Reference no: EM133202423

The year is 1975 and the City of Vancouver is experiencing a very big problem with car thefts. In the past year, there have been 400 cars stolen. People are upset and angry, and they are demanding that the government do something about this situation.

In response to this public pressure, the Government of British Columbia has just passed a law called the Car Theft Act. In the preamble to the Car Theft Act it states as follows: "Because the federal government does not have adequate criminal penalties for car theft, the legislature of British Columbia is compelled to act in order to stop the car theft epidemic in this province." The Car Theft Act goes on to state that a person convicted of car theft shall be punished by execution (hanging, firing squad or lethal injection).

The federal government disagrees with the BC government, and doesn't think that it is necessary to increase the punishment for car theft. The federal government has decided to challenge the Car Theft Act in court, arguing it is ultra vires. Specifically, federal government lawyers say that car theft is a national emergency and therefore only the federal government can make laws about car theft.

Meanwhile, Sam is the first person to be convicted of car theft in British Columbia since the Car Theft Act became law. He is now facing the death penalty and is fearful that he will be executed.

Sam has hired Sally, a high profile lawyer who is very critical of the Car Theft Act. She has been so critical that the government has just charged her with "assisting" car thieves (their argument is that by criticizing the law, Sally is therefore trying to help thieves steal cars) - so she is being prosecuted only for publicly stating her opinion about the law.

1. Do you think the federal government will succeed in its argument that the Car Theft Act is ultra vires because car theft is a national emergency in Canada? Briefly describe the argument you think the federal government will be making here, and state whether you believe it will succeed.

2. If Sally wants to try to save Sam from the death penalty, she will need to argue the Car Theft Act is unconstitutional. What is the best argument that Sally can make? Do you think this argument will succeed?

3. Is there a constitutional argument that Sally can make to defend herself against the charge of "assisting" car thieves (she will make a different argument than the one she uses to save Sam from the death penalty)? Describe the argument she might make, and state whether you think it will succeed.