The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the superiors or the overruling and place it into the palms of the people. As seen through examples our western law (canadian law) has slowly branched off from the supremacy of God (mosaic law), to the supremacy of the monarchy (bristish law), finally to a realization of the importance of citizen participation in the creating, governing, and administrating of the laws (Greek law).

The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.

Discuss the view that the power of the Supreme Court cannot be justified in a

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.

Firstly, the appointment of judges shapes Charter interpretation, forcing Canadians to reconsider the people they have given power to and to rethink the Charter’s interpreters’ authority in creating a more “just” society. Unlike the politicians that Canadians decide to have authority over Canadian administration of justice, taxes, foreign affairs, and other issues of national concern; ever since Canada instituted the Charter into the Constitution, many concerns that politicians once burdened themselves with are now turned over to judges whom society cannot elect or un-elect. However, in an article called “Does the Supreme Court of Canada need more checks and balances?” Jeffrey Simpson states “The prime minister has complete discretion to nominate whomever he or

As we know from section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms everyone has certain fundamental freedoms, and among those rights is the freedom of conscience and religion. Secularism comes as a shock to Canadians because of how many people immigrate to Canada because of its positive attitudes towards multiculturalism. After presenting opposing arguments with concern to the promotion of a secular state through a device such as the Québec Charter, I will that the Charter because it violates basic human rights and forces secularism onto the Quebecois.

In the article ‘Public Reason and the Disempowerment of Aboriginal People in Canada’, written by Matthew Tomm, the author begins by providing a general perception towards the aboriginal perspective in the political and legal discussions through the use of a brief narrative. The author then transitions this background information into his argument surrounding this injustice. The author’s argument regarding the struggles of aboriginal people in Canada is clearly identified as a two-part statement. Part I features the obstacle of public justifiability, the idea utilized to actually justify the injustice towards the aboriginal people, defined by the author as “a central idea of contemporary political theory, which says that to be legitimate the laws of a democratic state should be justified to all its citizens” (Tomm 294). Part II illustrates the idea of public justifiability being at work in Canadian courts; regardless of their effort to implement the aboriginal perspectives into the legal system, their ambivalence is causing inefficiency and inconsistency. The author discusses the impact of the principle of public reason, the political liberal stance on the matter, the courts approach and handling of the normative dimensions of aboriginal perspectives, and the injustice of legal pluralism in regards to one being considered superior. All these ideas and events occurring within the law contribute to strengthening the author’s argument. In summary, the author’s argument surrounds

The necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

The right to life is considered a fundamental freedom of all citizens in society. For example, in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), every Canadian is granted the right to “life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” . However, this freedom rests on a delicate balance and has been contested in various situations to determine its scope. Originally, the preservation of life was considered as an absolute necessity and was therefore entrenched in Canadian constitutional law. However, recently this necessity has been questioned for its assumption that all individuals desire to live at all costs. Instead, the Courts have recognized that “in certain circumstances, an individual 's choice about the end of [their] life is entitled to respect” . As such, this paper will examine a legal case that exemplifies the changing societal beliefs, and will analyze the specifics of the law, paying close attention to the nature of the legal conflict, policy implications, and its contribution to the understanding of Canadian law.

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

To what extent was Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a “just society” actually achieved in Canada in (and since) the 1970s? Canada is a just society because of the changes to women's legal rights, ethnic minority human rights, and multiculturalism.

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

The Court should strive to work out a constitutional equilibrium where each branch of government cannot dominate each other, an equilibrium where each branch in the exercise of its distinct power should be left alone yet bereft of a license to abuse… The call for that quality of rare disinterestedness should counsel us to resist the temptation of unduly inflating judicial power and deflating the executive and legislative powers.

This article also demonstrates the role of the government. It proves what the government has the power to do. Stephen Harper is “an instrument to promote human dignity, protect human rights, and build the common good” in this occurrence as he is sticking by his countries morals and refusing to stray from