Controversial Cases: The Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council

Since the 19th Century, women in Canada have fought political, legal, and social battles to find their place in Canadian society. From starting out in small, local organizations, to legal battles in the Supreme Court, Canadian women have come a long way. Unfortunately, it took a long time for many people to adapt to the changing roles of women, which made women still feel unequal compared to men. It is really striking to think that at one point society questioned if women could even be considered persons, just a small sample of the many changes women had to face through the course of history. This paper will analyze these changes experienced by Canadian women in that time period and how it affected their everyday lives.

The first reason that shows that Canada has become a “just society” is the changes to women’s legal rights. Since the 1970s, many women have stepped up to the work of politics. Several instances include Kim Campbell, the first woman to become the prime minister of Canada,1 Kathleen Wynne, the first premier of Canada to be lesbian,2 Beverley McLachlin, the “first female chief of justice of the Supreme Court of Canada,”3 and Catherine Callbeck, the second female provincial premiere and first woman to win

The Famous Five decided to appeal to the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada with the support of Prime Minister Mackenzie King. The Famous Five appealed to the Judicial Committee and Privy Council of England. In 1929, the British Privy Council declared women as “persons”. They stated that the constitution is a “living tree” and should change according to the time (Creating Canada, page 154). In conclusion, the victory of the Persons Case contributed to the importance of women and opened the door to many rights.

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.

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 Persons case was one of the most defining moments for Canadian women in history. Not only did it allow for women to work in the government but it opened so many doors for other issues involving women and their rights. The Persons Case was a constitutional ruling that gave the right to Women to be able to be appointed into the Senate. The case was started by the Famous Five, a group of women’s right activists, consisting of Emily Murphy, Irene Marryat Parlby, Nellie Mooney McClung, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards. In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not “persons” according to the BNA act. Therefore, they were not eligible to hold a position in the government. The Famous Five were not pleased with this law that was degrading to women so, they appealed to the Privy Council of England and in 1929, the Court’s decision was reversed. The Persons Case enabled women to work for change in

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

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.

Emily Murphy along with four other women, more commonly referred to as The Famous Five, presented their case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, to get women declared as persons too. Unfortunately, they lost the case, but they still did not lose hope. They then presented their case in front of His Majesty’s Privy Council in London. Finally, on October 18th 1929, the verdict was announced and was in the favour of the Famous Five.2 This case was a huge victory for women living all around Canada, since it helped them be viewed in a different perspective. Women were now finally recognized as individuals. Winning the Person's Case is a huge step towards reaching a level of true equality and evidently this case could not have been won without the support, hard work and dedication provided by Emily Murphy.

Many modern democracies have a bicameral legislature which is a body of government that consist of two legislative chambers. The bicameral legislature provides representation for both, the citizens of the country and the state legislature on a federal level. The Canadian parliament has two chambers, the lower chamber which is an elected House of Commons and the upper chamber which is the non-elected Senate. The Canadian Senate is assumed to be a “sober second thought” [3] on government legislation which is a phrase that describes the Senate’s role in promoting and defending regional interest. There has been an immense amount of the public outcry regarding the Senate after spending scandal that occurred during the recent election period. A question that has induced discussion in parliament is whether the Canadian Senate should be reformed or not? This issue divides the population in half because of differing views. Some political parties want the abolition of the Senate to occur while other parties would like to have an elected Senate because provinces are not represented equally. A method of deciding the faith of the current Senate, the functions of the Senate and objectives of Senate reform should be defined. The assumptions about the purpose of the Senate, problems of the current Senate, the goal of Senate reform and the method of achieving the reform may help provide a consensus on how the Senate should be reformed.

Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers.

In theory, the Parliament is the most important institution in the Canadian government and all members of the parliament are equal. The Prime Minister is supposed to be primus inter pares, meaning first among equals. But over the years, the cabinet has become more institutionalized and less departmentalized. Hence the Prime Minister’s power has increased over the years. Canada is the one of the most decentralized federations in the

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

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.

Women being able to vote was a huge step forward for Canadian women, but even though they could run for certain political positions, they could not be Senators. During the early twentieth century women were not legally considered “persons” and could not be Senators (Women become Persons). This act of exclusion portrayed Canada as an immature nation. A milestone with significant importance occurred in the Persons Case. The first constitution of Canada was the BNA Act (British North America Act). In this constitution it referred to a group of people as “persons” but when one individual was referenced they used the word ‘he”. The constitution restricted women from holding public office. (History Canadian resources book) The act declared that “women are persons in matters of pain and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges.” Therefore, women could be given the same penalties as men for breaking a law, but could not receive the same basic benefits that men could. Unfair legalities like this proves that Canada was