Canadian Legal System

Many Canadian citizens would argue that The Canadian Independent Justice System is a threat to democracy. An independant Justice system is when the courts do not depend or rely on the government. They operate on their own and are independent from any government organizations. The Canadian independent Justice System is beneficial and good for democracy because the Judges can not be intimidated by the threat of losing their job, the court system allows appeals, and judges must abide to The Canadian Charter of Rights. The Canadian Independent Justice System is not a threat to democracy.

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.

As time goes on, some countries become more relevant in the global sphere while others start to fade away. Canada is a country that only becomes more relevant as time goes on. Since being granted full sovereignty, Canada has had a growing role as a major world player. Much of their international growth has to do with its close ties to the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the country has also undergone huge change and refocusing on a domestic level. With influence from both Europe and the United States, Canada has a very unique system of governing. This paper will focus on a few major areas of Canada. It will look into the history of Canada, the structure of its government, its politics, and many of the major issues it faces today.

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.

In a 2007 speech by Beverly McLachlin, the Supreme Court of Canada Chief of Justice, she stated that “access to justice promotes social stability” and also that “if people can’t get justice, they will have less respect for the law” (Eberts, 2013). By her words alone, the necessity and importance of legal aid is demonstrated. Socioeconomic status can put individuals at an unfair disadvantage in many aspects of life, especially in regards to legal proceedings. “Legal aid [was] introduced to Canada in the 1970’s” as a way of ensuring fair trial, and decreasing the frequency of common problems that result from misunderstanding of the law, unrepresented litigants and the power of money (Abell, 2010). However, like any tool or procedure used to improve society, there are always imperfections. Legal aid resources have become difficult to obtain financially and situationally, and the quality of this resource is often put into question. Without it, people and the justice system face consequences that need to be resolved in order to achieve the social stability that McLachlin speaks of.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched under the CA 1982 act in the Canadian constitution is seen as a decisive indicator of national identity by the majority of Canadians. The charter’s role in Canadian society ranges from providing individuals with intrinsic human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of belief and acts particularly as a concrete limit on ‘tyranny of the majority’, advocating and enforcing basic rights of individuals and minorities. It is however worthy to note that CA 1982’s involvement as a platform to increased activism of the Supreme court in Canada is highly controversial. Employing the charter as a basis to the interpretation of different situations, the Canadian Supreme Court has in many occasions

John Crawford committed his first murder in 1981, two days before Christmas after meeting a woman at the bar. He was convicted of that murder and was sentenced to jail until 1989 after being paroled. Only 3 years after being given his life back, he took the lives of 3 others. He was finally caught and convicted in 1996 of the 3 murders and got 3 life sentences. If only we had the death penalty, those 3 women would still be alive today. In Canada, the most serious sentence for murder is life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years. In some cases, these criminals are eligible for parole within years of their sentencing. However, that is just not good enough. We cannot allow criminals to run free only years after their previous illegal

The Constitution Act of 1982, or more commonly known as, “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” constitutionally entrenched fundamental civil liberties, which have protected Canadians from both federal and provincial legislative imposition. Since the Charter’s inception, however, Canada’s judiciary has been placed under great criticism and scrutiny due to the fact that the courts were believed to have been given legislative powers that rivaled both the federal and provincial legislatures. Through Judicial Review, the Supreme Court of Canada was given the task to interpret the charter since that wording of the legal document itself was vague enough to warrant interpretation, and hence, gave critics a reason to believe that supreme court justices have been the power to legislate without any political or public recourse. Unfortunately, as a result of these criticisms, various public notions, such as appointed and not duly elected Supreme Court justices with the ability to legislate, became the main focus in questioning whether the supreme court’s institutional functions were legitimate, and in tandem with the principles of a free and democratic society.

When looking back at ancient systems, I see opportunities for change within our current Canadian criminal justice system. Today, Justice is coherently linked with punishment because we use a “Tough on Crime Approach” (Zinger,2016). Criminal justice focuses on locking up convicted offenders, to eliminate them from society and deter them from reoffending (Wacks, 2015). Natalie DeFreitas states that this is not an effective system because 70% of people incarcerated reoffend after one year of being released from prison (DeFreitas, 2012). In order to reduce recidivism Canada must focus on repairing the harm created between the victims and the offender, just like in ancient times. The state should not be considered the victim of an offence, instead

Every country has a justice system in place in their society in order to maintain peace and equality. The Criminal Justice System gives civilians the opportunity to receive integrity through a legal system while giving them a fair chance to deal with negligence and misconduct. There are several components that work together to enforce the purpose played by the Criminal Justice System. Most obviously, it includes the rules and laws entrenched in the Charter and Constitution in which prosecutors and judges base their decisions. Secondly, it consists of the parliament who is responsible for putting these laws together. Then come the enforcement agents such as police officers and defense attorneys who regulate society using these rules.

The Supreme Court is one of the most influential ways in determining whether something is considered to be “constitutional” in many developed countries around the world, including Canada. Within this country, the Supreme Court is the highest Court of Appeal that both territories and provinces can bring court cases to, making it extremely important in the way the country functions (The Supreme Court of Canada, 2016). Within this country, the way the judges are chosen is something that has recently come into consideration under the Trudeau government. The way the Supreme Court is decided could change not only the way decisions are made, but could impact the country overall. Since this is the case, the Prime Minister should be able to determine who the members of the Supreme Court are with help from a committee, so long as all regions of the country are represented and a mandatory retirement age is met.

However, Canada can advance its current democratic liberalism by implanting the Nordic system and bringing in electoral reform through the proportional representation electoral system. Despite this, the current liberal democratic state of Canada is not completely flawed; for instance, Canadian citizens are granted many overlooked rights such as the right to compel the government into changing their decision. Thus, Canada’s governing system, although not completely faulty, will take a step in a positive direction by establishing the Nordic System, introducing proportional representation, and continuing to protect the right to the defiance of

Driving on the trans Canada highway, buying maple syrup at the local grocery store, and visiting the Toronto zoo all have something in common: a law that was once passed through Parliament has affected these activities. Parliament views proposed bills and passes laws continuously. These laws affect how Canadians act, what they can do, and even what they can say. Therefore, the parliamentary process must be responsible and parliamentary officials must be held accountable for their actions. The Canadian parliamentary process is a bicameral system largely based on principles of the Westminster Model, mixed with characteristics of the United States’ process. It is a form of liberal democracy, with a constitution, non-elected Senate, elected House of Commons and the Governor general as the representative of the Crown. This essay will first outline the various components surrounding the writing of a bill. Next, it will describe the process of how legislation must pass through Parliament before becoming a law. Finally, the last component of the essay will be an assessment of surveillance functions available to Parliament that help hold the executive accountable, as well examine said the effectiveness of said functions.

Common law in Canada is based on precedent, which mean that common law uses previous events or situations to guide court decisions going forward. Precedent is ‘binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts’; therefore, common law is not based on interpretation. Common law is created from precedent alone. Common law is used in areas like contract law, tort law, and property law. There may be written statutes in these areas of law; more often than not, the judge’s decision is based on precedent rather than a statute.

To begin, common law originated in Medieval England in the time of King Henry II. The practice developed sending circuit judges from the King’s central court to travel throughout England to hear the various disputes. The aim of these courts (assizes) was to add consistency and fairness to the legal system. Alongside the traveling courts King Henry also established the jury system. Over time these judges recorded the information of each case they heard as well as the decisions and punishments that were ordered. This is known as case law or common law. This began a justice system that relied on the principle of stare decisis or “to stand by the decision”. This principle developed into the rule of precedent which was used to apply previous decision to a case with similar circumstance. This system was used throughout the country and thus was known as common law. As the English began colonizing Canada they brought their legal systems with them which greatly influenced today’s legal system. All provinces and territories in Canada follow the common law legal tradition and adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis. In Canada law is made of two primary sources case law and legislation. Case law is made up of written decisions which have been made by judges in court cases and tribunals.Lower courts in Canada are bound by the higher courts decisions. For instance, all Ontario courts are bound by the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal. However, courts are only bound by the