
940:
925:
906:
891:
875:
864:
849:
837:
826:
811:
788:
773:
761:
751:
737:
722:
710:
691:
676:
657:
642:
621:
608:R v Marshall
606:
588:
573:
560:
549:
534:
507:
474:
447:
438:was enacted.
435:
431:
423:
408:
365:
359:
353:
339:
333:
322:
319:
316:
284:dual citizen
277:
273:
268:
257:
252:
246:
239:
234:
223:
218:
209:
197:
182:
177:
149:
141:
124:
102:
97:
87:
81:
71:
62:
53:
51:
46:
43:Leading case
42:
24:
15:
2317:Paul Brophy
2298:Withholding
2296:Euthanasia/
2089:Meaning of
2000:prorogation
1967:R v Chaytor
1854:concurrence
1640:to convict.
1457:New Zealand
1435:fake review
1330:2004 SCC 78
1017:2007 SCC 10
880:purposively
785:2002 SCC 84
654:2014 SCC 44
536:R v Sparrow
344:F.L. Morton
101:. In fact,
2703:Categories
2438:Rom Houben
2322:Carol Carr
2312:Tony Bland
2262:Dax Cowart
2077:References
1858:actus reus
1786:negligence
1770:Lord Atkin
1345:section 15
1338:section 15
1256:Oakes test
1210:section 23
1203:section 23
1162:2001 SCC 2
1152:R v Sharpe
1119:R v Zundel
1040:Blackstone
1025:section 15
893:R v Feeney
831:section 15
585:3 SCR 1010
546:1 SCR 1075
519:2 SCR 1016
403:Full text
292:15 members
270:Re Canavan
106:principle.
88:Bolam test
82:Oakes test
31:precedents
27:common law
2652:Study 329
2300:treatment
2247:Assisted
2165:Juriosity
1970:UKSC 52:
1955:UKHL 56:
1935:UKHL 19:
1932:R v Brown
1806:directors
1574:76 ER 637
1264:section 1
1245:section 1
1237:1 SCR 103
1227:R v Oakes
1195:1 SCR 342
1129:2 SCR 731
1096:1 SCR 927
1063:2 SCR 712
975:1 SCR 497
937:2 SCR 513
911:section 8
869:section 8
861:2 SCR 145
823:1 SCR 143
793:section 7
758:section 7
742:section 7
707:section 7
696:section 7
688:2 SCR 486
618:3 SCR 456
486:1 SCR 753
459:2 SCR 373
388:Decision
2541:Research
2148:AustLill
2055:See also
1862:mens rea
1730:contract
1620:(1607) (
1609:monopoly
1576:(1584) (
903:2 SCR 13
746:abortion
734:1 SCR 30
2249:suicide
1937:Consent
1560:or the
1349:Charter
1347:of the
1291:3 SCR 3
1281:Meiorin
1268:Charter
1266:of the
1260:Charter
1249:Charter
1214:Charter
1212:of the
1036:Charter
1032:Charter
994:Charter
876:Charter
838:Charter
762:Charter
760:of the
711:Charter
709:of the
420:SCR 651
294:of the
160:Chifley
2448:Baby K
2352:Baby M
1911:EC law
1901:: the
1794:obiter
1670:equity
1473:London
391:Court
380:London
368:Canada
153:(1921)
135:London
103:Carter
98:Carter
1918:R v R
1784:) of
1634:judge
228:Case)
224:(The
1993:and
1873:tax.
1860:and
1638:jury
1615:The
1584:for
1524:and
1449:and
1376:The
346:and
311:and
251:and
196:In
119:and
1943:or
1856:of
1552:or
1471:in
990:Law
378:in
267:In
245:In
233:In
217:In
176:In
133:in
41:. "
39:law
2705::
2179:,
2163:,
2021:.
1564:.
1475:.
1336:,
1313:.
1297:,
1243:,
1201:,
1168:,
1135:,
1102:,
1069:,
1023:,
981:,
943:,
909:,
867:,
829:,
791:,
740:,
694:,
660:,
624:,
591:,
568:.
552:,
382:.
350:);
290:.
137:.
2695:.
2231:e
2224:t
2217:v
2150:.
2111:.
2095:.
1947:.
1913:.
1836:.
1824:.
1780:(
1732:.
1708:.
1672:.
1656:.
1624:)
1599:(
1588:.
1511:.
1489:.
1424:.
1395:.
1270:.
1251:)
954:.
882:.
713:.
264:.
206:.
193:.
76:;
22:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.