The Constitution Act Of 1982

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

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 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

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s Canada achieves it’s ‘just society” by developing equal and fair rights through collective rights for some of its most affected groups. Canada achieved its goal in becoming a just society by amending the collective rights of the Aboriginals. Since Confederation the Federal

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has made some controversial decisions in key cases in Canada’s past. When looking at the Canadian Founders intent for Canadian Federalism, many scholars argue that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has done a bad job following the founders’ intentions and intentionally decentralized Canada. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did fail in keeping in line with what the founders intended for Canada and may have even intentionally set out to decentralize the Canadian government, but this does not mean it had a negative impact on Canada. There are a number of cases that were seen by the JCPC that played a vital role in the decentralization of the Canadian government, yet

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

Confederation, also known as the Constitution Act of 1867, served as a political purpose and alliance in which made it particularly difficult for European settlers to coexist with preindustrial societies; hence, the years after confederation resulted in confusion about how Canadian government policies would address and affect Aboriginal populations. In contrast to the spiritual and traditional lives of the Aboriginal people, the new European settlers sought to conquer nature and shed traditional values in order to contrive industrialization in Canada; hence, post-confederation policies were largely based on the upper Canadian model. Furthermore, the failure of European settlers to coexist with the Aboriginal populations led to several attempts at civilizing the indigenous people; in other words, the federal government attempted to solve the Indian problem by assuming complete dominance over the Aboriginal populations of Canada. Having said that, the Canadian government’s harsh, prejudiced and paternalistic view of the indigenous people began a cycle of social, physical and spiritual destruction in which fundamentally resulted to economic, social, health and gender inequality. With that being said, the following paper will examine the long, and often bitter series of cultural encounters and exchanges that took place after confederation, such as the brutality of residential schools, health inequality and the Oka crisis dispute.

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 Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

The story of the Canadian Constitution is a long and rocky one. It began in 1864 during the Charlottetown conference in 1864, lead to the implementation of the British North America Act in 1867, before finally being patriated in Canada in 1982 (Dodek 2013, 21, 28). However, it was patriated without the signature of Quebec, putting the future of Canada in peril. Future attempts to open the constitution were messy, and ultimately failures, but there are still some who think Canada should give one more kick at the can (Dodek 2013, 31). The paper will argue that Canada as a country should not re-open the constitution.

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

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.