In Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association the (CLA) of Canada took action against the Ontario Ministry of Public Safety and Security to challenge section 23 of the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; they desired access to state records of alleged misconduct by state officials in a murder trial because they were concerned about the disparity between the findings at trial and the conclusion of the police investigation. The documents in question were three in number, of which two consisted of privileged legal advice to the Ontario Provincial Police.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association (en)
rdfs:comment
  • In Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association the (CLA) of Canada took action against the Ontario Ministry of Public Safety and Security to challenge section 23 of the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; they desired access to state records of alleged misconduct by state officials in a murder trial because they were concerned about the disparity between the findings at trial and the conclusion of the police investigation. The documents in question were three in number, of which two consisted of privileged legal advice to the Ontario Provincial Police. (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
docket
citations
has abstract
  • In Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association the (CLA) of Canada took action against the Ontario Ministry of Public Safety and Security to challenge section 23 of the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; they desired access to state records of alleged misconduct by state officials in a murder trial because they were concerned about the disparity between the findings at trial and the conclusion of the police investigation. The documents in question were three in number, of which two consisted of privileged legal advice to the Ontario Provincial Police. The CLA claimed that their right in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms overrode section 23. The 76-paragraph judgment by McLachlin CJ and Abella J, with unanimous concurrence, confirmed the constitutionality of section 23, i.e., ruled that solicitor-client privilege override the public interest. Although the case dealt with civil rights, which lie under provincial jurisdiction, the case was joined by a plethora of attorneys-general who acted as intervenors, most of whom had in their own legislation near-verbatim copies of section 23. (en)
case-name
  • Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers' Association (en)
decided-date
heard-date
PerCuriam
  • yes (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software