The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

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

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

Since the birth of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is growing scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada’s role in the intertwinement law and politics. Individuals are noting that courts under judicial review have the capacity to shape law to meet the evolving needs of society (Sharpe, 2003:1). This paper will analyze the emerging issues witnessed in the study of Canada’s judiciary system. The first issue being explored is the concept of “Judicial Activism”. This paper defines “Judicial Activism” with accordance to Britannica Encyclopaedia online as being a phenomenon in which judges take a direct policy-making role, and seem more than willing to strike down legislative or executive actions. (Roosevelt, 2015:1).

Although, Canada offers comparable qualities and values with other countries, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms really separates Canada from other social liberties enactments. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the diversity of differing qualities of Canadian culture and assures the freedom of individuals that lengthens boundaries apparent to the constitutionalized law. Thusly, contrasted with different nations, Canada’s judiciary performs a huge part in deciphering the law. Considering the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which consists of basic human rights, it is evident that Canada has many significant laws that acknowledge and protect the rights and freedoms including the liberty and equality of citizens.

Canada's judicial system is transparent and free from corruption. Businesses report that Canadian courts show high levels of independence and state their confidence in the efficiency of the legal system in challenging regulations and settling disputes (Business Corruption in Canada, 2016).

A large difference between the Canadian and American Criminal Justice System is that in Canada, all first-time judges no matter what level of court have to be lawyers and had to have been for at least five years, although virtually all appointments come from lawyers who have at least 10 years of experience(Choosing Judges in Canada, 2010) the judges are appointed by the federal or provincial government, superior court judges are appointed by the federal government meanwhile the inferior courts; which are all courts that are not the superior court, are appointed by the provincial government. “In many American jurisdictions justices and judges are elected to their positions, they must meet certain basic requirements, including citizenship and residency” (How judges are elected).

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

The judicial branch, or the judiciary, is basically the court system for the United States. Their main purpose is to make sure all laws passed are in accordance with the Constitution, and to resolve any disagreements. The decisions in the courtroom are either ruled constitutional or unconstitutional. They also have judicial review which is the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. The head of the judiciary is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges, one of which is called the chief justice. The judges are appointed by the President and supported by the Senate if they are in agreement. These judges do not

The Charter will always remain a matter of debate among different schools of thought. The opponents of the Charter argue that it weakens the essence of a democracy by striking down legislations passed by an assembly with elected members of parliament. While on the other hand it can be argued that a written constitution in a modern democratic society strengthen its

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.

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

The Canadian criminal justice system consists of multiple roles in order to sustain a well-working government system. The system is put in place in order to keep safety, equality, peace and fairness. There are four main functions of the criminal justice system that are interrelated segments that help protect a society from crime. The criminal justice system consists of policing, courts, corrections and parole. The component of the Canadian Criminal Justice System that will be discussed is about the process and function of the courts.

The emperor appoints the chief justice upon designation by the Cabinet, which also appoints the other justices. The judges can only be removed by public impeachment. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws and all its decisions are final. It supervises a system of four inferior courts: A High Court, which rules on appeals of judgments by the lower courts; a District Court; a Family Court; and a Summary Court. In Canada the supreme court is also the highest court, a court of last appeal. The supreme court of Canada has nine judges, one of the judges is the chief justice and eight other regular