| dbo:abstract
|
- Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, 2005 SCC 30 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on parliamentary privilege. The court developed a test for determining when a claim of parliamentary privilege can protect a legislative body or its members from legal scrutiny. Besides the parties to the case (the House of Commons of Canada, Member of Parliament Gilbert Parent, Satnam Vaid, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission), the court heard from the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, Senator Serge Joyal, Senator Mobina Jaffer, the , the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 7353 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:caseName
| |
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:decidedDate
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullCaseName
|
- House of Commons and the Honourable Gilbert Parent v. Satnam Vaid and Canadian Human Rights Commission (en)
|
| dbp:heardDate
| |
| dbp:history
|
- APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal , , upholding a decision of Tremblay‑Lamer J., , dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, 2001 CanLII 25861 (CHRT) (en)
|
| dbp:ratio
|
- The assembly or member seeking immunity under parliamentary privilege must show that the sphere of activity for which privilege is claimed is so closely and directly connected with the fulfilment by the assembly or its members of their functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including the assembly's work in holding the government to account, that outside interference would undermine the level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their legislative work with dignity and efficiency. (en)
|
| dbp:ruling
| |
| dbp:scc
| |
| dbp:unanimous
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, 2005 SCC 30 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on parliamentary privilege. The court developed a test for determining when a claim of parliamentary privilege can protect a legislative body or its members from legal scrutiny. Besides the parties to the case (the House of Commons of Canada, Member of Parliament Gilbert Parent, Satnam Vaid, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission), the court heard from the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, Senator Serge Joyal, Senator Mobina Jaffer, the , the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
