Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the law of standing in Canada. In particular, the case sets out the criteria a public-interest group must meet in order to be allowed to mount a constitutional challenge in court.
Quick Facts Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), Hearing: October 11, 1991 Judgment: January 23, 1992 ...
Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) | |
---|---|
Hearing: October 11, 1991 Judgment: January 23, 1992 | |
Full case name | The Canadian Council of Churches v. Her Majesty The Queen and The Minister of Employment and Immigration |
Citations | [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 |
Docket No. | 21946 [1] |
Prior history | Partial judgment for the Crown and the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the Federal Court of Appeal. |
Ruling | Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed. |
Holding | |
There are three requirements to decide when there is public interest to grant a party status to file an application to strike down legislation as unconstitutional: (1) Is there a serious issues raised as to the invalidity of the legislation in question? (2) Is the party directly affected by the legislation or, if not, does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? (3) Is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue to the court? If a potential private litigant has the ability to make the application, then the third criterion is not met. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci | |
Reasons given | |
Unanimous reasons by | Cory J. |
Lamer C.J. and McLachlin J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Close