Английская Википедия:Casavant v British Columbia

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 13:38, 15 февраля 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{Italic title}} {{Short description|British Columbia legal case}} '''''Casavant v British Columbia''''', BCCA 159, was a landmark environmental legal case heard at the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2020. A unanimous court allowed the appeal.<ref name="BCCA 159">{{cite web |last1=BCCA 159 |first=CA46376 |title=Casavant v British Columbia |url=https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcc...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Italic title Шаблон:Short description

Casavant v British Columbia, BCCA 159, was a landmark environmental legal case heard at the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2020. A unanimous court allowed the appeal.[1]

In July 2015, a BC Conservation Officer, Bryce Casavant, received an order to kill two bear cubs in a remote location on Vancouver Island, off the coast of BC. The Conservation Officer declined the kill order. The bear cubs were not killed. The bear cubs were instead transferred to a veterinarian facility and then placed in a rehabilitation facility where they were later released into the wilds of British Columbia. In BC, Conservation Officers are also special constables with unlimited police powers.[2] He was instead given a position in a different ministry with the same pay, but without Special Provincial Constable designation.

The situation sparked worldwide outrage and was covered nationally within Canada and internationally around the world.[3][4][5]

The case was heard before a labour arbitrator and then a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who did not side with Officer Casavant.[6] The BC Court of Appeal overruled the BC Supreme Court, stating that labour arbitrators have no jurisdiction in police discipline matters. All previous decisions against the officer were declared a "nullity" by the high court.[7]

A subsequent attempt to have the matter reopened was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.[8]

References

Шаблон:Reflist