In the case Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford (2013), the justice held that the current prostitution laws violated s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Previous cases had not come to that conclusion; therefore, what practice did this judge NOT follow?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford (2013), by not following previous cases that had not concluded the prostitution laws violated s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the judge did not follow the practice of precedent. Precedent, in legal terms, refers to the principle under which judges are obligated to follow the rulings of previous cases in the same jurisdiction that are similar in facts or legal issues.

In the Case Canada (Attorney General) V