Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
B.(R.) v. Children's Aid Society,  1 S.C.R. 315, (Supr
Transcript of B.(R.) v. Children's Aid Society,  1 S.C.R. 315, (Supr
2. Which Rights and Freedoms of the Charter were involved?
The rights and freedoms involved in the Children`s Aid Society (1995) of the Supreme Court of Canada is primarily exhibited in Fundamental Freedoms (Section two). The Charter suggests that you have the freedom to choose and practice your Religion. Richard B. and Beena B. practice the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In which they believed that blood is not to be ingested by Christians as stated in the bible scripture and therefore blood should not be transfused even in a medical emergency. They believe that blood is sacred to God and is to used only for the anointment of sins. Under second examination the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the states decision to require blood transfusion was justified in an attempt to save the child`s life under section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being the Reasonable Limits Clause which legally allows the government to limit an individual’s Charter rights.
3. What was the Supreme Court decision?
In the beginning the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the actions of the state were unjustified and that they trampled on the religious freedoms (Fundamental Freedoms under section two of the Charter) of Richard B. and Beena B. However under second examination by the Supreme Court of Canada their final decision was that the states attitude to remove the child from its parents for extreme medical care to save Sheena B`s life was justified. This was under section one of the Charter: Being the Reasonable Limits Clause, which legally allows the government to limit an individual’s Charter Rights and Freedoms within reasonable conduct.
4. Did this case result in any Canadian law changes?
No, I do not believe that the Children`s Aid Society (1995) (Supreme Court of Canada) case did not result in any Canadian law changes. However, it did in fact undergo second examination by the Supreme Court of Canada, in which they changed their decision, to that is was justified of the state to remove Sheena B. from her parents for medical attention in order to protect her life.
1. What was the issue in the case? (Summary)
Sheena B. the daughter of Richard B. and Beena B. in Ontario was born precisely four weeks early. Within the early weeks of Sheena B `s life she experienced numerous physical ailments and received multiple medical treatments with exemptment of the processes of blood transfusions to which her parents had agreed. As her parents practiced the religion of Jehovah`s Witness. However when Sheen B. was nearly one month old her haemoglobin levels decreased to a severe extent in which physicians believed to treat her life threatening congestive heart failure a blood transfusion was required. Richard and Beena B. believed the blood transfusion was unnecessary. The state decided to remove Sheena from her parents and give her the lifesaving medical attention in which a blood transfusion occurred. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the law which abided to take the child away for extreme medical attention limited Richard B. and Beena B. freedom of religion under section two of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However under second examination the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the state’s decision to remove Sheen from her parents for blood transfusion was justified in order to protect and save her life.
B.(R.) v. Children's Aid Society,  1 S.C.R.315, (Supreme Court of Canada)
In the Children`s Aid Society Case in which Sheena B. was removed from her parents for a blood transfusion resulted in numerous arguments against the Canadian Aid`s Society. Here is some additional information on the Children's Aid Society. They are located all over North America and vary significantly from place to place. This is because the CAS is not a government organization but a network of private non-profit organization. They are organized on a municipal level and are therefore independent and autonomous from each other and the government.
There are cases where Children's Aid Society's do a satisfactory job in protecting children from abusive parents. However when viewing the whole picture the damage that the CAS do to society far outweighs their existence. With a single anonymous complaint, the CAS has the authority to enter your home and take your children by force against your will, with the police if required. Veteran family lawyers characterize the CAS as a "Gestapo”. However you must fundamentally remember that in the Sheena B. case she was far too young to speak for herself and therefore the Children`s Aid Society and the state had the right to remove her from her parents for extreme medical care.