law cases - L iebmann V . Canada (M inister of National...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Liebmann V. Canada (Minister of National Defense) Facts: Liebmann applied for the position of Executive Assistant to the Commanding Officer in the Persian Gulf Operation. Staff Officers recommended he be appointed and the Commanding Officer agreed. When command staff became aware that Liebmann was Jewish they decided not to select him. Liebmann challenged the decision, as well as CFAO 20-53 (an enactment for which the decision was based upon) under s. 15 of the Charter. Issues: 1. Should the court consider the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53? 2. Does the Charter apply to the decision not to appoint Liebmann? 3. Were Liebmann’s equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter infringed? 4. Could infringement be justified under s. 1 of the Charter? Decisions: 1. The court should not consider the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53 2. The Charter does not apply to the decision not to appoint Liebmann 3. Liebmann’s equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter were infringed 4. The infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter Reasons: 1. CFAO 20-53 was not the reason that Liebmann was not permitted to serve in the Persian Gulf and was not in effect when the decision not to give him the position was made. CFAO 20-53 was not relevant to the action before the court and thus should not be considered. 2. The Charter applies to decisions made under delegated statutory authority. The decision regarding Liebmann was made under the authority delegated by the National Defense Act and is thus under the authority of the Charter. 3. Liebmann was treated differently from others based on personal characteristics of the type enumerated in s. 15, and there was definite discrimination in a constitutional sense in that his dignity was demeaned. 4. The respondents did not show that it was reasonable to discriminate against Liebmann because he was Jewish. Legal Principles: The Charter applies to decisions made under delegated statutory authority Infringement of s. 15 of the Charter occurs if someone is treated differently based on characteristics outlined in s. 15, and as a result the person’s dignity is demeaned
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Montane Ventures Ltd. V. Schroeder (pg. 71) Relevant Topics: 1. what constitutes a rejection or counter-offer? 2. Equitable remedies: Specific Performance Montane Ventures – Plaintiff Frank Schroeder – Defendant Facts: M entered into k for purchase of land from F Completion of agreement subject to M receiving copy of lease (Internet Café) and being satisfied w/ such by Sep. 10 th 99 Sep. 8 th 99 telephone conversation b/w M & F where F agrees to provide final inspection certificates from municipality Sept. 9 th 99: M forwarded addendum to F as a confirmation of their telephone conversation re. final inspection certificates F takes position that M has repudiated/made a counter-offer b/c addendum constitutes a new consideration; as a result, F saw it within his rights to cancel prior agreement and substitute for a new contract w/ a substantially higher price
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/24/2010 for the course COMM 393 taught by Professor Elaine during the Spring '10 term at The University of British Columbia.

Page1 / 34

law cases - L iebmann V . Canada (M inister of National...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online