preview

The True Nature Of The Canadian Charter

Decent Essays

The True Nature of the Canadian Charter
As Canada continues to socially progress, the Charter has made Canada struggle to become a more just society. The Charter as part of the evolution of the constitution does not suddenly place Canada in a brighter light where justice is eminent and achieved easily for society as a whole. Likewise, the method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has forced the judicial interpretation of the Charter to be perceived negatively by the rest of Canada.
While some might argue that the living tree doctrine of constitutional interpretation is essential when interpreting the Charter, this principle can be contrasted with a doctrine known as “originalism” (Solum, 2011). Supporters of …show more content…

Since prime ministers often select judges based on the ideals their political party represents, constant evolution of the constitution would allow free reign for judges to impose their own subjective values, particularly ones that are quite similar to the political party in parliament (The Globe And Mail, Simpson 2016). Therefore, while the country might be satisfied with the judges in place during that certain time period; when it is time for a new election and a new political party is elected into office, Canadians would be dissatisfied with the judges that are on the bench of The SCC. As a result, while society’s government, morals, and social values change and “progress”, the law and its interpretations/interpreters persist to stand their grounds on various controversial issues. Proceedings in all notorious issues must be handled with neutrality and objective criteria in order to conclude to justifiable decisions (The Globe And Mail, Simpson 2016).
On the other hand, 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. Hence, while Canada may claim to be progressing in legal thought, the lack of Supreme Court checks and balances proves otherwise. Unlike the politicians

Get Access