Reference Re Resolution to amend the Constitution – also known as the Patriation Reference – is a historic Supreme Court of Canada reference case that occurred during negotiations for the patriation of the Constitution of Canada.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Patriation Reference (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Reference Re Resolution to amend the Constitution – also known as the Patriation Reference – is a historic Supreme Court of Canada reference case that occurred during negotiations for the patriation of the Constitution of Canada. (en)
|
dct: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
| - Constitutional law issue: Martland and Ritchie JJ. (en)
- Constitutional convention issue: Laskin C.J., Estey and McIntyre JJ. (en)
|
citations
| |
history
| - On appeal from decisions of the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Manitoba Court of Appeal, and the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (en)
|
majority
| - Constitutional convention issue: Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Chouinard and Lamer JJ. (en)
- Constitutional law issue: Laskin C.J., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ. (en)
|
ratio
| - Issue 1: A majority of the court held that as a matter of constitutional law, the federal Parliament could unilaterally request that the British Parliament amend the Canadian Constitution, without consent from the provinces. (en)
- Issue 2: A majority of the court held that as a matter of constitutional convention, a substantial degree of provincial consent was required for the amendment of the Canadian Constitution. (en)
|
has abstract
| - Reference Re Resolution to amend the Constitution – also known as the Patriation Reference – is a historic Supreme Court of Canada reference case that occurred during negotiations for the patriation of the Constitution of Canada. The court affirmed the existence of an unwritten dimension to the constitution and the majority held that by constitutional convention, amendments to the constitution require a substantial degree of provincial consent. However, a differently-constituted majority of the court held that there was no legal barrier to the federal government seeking a constitutional amendment without any provincial consent. (en)
|
case-name
| - Patriation Reference (en)
|
Chief Justice
| |
decided-date
| |
full-case-name
| - Re Resolution to amend the Constitution (en)
|
heard-date
| |
puisne-justices
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |