The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do

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).

Judicial power is given to the Supreme Court. All nine federal judges are appointed by the President and serve "during good behavior," usually meaning for life. The judges cannot be removed from office except for criminal behavior or malfeasance. This makes them less vulnerable to political pressure and outside influence. The main feature of the independent role for the courts lies in their power to interpret the Constitution. They review the "constitutionality" of laws and executive orders. There are

The judicial branch, or the judiciary, is basically the court system for the United States. Their main purpose is to make sure all laws passed are in accordance with the Constitution, and to resolve any disagreements. The decisions in the courtroom are either ruled constitutional or unconstitutional. They also have judicial review which is the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. The head of the judiciary is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges, one of which is called the chief justice. The judges are appointed by the President and supported by the Senate if they are in agreement. These judges do not

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

The Canadian criminal justice system consists of multiple roles in order to sustain a well-working government system. The system is put in place in order to keep safety, equality, peace and fairness. There are four main functions of the criminal justice system that are interrelated segments that help protect a society from crime. The criminal justice system consists of policing, courts, corrections and parole. The component of the Canadian Criminal Justice System that will be discussed is about the process and function of the courts.

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.

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.

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

Since the birth of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is growing scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada’s role in the intertwinement law and politics. Individuals are noting that courts under judicial review have the capacity to shape law to meet the evolving needs of society (Sharpe, 2003:1). This paper will analyze the emerging issues witnessed in the study of Canada’s judiciary system. The first issue being explored is the concept of “Judicial Activism”. This paper defines “Judicial Activism” with accordance to Britannica Encyclopaedia online as being a phenomenon in which judges take a direct policy-making role, and seem more than willing to strike down legislative or executive actions. (Roosevelt, 2015:1).

The emperor appoints the chief justice upon designation by the Cabinet, which also appoints the other justices. The judges can only be removed by public impeachment. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws and all its decisions are final. It supervises a system of four inferior courts: A High Court, which rules on appeals of judgments by the lower courts; a District Court; a Family Court; and a Summary Court. In Canada the supreme court is also the highest court, a court of last appeal. The supreme court of Canada has nine judges, one of the judges is the chief justice and eight other regular