Statute Law

Stare Decisis

Common Law

Civil Code

cases decided by judges in Canada

laws established by governing bodies in particular jurisdictions

laws which determine the power of the federal and provincial governments

laws which outline the rights of individuals in a province

All of above

royal assent

third reading by the House of Commons or Provincial legislature

proclamation by the government

approval by the senate

None of above

a body of law which is enforced by specialised administrative tribunals

a body of law which deals with the administration of court processes

a body of law which deals with administrative processes

a body of law which regulates government action

All of above

case law

a source of law based on previously decided cases dealing with similar issues

a source of law based upon precedent

All of the above

None of above

refers to the precedent system of law behind the common law system

means that the judges must follow decisions from courts in any province in Canada

means that the judges must follow decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada

means that the judges must follow decisions containing similar facts across Canada

A vote in support of the amendment by a majority of the members of the Parliament

A vote in support of the amendment by members of the Parliament who represent 2/3 of the provinces in Canada

A vote in support of the amendment by members of the Parliament who represent 50% of the provinces in Canada and 2/3 of the country's population

A vote in support of the amendment by members of the Parliament who represent 2/3 of the provinces in Canada and 50% of the country's population

government wishes to pass a law, which conflicts with the Charter using the 'notwithstanding' clause

rights of an individual could be exercised to the detriment of the general public

limitation is justified in a free and democratic society

All of the above

pass a law which conflicts with the Charter without amendment of the Constitution which automatically expires after 5 years

pass a law which conflicts with the Charter without amendment of the Constitution

pass a law which conflicts with the Charter provided approval of a majority of the government members is obtained

pass a law which conflicts with the Charter for an indefinite period

No, because the Chadha opinion spoke only about a rarely-used "committee veto" and left in place any one-house or two-house vetoes.

Yes, because there are too many agencies for Congress to effectively monitor their budgets.

No, because Chadha only applied to legislative meddling in what was essentially an adjudication about an individual’s immigration status.

No, because Congress still passes legislation restricting agency spending and limiting their authority to make rules on certain subjects.

There was insufficient evidence that Schecter had selected particular chickens to suit particular customers.

The statute did not create an "intelligible principle" to guide the agency in its definition of the statutory phrase "fair competition."

Congress attempted in that statute to delegate to an administrative agency the power to define criminal conduct.

The statute gave to trade associations and other unaccountable private groups the power to draft "codes" of fair competition that the government could adopt and enforce.

Yes, because a reviewing court must have an adequate record before deciding whether an agency had adequate support for its rule.

No, because section 53 is silent on the question of ex parte contracts.

Yes, but only when the rulemaking resolves competing claims among a small group of claimants to a valuable governmental benefit.

No, so long as the agency can demonstrate that the comment dealt only with policy questions and did not introduce new data.

a set of rules that enable people to live together and respect each other's rights

a body of principles recognised and applied by the state to the administration of justice

a statement of circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear through the courts

All of the above

settling disputes

providing protection

establishing rules of conduct

All of the above

Yes, because some of the protected employees carry out purely executive functions.

No, because Morrison does not address the proper procedure for removal, only the grounds for removal.

No, because Congress does not participate in the removal process.

No, because removal of protected employees would not interfere with the ability of the President to perform his (or her) duties.