Notwithstanding Clause

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 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.

Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the

The supreme court of Canada has overruled numerous laws put forward by the Harper government. In 2010, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was opposed to the Vancouver Eastside supervised injection site. Stephen Harper took a conservative approach to the issue, he said that “we as a government will not use taxpayer’s money to fund drug use” (Rachlis, 2010). The Prime Minister did not recognize the potential benefits to Canadian society as he focused on budgeting, without recognizing the benefit to public welfare that would reduce disease, death and have a rehabilitative effect on participants of the program. Judicial decisions play an influential role in the provisions of the Constitution because their interpretation is essential to understanding and employing it. In this essay I will argue that the traditional role of the judges has evolved into having a determinative function of law, that allows judges to uphold citizen’s rights and preserve justice in Canada. Through analyzing judicial review, I will demonstrate how judge’s role is much more than an interpretation of law through exploring the idea of Charter proofing, integrating public opinion in decisions, production of common law and judicial activism that serve in creating a climate that is adaptive to new issues that may arise and free from arbitrary rule.

In order to bring these often very abstract issues to life, we will examine a selection of high profile and prominent decisions (mainly from Canadian courts, and frequently from the Supreme Court of Canada) which can be said to have changed the law, and in which the judges of the court have disagreed among themselves. Cases to be covered concern controversial issues such as Battered Woman Syndrome, Euthanasia/ Physician Assisted Suicide, Hate Speech, Marijuana Use, Obscenity/ Pornography, Prostitution, or topics in human rights (i.e., freedom of expression, national security and the right not to be tortured, or religious freedom). Analysis of cases will include exploration and examination of the philosophical aspects of crucial terms and concepts that appear in Canadian law, such as in the Criminal Code of Canada, or in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and

A hallmark of our great society, that has taken many centuries to perfect, is the concept of democracy. Not just as a system of government but as a defining set of guidelines for life that all citizens take pride in living. As citizens of Canada who may have lived their whole lives, as members of a democratic society most have grown used to the customs and the liberties that society affords them. But, what if one day all the democratic rights and fundamental freedoms you had grown used too were suddenly stripped from you? With this question in mind many Canadians would want to do anything possible to prevent this from happening, which is why many would agree the emergency powers outlined in the Constitution are a truly dangerous threat to the great Canadian democracy we have spent so long promoting

The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of

Before the Charters of Rights and Freedoms were introduced to our Constitution we had to follow the BNA Act also known as The Constitution Act of 1867, which was passed by the British parliament. “This Constitution distributed power between Federal and Provincial governments” (Reference3). Later on in 1960s, the Federal government passed the Canadian Bill of rights “The Bill spoke of Fundamental freedoms, Legal rights and equality rights before the law” (Reference4). This Bill couldn’t do as much because it was no more powerful than any other law, and it was only applied for Federal laws. For many years’ Canada’s Prime Ministers were looking for ways to bring the Constitution home. Prime Minister Trudeau also wanted to add the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed all Canadians to have Fundamental Freedoms, Legal Rights, Equality Rights, Mobility Rights, and the main one Democratic

As a fellow delegate of the province of Ontario, I believe that the predicament of having only the government and its associates of having their voices heard upon, leads to an unrepresentative perspective view towards various events that occurred within the process of confederation. The numerous misheard voices of various ethnic and religious background, and even gender wise in confederation predominantly affects our government as a whole. A significant amount of bias is present, without the multitudinous perspectives of those’ points of view, creating significantly narrow perspectives for various situations. This matter is eminently crucial towards the province of Ontario, and most importantly, towards the dominion of Canada. They have their rights to have their say in the agreements and/or elections of various events, as they too, are formal citizens of this profound nation, whom is expanding and developing their population over periods of time

The Canadian Senate’s initial purpose is to review legislative proposals that are sent from the House of Commons, in other words to serve as a chamber of “sober second thought”(Malcolmson,Richard,Gerald,Thomas .138) The Senate is known to have statutory power to defeat, stall or pass bills that are sent from the lower house. The intention behind this function was a response to the democratically elected House of Commons that may possibly fail to respect property rights regarding people of lower and higher classes. The Senate body is designed to protect property rights and to pay attention to

For those looking at Canada from an outside perspective they may assume that Canada had a long political fight with its British motherland to gain its patriation given their ties from colonialism. However, that was not particularly the obstacle Canadians had, provided that the Statue of Westminster gave Canada its opportunity in 1931. In fact the obstacles Canadians had at the time were other provinces failing to agree with one another on how to proceed from there on. Only in 1982 were these disagreements resolved. However, this paper is not focusing on how it was resolved, because much of that is well-known. This paper will focus on why it took Canada so long to patriate by examining failed attempts on agreeing on the domestic amending formula.

Constitutional Validity of Law Challenged in Court: A lawsuit has been filed by Rocco Galati, a Toronto based lawyer, against the Parliament and the Governor General. The law challenges that certain constitutional authorities were surpassed in the process of approval for Bill C-24.

McRoberts argues that Anglophone Canada has never been responsive to Quebec and its distinct needs. But to make matter worse, Anglophone Canada has taken on the opinions of Trudeau, and as such view giving any extra powers to Quebec as unfair. Thus, true recognition of Quebec has not happened, and the outlook for its future is not very bright. Seymour adds to this by stating what English Canada has not recognized is Quebec`s linguistic identity, as French, and its cultural identity, as bilingual. Finally, Gagnon and Taylor argue that the only way to properly recognize Quebec is through asymmetrical federalism. This will allow Quebec sufficient autonomy to protects its own culture as it sees

Justin Trudeau spoke to the political risks of this charter; he says that the PQ has miscalculated her expectations of what Quebecers will respond to. It is a significant factor in the process, some people may comply with this secular change and some will fight back against the