Canadian_Egg_Marketing_Agency_v._Richardson

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 19, 1998 ; Judgment: November 5, 1998
Full case name	Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry
Citations	[1998] 3 S.C.R. 157
Docket No.	25192
Prior history	Judgment against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories.
Ruling	Appeal allowed
Holding
	Corporations who are defendants in civil litigation instigated by the state have the right to raise an argument under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.; In regards to section 6 of the Charter, sections 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) should be read together as forming one right.; The purpose of the mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter is to protect against human rights discrimination, not economic discrimination.; The mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter include the ability to create wealth in another province, not just the ability to physically move to another province.;
Court membership
	Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer; Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
Majority	Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ., joined by Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, and Binnie JJ.
Dissent	McLachlin J., joined by Major J.

<i>Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson</i>

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson

Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on standing to challenge a law as a violation of the Constitution of Canada. The Court expanded the exception first established in R. v. Big M Drug Mart to allow corporations to invoke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in civil litigation. The corporation had claimed rights to freedom of association and freedom of movement under section 2(d) and section 6 of the Charter.

Quick Facts Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson, Hearing: March 19, 1998 Judgment: November 5, 1998 ...

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Canadian_Egg_Marketing_Agency_v._Richardson, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 19, 1998 Judgment: November 5, 1998
Full case name	Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry
Citations	[1998] 3 S.C.R. 157
Docket No.	25192 ^[1]
Prior history	Judgment against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories.
Ruling	Appeal allowed
Holding
Corporations who are defendants in civil litigation instigated by the state have the right to raise an argument under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In regards to section 6 of the Charter, sections 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) should be read together as forming one right. The purpose of the mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter is to protect against human rights discrimination, not economic discrimination. The mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter include the ability to create wealth in another province, not just the ability to physically move to another province.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
Majority	Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ., joined by Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, and Binnie JJ.
Dissent	McLachlin J., joined by Major J.