Some of the SCC cases that can be considered for the POL 324 essay assignment include:
 
 

Little Sisters Bookstore v AG BC & AG Canada

Issues:
Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil - Civil rights - Administrative Law - Whether the "prior restraint" of freedom of expression before goods being imported are determined to be "obscene" under the Customs regime violates s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the legislative prohibition of importation of "obscene" goods is contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the prohibition of importation of "obscene" goods violates s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against homosexuals.

BC Court of Appeal: Full Text of BCCA decision

Rejected Appeal. 

BC Supreme Court: Full Text of BCSC decision

Refected: Application for declaration that the legislative scheme prohibiting the importation of obscene goods was of no force and effect for violating s.2(b) and s. 15(1) of the Charter dismissed; granted a declaration to the effect that the administration of the legislative scheme had, from time to time, resulted in violations of the Applicants' s. 2(b) and s. 15(1) Charter rights.
 
 
 

Westbank First Nation v. BC Hydro

Issues:
1. Is the Province constitutionally competent to constitute the Respondent, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ("B.C. Hydro"), an agent of the Province for the purpose of acquiring and holding interests within exclusive federal jurisdiction, namely an interest in land on an Indian Reserve?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is the interest of B.C. Hydro, an agent of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia, in land and improvements located on the reserves ("Reserves") of the Appellant, Westbank First Nation ("Westbank") immune, as a result of the application of s. 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867 , from taxation imposed by Westbank pursuant to assessment and taxation bylaws ("Bylaw") promulgated pursuant to the authority of s. 83(1)(a) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5? If so, are such Bylaws purpoting to impose such taxation ultra vires, or  inapplicable to B.C. Hydro?
3. If the answer to question 2 is no, does the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 authorize the passing of bylaws imposing taxation on the interests of the Provincial Crown or its agents on Indian reserves? If not, are the Bylaws ultra vires or inapplicable to the extent that they purport to impose taxation on the interests of B.C. Hydro on the Westbank Reserves?

BC Court of Appeal: Full Text of Decision

BC Supreme Court: Full Text of Decision
 
 
 

Granvosky v. Minister of  Employment & Immigration

Issues:
Canadian Charter - Civil - Canada Pension Plan Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-8 - Whether the contributory requirements for disability benefits contained in the Canada Pension Plan Act discriminate against temporarily disabled individuals contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - If so, whether the discrimination can be reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter.

Federal Court of Appeal: Full Text of Decision
 
 

Lovelace & the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation v. Ontario & The Chiefs of Ontario

Issues:
Constitutional law - Canadian Charter - Civil - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 15 - Indians - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the agreement between Ontario and Ontario's Indian Bands registered pursuant to the Indian Act to develop the Casino Rama project does not discriminate against the Applicants who were excluded from negotiations and participation in the project - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Ontario's decision not to include the Applicants in the Casino Rama project does not violate s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Ontario Court of Appeal: June 1997
Ontario Court of Justice: July 1996
 
 

Public School Boards' Association of Alberta v.Alberta

Issues:
Constitutional Law - Schools - Whether the Constitution of Canada impliedly or by convention guarantees the reasonable autonomy of school boards - Whether the School Act, 1988, S.A. c. S-3.1, as amended, violates the Constitution of Canada - Whether public schools have been denied a right enjoyed by separate schools to opt out of a provincial system of school funding in violation of a constitutional guarantee of "mirror" equality between public and separate schools - Whether public school boards in Alberta have been denied fairness, equal government and legislative treatment in respect to funding or equal ability to make expenditures without discrimination - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s.17(1) of the Alberta Act does not provide for "mirror equality" between public and separate school boards - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the School Act, 1988, S.A. c. S-3.1, as amended, is not discriminatory within the meaning of s.17(2) of the Alberta Act.

Alberta Court of Appeal: March 1998
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench: Novermber 1995