The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

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.

Now Aboriginal rights are protected in the Constitution they have the same equal rights as any citizen in Canada. Canada achieved a just society by amending the scars of the collective rights of the Francophones of Canada. In the 1960’s English and French relations were very tense. Provincial governments took the right to speak French away. This led to many conflicts across Canada. When the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created it stated that a provincial government could not take away a Francophone’s right to speak their language. The new Charter also included that Francophone’s had the right to send their children to school in either French or English. Canada achieved a just society by relieving French and English tensions. Canada achieved a just society by giving Anglophones collectives rights in Quebec. English Canadians make up the majority of Canada. In Quebec, French Canadian’s have majority. Since they have majority English Canadian’s have collective rights. Before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, laws in Quebec mostly affected Anglophones. According to Quebec’s Bill 101 which was passed by Parti Quebecois all signs had to be in French, and English citizens in Quebec had to attend French schools

As Canada 's power regime changes to a new face and new political party, the nation state receives a new vision. A new movement is introduced for establishing Canada 's name socially, economically, and politically in its global relations. Canada has experienced this in the face of newly elected Prime Minister Sr. Justin Trudeau. Particularly inquiring of the dialogues exchanged within the conversation between Sr. Justin Treadeau and a press reporter in regards to a tax policy change that appeared to have a concealed contentious issue. The PM’s progressive plans aim to be for the wellbeing of Canadian society and building the pavement for a prosperous economy. Although Trudeau’s interior motives may be for the common good, for example to combat inequalities and class hierarchies between the Canadian citizens, his plan however may only be justice for some citizens and unfairness for the others. Analyzing this argument in accordance to the Rawls principles of justice as fairness, and Locke 's interpretation of individual rights and liberty to identify the rudimentary flaw in this exchange and the defense will be the aim of this paper.

On the question of inherent Aboriginal self-government, the Courts have remained silence, and declined to answer the question of whether the right to self-government is an existing right, such that it would be part of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Coupled with the fact that the Constitution is just about impossible to amend nowadays, with at least 7 provinces who make up at least 50% of the population of Canada having to agree in order to amend, the reality is that in Canada today, the Métis right to self-government is just about nonexistent. As a result, there isn’t the inherent right to self-government based on the occupation of lands by Métis peoples, but instead, it comes from a transfer of Crown

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is without a doubt one of Canada’s most important section entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights enacted into the Canadian Constitution as part of the Canada Act in 1982. However, the Charter was Canada’s second attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens all throughout the country and on every level of government. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which preceded the Charter was enacted in 1960. However, being only a federal statute rather than a full constitutional document, it had no power and application to provincial laws. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, therefore rarely unlawful laws were declared inoperative and continued to exist. As a result, the ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights led to many movements to improve the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada. However, similar to its predecessor, the Charter is not without faults, and loopholes. In some cases, it has even infringed upon certain liberties and democratic rights and freedoms. In other cases, the Charter has incited conflicts between liberty and democracy and raised questions that speculate whether it is truly democratic.

The government of Canada provides governance through laws and policy so Canada can be a lawful country, order in Canada is created and protected by canada’s charter of right and freedom in Canada’s constitution so life of canadians are fair and equitable. The charter of right and freedom include democratic, equality, mobility, and legal right and four fundamental freedom include freedom of association, TESM, Peaceful assembly and religion and conscience. The Canadian charter of right and freedom is effective at prioritizing the individual rights and freedom over the common good of all canadians. Furthermore, the canadian charter of rights and freedom protect the equality right of individuals, any law that infringe on individual right can be

The notwithstanding clause is a much-maligned aspect of the Canadian Constitution. Yet, despite all the hand wringing and gnashing at teeth very little has come out of it safe a single bill being overturned two decades ago, and perhaps another one recently, though this is far from a

Part I: Mandatory Long Essay Question (24 points) In The Value of A just Society, Pierre Elliott Trudeau explained that the Constitution Act of 1982’s primary goal was to protect individual rights rather than collective rights. Furthermore, he thought territorially concentrated minorities should not be given special rights. Analyse the linguistic rights and the Aboriginal rights jurisprudence since 1982 and determine if Trudeau’s constitutional objective has materialized. Your answer should be no more than 1500 words.

In conclusion, I believe that the Notwithstanding Clause should be abolished because it allows our rights and freedoms to be taken away, It gives the government too much power, It gives the public no say in what the government does with this act, and finally because it doesn’t allow the courts to have a final say in the outcome of the statues made using section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the

Many Canadians of the 21st century still often wonder, was the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms a mistake? It is believed that the Charter 's creation was a significant benefit as it guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. However, many believe the Charter makes Canada more like the United States, especially by serving corporate rights and individual rights rather than group rights and social rights. Also, there are several rights that should be included in the Charter, such as a right to health care and a basic right to free education. With this, by guaranteeing certain political rights and civil rights to every Canadian citizen, it is evident that the creation of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms was not a mistake, and was truly a benefit to all Canadian citizens for many important reasons. One important reason is that Charter guarantees all Canadians their legal rights as it promises rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected. In addition with the guarantee of Canadians legal rights, is their language rights which is to assure people have the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada 's federal government and certain provincial governments. As well as guaranteeing all Canadian 's equality rights to promise equal treatment before and under the law. The

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was constructed to replace the Bill of Rights, 1960. In the 1960’s-1970’s Quebec was extremely discontent with being apart of Canada due to the language barer and being a minority. Many citizens in Quebec even wanted to separate themselves from Canada and form their own nation. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau decided that the new charter in order to ensure the rights of people residing in Quebec. In order to do this Trudeau had to create an amending formula for the British North-American Act. This would grand Canada its independence from Brittan. After gaining independence Pierre Trudeau also included the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This charter created a great amount a controversy among many

Although Canada is governed by a common law legal system, common sense doesn’t always prevail in determining how one might attempt to resolve the complexity in deciding which constitutional right should have first rights.

In the tangled web of Canadian administrative law, not only does the court consider the importance of the decision, but also places significant importance on the process through which the decision is made. Procedural fairness is defined as a procedure that is open and transparent, allowing the affected individuals to express their arguments and perspectives to support their case (Module 4). If a citizen believes that the court’s decision was not made in a fair process, they can turn to the courts and question them. However, any breach of the rules of procedural fairness is a very serious matter and is named ‘jurisdictional error’. Once it has been determined that a duty of procedural fairness is owed, it then needs to be determined what the duty entails. Courts do recognize that certain interests require greater procedural protection compared to others. Administrative law refers to laws, procedures, and legal institutions affecting the government. It is also concerned with regulating government power and governing the implementation of public programs. Administrative law addresses “the issue of whether or not governmental decision makers have acted within the boundaries established by the law they administer” (Module 6). A very important aspect of decision makers acting ethically and in the public’s interest is if the citizens participate in those decisions. “Rousseau advocated participatory democracy – meaning ongoing and meaningful citizen involvement in governmental

The rights of many people versus the rights of an individual is certainly a vexing concept. Like a delicate balancing act; if one side is favoured over the other it causes a rift in the already strained relationship between the minority and majority. Evidently, the justification of taking any side must be valid, according to the theories of H.L.A. Hart. In the past, Canadian law has violated the rights of minorities; however, these violations have decreased in their severity as time has passed on. Some cases where the balance between minority and majority rights is questioned is in The Canadian Indian Residential School System, Bill 101, Equality in the Workplace and The Public Service Act.