The Supreme Court ruled against part of Canada's anti-prostitution laws in the Bedford ruling at the close of 2013, and held that
a section of the Abolition of Early Parole Act was unconstitutional.
Not exact matches
q. Miscellaneous final additions, such as the ninth categoreal obligation in II.1.4 or the
abolition of reversion 249.41 - 250.11 / 381.36 - 382.19 or the final
section on the «fourth phase»: V. 2.7.
History: In twentieth century history, there is a
section on «society and social reform, including the
abolition of capital punishment, the legalisation
of abortion and homosexuality, and the Race Relations Act».
There was spontaneous applause at her example
of the
abolition of Section 28 as a big achievement in politics regarding this subject, as it was «so damaging for teenagers» as well as «the impact it had on teachers and fears they felt — not being able to come out or answer pupils» questions.»
In fact he has made a stand on a number
of limited issues including his support for gay adoption and for the
abolition of the anti-gay
Section 28.
Significantly, Whaling was a
Section 11 (h) case in which the Supreme Court
of Canada was asked to consider whether automatically lengthening the incarceration period under
Section 10 (1)
of the
Abolition of Early Parole Act constituted additional punishment.
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.
Since the
abolition of «accelerated parole review» constituted «punishment» (substantially increased the risk
of additional incarceration), the offenders were entitled to the «lesser» punishment under
Section 11 (i).
Keywords: Charter;
Sections 1, 11 (i); Meaning
of «Punishment»;
Abolition of Early Parole Act; Retrospective Application; Pressing and Substantial Objective
Section 10 (1)
of the AEPA made the
abolition of...