Tag Archives: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

OCLA Report: ONCA decision harms public perception of the judiciary

OCLA researcher Denis Rancourt, PhD, has authored a new report about the recent Ontario family law decisions in the case of J.N. v. C.G. The report, entitled “The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in J.N. v. C.G. brings the province’s appellate … Continue reading

Posted in COVID, Legal analysis, Reports, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on OCLA Report: ONCA decision harms public perception of the judiciary

OCLA Report 2022-3: “State coercion to receive medical injections confirms conflicting interpretations of the right to life, liberty and security of the person (Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)”

OCLA Executive Director Joseph Hickey, PhD and Researcher Denis Rancourt, PhD have authored a new report (OCLA Report 2022-3) explaining that the present interpretation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is incorrect and non-compliant with the Charter because … Continue reading

Posted in COVID, Legal analysis, Reports, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on OCLA Report 2022-3: “State coercion to receive medical injections confirms conflicting interpretations of the right to life, liberty and security of the person (Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)”

OCLA Report 2022-2: “Canadian court decisions on the constitutionality of Covid measures are invalid due to jurisdictional errors of law”

OCLA researcher Denis Rancourt, PhD, has authored a new report (OCLA Report 2022-2) explaining fundamental errors of law in Canadian court decisions in which the constitutionality of governmental COVID-19 measures were challenged. From the Introduction: The purpose of this article … Continue reading

Posted in COVID, Face Masks, Reports, Vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on OCLA Report 2022-2: “Canadian court decisions on the constitutionality of Covid measures are invalid due to jurisdictional errors of law”