Related questions
On Sunday, May 30, 1982, police officers of the City of Calgary attended at premises owned by Big M whose business is open to the public. They witnessed several transactions including the sale of groceries, plastic cups and a bicycle lock. Big M was charged with a violation of Section 4 of the Lord’s Day Act that says “it is not lawful for any person on the Lord's Day, except as provided herein, or in any provincial Act or law in force on or after the 1st day of March 1907, to sell or offer for sale or purchase any goods, chattels, or other personal property, or any real estate, or to carry on or transact any business of his ordinary calling, or in connection with such calling, or for gain to do, or employ any other person to do, on that day, any work, business, or labour. Big M has challenged the constitutionality of the Lord’s Day Act. The federal Lord's Day Act made it an offence to transact business on Sunday. It was part of a legislative tradition which started in the 17th century in England.
1. Does Big M action prosper?
2. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to government behaviour and not to the private sector. Does Charter have relevance and significance for businesses from the context of Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
The case of Big M v. City of Calgary, which took place in 1982, marked a significant moment in Canadian legal history, particularly in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case raised questions about the constitutionality of the Lord's Day Act and its impact on individual rights and freedoms. In this answer, we will address two key questions:
1. Does Big M's action prosper? This question focuses on whether the challenge against the Lord's Day Act was successful, and if so, what the implications were.
2. The relevance and significance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for businesses: We will discuss how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a part of Canada's Constitution, applies not only to government behavior but also to the private sector. This case had broader implications for businesses and individuals regarding their constitutional rights.
Step by stepSolved in 4 steps
- Joseph Burger was the owner of a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York. His business consisted, in part, of dismantling automobiles and selling their parts. The state of New York enacted a statute that requires automobile junkyards to keep certain records. The statute authorizes warrantless searches of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards without prior notice. One day, five plain-clothes officers of the Auto Crimes Division of the New York City Police Department entered Burger’s junkyard to conduct a surprise inspection. Burger did not have either a license to conduct the business or records of the automobiles and vehicle parts on his premises, as required by state law. After conducting an inspection of the premises, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts. He was arrested and charged with criminal possession of stolen property. Burger moved to suppress the evidence. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence? Does the…arrow_forwardThe U.S Supreme Court requires that any condemned property must be put into use for the general public. True Falsearrow_forwardJoseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Dodson’s age, but thought he was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.” Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. a. What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract? b. What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the contract is not voidable? c. Which side should prevail? Explain.arrow_forward
- Henry is towing two water skiers on the Bandock River with the two experienced water skiers conducting “crossovers” where the skiers pass from side to side across the wake of the towing boat and across each other’s paths. Henry is distracted momentarily and drives too close to a boat moored near the shoreline and to avoid a collision he manoeuvres quickly. In doing so, Megan, one of the water skiers that Henry is towing, is propelled into a pontoon and severely injured. Megan now wants recourse for her physical injuries through the law of negligence.Required:a) Identify the legal issues arising in negligence and advise Megan as to the likelihood of successarrow_forwardWilliam Brill a truck driver, had just delivered lumber to Queens lumber. As he was returning to his truck he was hit by a forklift driven bv an employee eric vigil. After sustaining serious injuries, Brill sued both Queens Lumber and Vigil for negligence. What elements does brill have to prove to establish negligence? In general, what duty does a driver of a motor vehicle have to pedestrians? On what theory of liability could Queens Lumber be found negligent? Would the result be the same if Brill had failed to look both ways before walking back to his truck? Brill v Queens lumber Co.arrow_forwardMrs Jenkins was a passenger in the car of Mr. Harry, who was driving in a very erratic manner under theinfluence of alcohol. During the journey, Mrs. Jenkins once had the opportunity to leave the car afterbecoming aware of Mr. Harry’s condition, when he stopped the car at certain place for half an hour.However, Mrs. Jenkins chose to remain in the car. The car met in an accident soon after, due to negligenceof part of the driver Mr. Harry. Mr. Harry died as a result of injury to brain during the accident.Mrs. Jenkins suffered personal injuries and remained in trauma for quite some time.On recovering from her injuries, Mrs. Jenkins brought an action against Mr. Harry’s widow, who wasrepresenting his estate, for damages caused to her during the accident, due to the negligence of Mr. Harry.Mrs. Harry, during the course of proceedings, raised the question of Volenti non fit injuria, meaning thatMrs. Jenkins herself had invited injuries by remaining in the car, even after being aware of Mr.…arrow_forward
- William Carlton was the sole shareholder in ten New York City corporations, including Seon Cab Corporation. Each corporation owned two taxicabs, and each cab was covered by the minimum $10,000.00 automobile liability insurance required under New York State law. A taxicab owned by Seon Cab Corporation struck and severely injured John Walkovsky, who sued for damages. Walkovsky named all ten corporations, Carlton individually, as well as the individual driving the cab that hit him, as defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the corporations, although seemingly independent of one another, operate as a single entity, unit and enterprise with regard to financing, supplies, repairs, employees, and garaging. The plaintiff asserted that the multiple corporate structure constituted an unlawful attempt to defraud members of the general public who might be injured by the cabs. He sought to hold Carlton, the sole shareholder of each corporation, personally liable for his injuries. 1. Is there…arrow_forwardWhat is the difference between specific intent and general intent in criminal law?arrow_forwardSusan Lacroix’s Yerf-Dog go-kart was stolen from her driveway one evening when she went inside to have dinner. The thief placed an advertisement in the newspaper and sold it to Ronald Casey for half what it was worth. Later, Lacroix recognized the kart in Casey’s yard and identified it as hers through its serial number. In a suit brought by Lacroix for the return of the go-kart, Casey argued that he now had title to the kart because he paid for it without knowledge that it had been stolen. Is Casey’s argument sound? Explain.arrow_forward
- A woman shopper was injured when she slipped on the tiled foyer of a supermarket, which was wet after rain. The defendant argued that it wasn’t responsible for the slippery condition of the floor, and that it owed no general duty of care in negligence. As it had mopped the floor to minimise danger to customers, there was no unusual danger that would give rise to a strict liability on the occupier. How do you think a court might assess the defendant’s claim of no liability?arrow_forwardPablo, a resident of New Mexico, while driving through Arizona, was struck by an SUV driven by Derek, a resident of California. Derek was speeding when the accident happened, and Pablo suffered severe injuries that ruined a potential acting career. Pablo's damages are estimated at $200,000. What type of case is this?arrow_forwardWhich best describes a robbery based on any penal codearrow_forward