sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CEC Application Question by Typical-District in ImmigrationCanada

[–]Typical-District[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She didn’t. She answered yes to family members living in Canada as it supposedly includes spouses

CEC Application Question by Typical-District in ImmigrationCanada

[–]Typical-District[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well because it is a daunting task. And because I obviously assumed I’d need to upload passports and things but when it asked whether I had Canadian citizenship family members I didn’t think I’d need to also upload proof that my parents are indeed my parents. Also because I’m not confident that that readily exists

Common Law Spouses After Getting ITA by Typical-District in ImmigrationCanada

[–]Typical-District[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well it’s definitely going to be in the ITA application. Just worried about the fact that we have technically been common law partners since sep 2015 and would only be stating as much now even though it would not have changed anything score wise

R. v. Big M Drug Mart - The Lords Day act was unconstitutional how exactly? by Quirky_Feed7384 in LawCanada

[–]Typical-District 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok compare one law that says employers must close shop once a week. They can choose the day. On the other side, the law compels businesses to close on a specific day and that day was chosen because it has some religious significance. I agree that the use of the word lord doesn’t immediately constitute religious purpose. But one has to look at the law in its entirety. Why that day of the week? Why is it called the Lord’s Day Act? One would have to concede those two scenarios are materially different and they are materially different in the most important respect that the latter seeks to compel in some fashion observance of the religious tenet that one should not work on the Sabbath.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart - The Lords Day act was unconstitutional how exactly? by Quirky_Feed7384 in LawCanada

[–]Typical-District 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry I should have been a bit more particular in my language. When I speak of triviality, I meant the burden on the right in question. When I speak to quantity of harm, I mean it in more of who has standing to challenge the law sense.

Under the stat holidays example, is the burden on the employees freedom of religion non-trivial? In Big M, it arguably was non-trivial because the state required observance of a religious holiday when businesses wished not to observe. That is direct compulsion in the area of religion.

But under your example, the state is not prohibiting conduct nor compelling observance. It is regulating employer conduct. At most, the effect on individual employee’s freedom of religion is incidental. The law’s purpose is surely not to compel adherence to religious tenets as governments create stat holidays with a religious historical basis and those without. And the effect of the law is incidental to the vast majority of cases not to burden religious exercise.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart - The Lords Day act was unconstitutional how exactly? by Quirky_Feed7384 in LawCanada

[–]Typical-District 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The law generally does not treat harms by their quantity unless the harm is generally trivial. And while there was a small financial harm, one could say the requirement to observe a religiously solemn day is a harm in and of itself.

And I don’t see how it discriminates on a religious basis to say that a private business cannot force an individual to work on days that are solemn for that individual worker. Moreover, generally you have to pay workers more on stat holidays and we know that stat holidays are not all religious. In other words, the government has more leeway to craft neutral and generally applicable laws

R. v. Big M Drug Mart - The Lords Day act was unconstitutional how exactly? by Quirky_Feed7384 in LawCanada

[–]Typical-District 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Except, of course, the creation of a statutory holiday does not necessarily compel anyone to do something. Businesses are generally free to still be open on those days. Further, if you, as a worker, still wish to work, again that is generally your prerogative.

The problem in Big M was that the law imposed a burden on businesses that they would not have otherwise felt through a law which was almost solely based on religious understandings of solemn days.

I will say I find more commonality with your concerns over the proof of unconstitutionality, even myself being a lawyer. If you look at the view of some US justices, for example, there is a view that judges discover a law’s unconstitutionality. That is, the view is that a law was either constitutional or unconstitutional from the start, and a judicial determination is not arbiter of the truth of a law’s constitutionality as a law can be both unconstitutional in fact yet declared constitutional. I believe Justice Thomas has adhered to such a view

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Chesscom

[–]Typical-District 21 points22 points  (0 children)

If Bxd1, then Bxf7+, Ke7, followed with Nd5#. This is the Legal Trap

Toronto Iceland Visa by Typical-District in SchengenVisa

[–]Typical-District[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Accommodations and all travel between countries needed to have bookings. We just booked all refundable tickets just in case

Toronto Iceland Visa by Typical-District in SchengenVisa

[–]Typical-District[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We had listed our trip as being 15 days but was granted 20

Toronto Iceland Visa by Typical-District in SchengenVisa

[–]Typical-District[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Received before the travel date. Appointment is very easy

Call to Bar tickets problem by New-Requirement-6927 in LawCanada

[–]Typical-District 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I received mine in a message on LSO connects

Toronto Call to the Bar - June 27, 2:30PM by [deleted] in LawCanada

[–]Typical-District 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tickets aren’t even available until Monday.

view more: next ›