Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Canada (AG) v Lavell (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| - Abbott J. (en)
- Laskin J. (en)
|
JoinDissent
| |
LawsApplied
| - Canadian BilI of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III; Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6. (en)
|
citations
| |
date
| |
history
| - Judgment for Lavell in the Federal Court of Appeal (en)
- Judgment for Bédard in the Supreme Court of Ontario (en)
|
ratio
| - Section 12 of the Indian Act does not violate the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law, as guaranteed under Section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and is therefore not inoperative. (en)
|
reason
| - There are three quotemarks here, breaking the quotation. (en)
|
has abstract
| - Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men. The Supreme Court's decision proved very controversial, later influencing the wording of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the drafting process. (en)
|
case-name
| |
Concurrence
| |
decided-date
| |
full-case-name
| - The Attorney General of Canada v. Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell; (en)
- Richard Isaac, Leonard Staats, Clarence Jamieson, Rena Hill, Norman Lickers, William White, Nina Burnham, John Capton, Howard Lickers, Clifford Lickers, Mitchell Sandy, Ronald Monture, Gordon Hill, Sydney Henhawk, Ross Powless, Victor Porter, Frank Monture, Renson Jamieson and Vincent Sandy v. Yvonne Bédard (en)
|
heard-date
| |
JoinPlurality
| - Fauteux C.J., and Martland and Judson JJ. (en)
|
Plurality
| |
ruling
| |
SCC
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |