The Attorney General failed to establish that ``... retrospective
application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act serves a pressing and substantial government objective, is rationally connected to that objective, minimally impairs the Charter right, and that its salutary benefits outweigh its detrimental effects.»
Quoting Whaling, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the retroactive
application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act conflicted with both Section 11 (h) and (i) of the Charter.
The respondents characterized retrospective
application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act as «punishment».
Not exact matches
In the case at hand, the Administrative Judge considered that the Union benefited from the
application of this presumption, and that Delastek failed to establish convincingly that the work reduction by which it sought to justify the position
abolitions was real, and that, instead, the decision was «clearly tainted by anti-union animus» (our translation).
Keywords: Charter; Sections 1, 11 (i); Meaning
of «Punishment»;
Abolition of Early Parole Act; Retrospective
Application; Pressing and Substantial Objective
Resolution calls for the
abolition of the # 20
application fee and the removal
of collection fees for the requesting parent to minimise the impact on the child, the ultimate beneficiary
of any child support.