Superior Courts In Canada

To tell the truth, firstly, I think Canada has too many laws because of the lack of universality reflected by its laws.Nowadays, the society and also the quality of people are both developing rapidly day by day.However, from a deeper point of view, we could easily seek out the truth under the “peaceful” and “harmonious” surface of the modern

The court system is divided into a three level hierarchy. The first level is superior/family court, the second is The Provincial Court, and the third is The Supreme Court of Canada. This hierarchy makes a system of appeals and if the losing part in a lower level feels that the judge or jury did not look at all the evidence, or they feel they were unjustly tried they have the right to appeal to higher courts. Appeals make the court system more unprejudiced and fair, which help those who may have been wronged or unfairly represented have another trial with a new panel of judges or jurors. A person can have up to thirteen judges looking over their case. Together, they can all guarantee that there will be a correct decision and whatever that decision is will be fair. Appeals are important and favourable to have, especially if there truly was a mistake and it will be fixed. Of course, one must have concrete evidence that there was an error. This provides confidence for Canadian citizens that The Canadian Independent Justice System is not a threat to

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 state intermediate courts hear appeals from the trial court (Goldman and Cheeseman 10). These courts review the record from the trial court to determine errors that can ultimately modify or reverse the decision in a case. The highest state courts (commonly known as

Since the British North America Act was adopted in 1867, Canada has been developing and writing up their own laws independently from other countries. Many people believe that, though our Canadian laws have come far from the days of the BNA act, they are still not up to par with the harshness of American laws. The advantage that Canadians have over Americans is that in Canada, there is only one criminal code for all Canadians whereas in the United States, every State has their own criminal codes which, unfortunately for the Americans, are not identical. Also, the United States and Canada each have a law that is fraught with the possibility that an injustice will be brought upon those whom these laws apply. In the United States, it is the

This case falls into criminal case law. This is known from the title of the case being R v Davis, R being the Queen and Davis being the accused. In addition, the conviction was based off of laws that were broken listed in the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Canadian jurisdiction has four levels of courts, except Nunavut, that allocates with criminal cases. The levels of courts are; provincial and territorial courts, provincial and territorial superior courts, provincial and territorial courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada

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.

The next step in the ladder is the District Court; like the Local Court, it has both Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction, however it hears most indictable offences in jury trials. The Supreme Courts Trial Division has original civil and criminal jurisdiction, but it only hears the most serious of criminal cases (like murder or terrorism). Additionally, its’ Court of Appeal hears direct appeals from the District Court and Supreme Court trial division – it usually only hears appeals regarding questions of law and not fact.

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.

I have proposed in these first paragraphs that there are problems with having judges at the head of the legal and moral trajectory of our nation, but surely I am not the first to propose such a thing. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms addresses this issue by having the threat of a legislature disregarding the Supreme Court. Sections 1 and 33 give parliament just such authority. At the beginning of this essay I made the statement that putting our rights under reasonable limits

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

Imagine if someone you loved was shot. You call the cops, but they say that there is nothing that can be done because there are no laws saying they have to punish the criminal. If there were no laws, criminal could get away with crimes like that repeatedly without any punishment. This is a prime example of why laws are needed to keep society in order. The idea of rules in society has been around since King Hammurabi created the first set of laws in 1760 B.C. Egyptian civilizations created laws so that their society would last longer than other civilizations because people would respect their morals. William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies, made a statement about human nature, saying that, “Man produces evil as a bee produces honey.” He had a theory that

<br>Towards the mid section of the Australian Court Hierarchy System, lies the County of District Court. The cases that this court's jurisdiction covers is very similar to those of the Supreme Court. This particular court hear appeals from the lower courts and a great majority of criminal hearings are heard in these courts. The judges appointed to hear the cases of this court are appointed by the State Parliament. The Country Court's jurisdiction is empowered to hear civil disputes in which one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less is claimed for personal damages.

The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant