The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

In the Charter of Liberties and Privileges, which took effect on October 30th, 1683, Governor Thomas Dongan lists many key advances. The reason for these demands was due to citizens of Long Island refusing to pay taxes levied without their consent. The Charter of Liberties and Privileges asserted people the right to self-government, self-taxation, freedom of worship, trail by jury, and other privileges enjoyed by Englishmen.

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.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

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 necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their

The Charter is divided into categorized sections that have different sets of rights or freedoms, but they all come together to complete one job and that is ensuring every Canadian’s rights and keeping everyone safe. The greatest impact of the Charter has always been in the area of criminal law. Charter-protected legal rights mean more prominent protections for accused people, including the right to speak to a lawyer, to not be detained subjectively, and to be free against unreasonable search and seizure (Significance 1; sec. 5, para. 1). These things really makes Canada a fair and just country. But, although the greatest impact of the Charter has been

The Canadian Constitution, BNA act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Health care act are the backbone of Canada’s political system. The constitution is based upon the structure and civil rights of every Canadian inhabitant. It is a written document which states the rules that can run the federal and provincial governments and determine the responsibilities and rights of the cannadian citizens. The constitution was created so if a person has to undergo legal problems they will be treated fairly and equally.

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

Canada today faces a major challenge when it comes to access to justice. The civil, criminal and family justice system has become very complicated, slow and extremely expensive for majority of Canadians. These issues are particularly glaring to low income earners, people with disabilities and other minorities. Canadian justice system have become incapable of providing solutions that can addressing problems brought to it. With the creation of the Canadian charter of right and freedom, access to justice became more of an equality issue. It moved from simply being the capacity to litigate, to the quality of outcome or outcome focused. While there have been efforts to reform the system, our courts continues to lack institutional structures that can address change and create a more equitable judicial system both in capacity and outcome.

In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

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

It must first be brought to attention that while the definition of the clause does not seem to align itself with the charter, the use of the override clause to infringe upon rights and freedoms can be seen as constitutional when it is in accordance with section one of the charter (Grover, 2006). Additionally, it is important to note that the overriding power does not apply to every section of the charter as many believe. While it does apply to arguably the most controversial sections. These include: section two the fundamental freedoms and sections seven to fifteen the legal and equality rights. We must take into account that the clause does not have any effect when dealing with sections three to five the democratic rights, section six mobility rights, sections 16 to 23 linguistic rights, minority educational language rights, or section 29 denominationally guaranteed rights (McCullough, 1992). Therefore, the clause is not an all-consuming power that can overrule any section of the charter whenever the government sees fit. Furthermore, the clause is limited to certain provisions of the charter and has a time constraint as well, thus limiting its power (McCullough, 1992). This leads into the first notion that the clause has not been used a great deal of times in Canada since its creation.

Discrimination is a big topic it can be blatantly out of discussion but it is important to stress that people of all race, gender and sex, religion or even sexual orientation. In Canada specifically has done some reasonable set of legal protections to prevent Canadians from being discriminated against but sometimes it is not that easy and things turn out of people’s control and will. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Canadian Constitution that makes it illegal for the government of Canada, and the provincial government to pass laws that either plainly discriminate against certain Canadians on the basis of their identity. Place an unfair burden on one group over another. The Supreme Court of Canada routinely overturns laws they perceive to be discriminatory on the grounds of Charter protections. Canada’s legislation called the Canadian Human Rights Act that prevents private entities, such as employers, landlords, schools, and stores from discriminating against clients or customers on the basis of identity. Discrimination cases of these sorts are decided by a government known as the Human Rights Tribunal that has the power to issue fines and or other corrective actions. The various provincial governments have their own human rights laws.

Firstly, through my observations of the different courts it was evident the administration of justice is done in due time, and the process is not expedited without an outstanding reason as it can lead to misguided verdict. Furthermore, the criminal trial process in our society focuses on equality and promotes this principle by entitling an accused of even the most heinous crimes to civil liberties and processes as not to compromise the criminal trial process. A fair trial is an intrinsic right of all members of society making it fundamental to our being, and is ergo ensured to us all under s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.