R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Canadian Bill of Rights "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the Indian Act (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. As a consequence of this case, section 94 was repealed by Parliament in 1971.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| - R. c. Drybones (fr)
- R v Drybones (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Canadian Bill of Rights "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the Indian Act (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. As a consequence of this case, section 94 was repealed by Parliament in 1971. (en)
- R c. Drybones, est un arrêt de principe de la Cour suprême du Canada statuant que la Déclaration canadienne des droits habilitait les tribunaux à effectuer le contrôle judiciaire d'une loi fédérale qui allant à l'encontre de ses règles et principes. Par conséquent, la Cour suprême du Canada a statué que l'article 94 (b) de la Loi sur les Indiens (qui interdisait aux «Indiens» d'être en état d'ébriété hors d'une réserve) est inopérante parce qu'elle viole l'article 1 (b) de la Déclaration canadienne des droits. À la suite de cette affaire, l'article 94 a été abrogé par le Parlement en 1971. (fr)
|
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)
- Pigeon J. (en)
- Cartwright C.J. (en)
|
JoinDissent
| |
JoinMajority
| - Fauteux, Martland, Judson, Spence JJ. (en)
|
LawsApplied
| - Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 , c. 44, ss. 1, 2; Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, s. 94. (en)
|
citations
| - [1970] S.C.R. 282, 1969 CanLII 1 (en)
|
history
| - affirming , 61 W.W.R. 370, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 69, 64 D.L.R. 260 ; affirming 60 W.W.R. 321 (en)
|
majority
| |
ratio
| - Section 94 of the Indian Act, which makes it a criminal offence for the respondent to do something which his fellow Canadians are free to do without having committed any offence or being made subject to any penalty purely on account of race, is in violation of the respondent's right to equality before the law, protected in Section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Furthermore, an infringing statutory provision that cannot be sensibly construed so as not to infringe the rights enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights is inoperative, unless Parliament makes an express declaration that the statutory provision will operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights. Therefore, Section 94 of the Indian Act is inoperative. (en)
|
has abstract
| - R c. Drybones, est un arrêt de principe de la Cour suprême du Canada statuant que la Déclaration canadienne des droits habilitait les tribunaux à effectuer le contrôle judiciaire d'une loi fédérale qui allant à l'encontre de ses règles et principes. Par conséquent, la Cour suprême du Canada a statué que l'article 94 (b) de la Loi sur les Indiens (qui interdisait aux «Indiens» d'être en état d'ébriété hors d'une réserve) est inopérante parce qu'elle viole l'article 1 (b) de la Déclaration canadienne des droits. Avant cette décision, il y avait beaucoup de débats quant à l'autorité de la Déclaration canadienne des droits par rapport à une disposition contrevenant à ses règles. Un point de vue considérait la Déclaration des droits comme étant simplement une aide à l'interprétation. L'autre point de vue y voyait une loi qui restreignait la souveraineté parlementaire, privant les lois fédérales incompatibles de force et d'effet. À la suite de cette affaire, le pouvoir dont la Cour a estimé découler de la Déclaration canadienne des droits n'a plus été utilisé et n'a pas fait l'obhjet d'un réexamen par la Cour suprême du Canada. À la suite de cette affaire, l'article 94 a été abrogé par le Parlement en 1971. (fr)
- R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Canadian Bill of Rights "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the Indian Act (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Prior to this decision there had been much debate on the application of the Bill of Rights to an infringing statute. One perspective saw the Bill of Rights as an interpretive aid. The other perspective saw it as statute that constrained the supremacy of Parliament, rendering irreconcilable federal enactments of no force or effect. After this case, the overriding power that the Court held flows from the Canadian Bill of Rights was never used, and has since never been reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a consequence of this case, section 94 was repealed by Parliament in 1971. (en)
|
case-name
| |
Concurrence
| |
decided-date
| |
full-case-name
| - Her Majesty The Queen v Joseph Drybones (en)
|
heard-date
| |
JoinConcurrence
| |
ruling
| - The appeal should be dismissed. (en)
|
SCC
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |