Role of Judge in Canada’s Constitutional Democracy: A view from all possible Angles
Judge’s can be termed as guardians of the constitution in Democratic countries so the same applies for Canada’s Constitutional Democracy. We will see a theme of different views from various angles about judge’s role and their uncommon proportion of their fortitude to do fulfil their role in Democratic state like Canada.
“Constitutional Democracy can be defined as system of government based on popular sovereignty in which structures, limits and powers of government are set forth in a constitution. Whereas, as per Oxford dictionary a judge is defined as an officer with authority to decide cases in law court. In any country judicial system acts as the independent
…show more content…
Since Canada is a constitutional Democracy, judge has a role to play with deciding cases.
In Canada elected public representative will remain in power till end of term by constitution provision. These representatives are expected to make laws which benefit country and its people. During such process there are or may be a lot if grey areas which is filled by judicial system in most of the cases.
Democracy word means control or govern the country with majority opinion and different bodies plays key roles in keeping the meaning of democracy. Out of all the bodies judicial system is considered as vital system in keeping the system in place with defending the rights of public and keeping space for government administration and at times takes the additional role of liaising in between government and people in situation where deference of opinion arises and judge acts as the decision/suggestion maker by standing in a neutral
…show more content…
The selection process of Canada judiciary, irrespective of court, are picked from legal profession. if the judges are appointed by federal government, that includes the judges of all the courts irrespective of their level in hierarchy and which are known as provincial courts, are qualified only if they are members of provincial or territorial bar for ten years or more. The independence of the judiciary in Canada is guaranteed both explicitly and implicitly by different parts of the Constitution of Canada. This independence is understood to provide stability in tenure, financial security and independence in institutional administration. Our laws embody the basic moral values of our society. They create limits on behaviour of individuals which promoted the good nature of conduct and helps in making our communities much safer to live. Stealing, hurting other person, reckless driving or environmental pollution are some of the several ways that law is providing us protection. All the people of Canada are equal before the law and are ruled by it. Despite the amount of wealth or the power a man acquires still considered as equal in the eyes of law and expected to obey law or face
In 1759, the Canadian Court Justice system was brought to Canada by the French. After the battle of Quebec, all of Canada then followed the English common law system except for Quebec 1. Based on my understanding and knowledge of N. Christie’s arguments and the Canadian court system, I believe that Christie’s criticism of modern legal system is fair and it effects our current court system today.
The next important principle of the Canadian Constitution is the judicial review. The judicial review is the power of the executive branch of government (Dyck 12). Essentially, the judicial review states that any law that the government makes, can be struck down by the Supreme Court if it violates the Canadian Constitution (Dyck 401). This is a prime example how the judicial review protects the rights of
... of the judiciary as being one separate from government, in a non-political capacity whose purpose is not to question the acts of government, but rather to be the mediator when dispute arise (McLachlin, 2009). Clearly, McLachlin captures the essence of what the judiciary is. The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most visible and trusted political institutions, which has shaped the country’s political arena. In practice, the Supreme Court of Canada does have a quasi-legislative effect on public policy.
are legitimate laws that people follow and there has been no dictatorship yet! Canada is a stable
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
First, some background on the subject. Canada is divided into 308 ridings, and each riding elects one person to represent all the citizens in that riding. The party that wins the most ridings forms the government, and if that party has gained more than half the seats, as is usually the case, they form a majority and have the ability to pass any bill in the House of Commons that they wish, regardless of the opinions that other representatives have. This SMP system has remained unchanged in Canada since Confederation in 1867. On the other hand there is proportional representation, which is broken down into two main forms: Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV). MMP was first put into use ...
In 2012, the Canadian Senate became embroiled in a scandal that is still ongoing, and still having an effect on Canadian political life today. At times in the 20th century, there have been calls for the reform, or even the abolition of the Senate completely. The current scandal has resulted a renewal of the frequent calls for reform that have frequently accompanied the many questionable actions of Senators. The structure of the Senate, and its outdated rules of appointment and procedure are also frequently the target of reformers in Canada. It is the contention of this paper that the Canadian Senate be reformed to represent the democracy that is Canada in the 21st Century, as this body is outdated and representative of entrenched party interests, as well as of a system that dates back to the days of aristocratic and upper-class privilege.
Trying to apply new reforms in the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws be based on democratic principles.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
What is a democracy? The United Sates president Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (1863). The Oxford dictionary’s definition of democracy states that, “ A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (2015). Democracy plays a vital role in our nation. The citizens of the nation vote for who they believe is the best fit for government. The government appoints individuals to take down roles as cabinets and judges. What is the duty of a judge? The definition used by the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) states, “Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented,
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary Democracy is a form of government by the people; especially: rule of the majority(Webster). This is what the United States is represented as, and this is based on the United States Constitution from which the United states draws all legal powers. In Robert Dahls book How democratic Is the American Constitution? He challenges this idea by trying to appeal to his readers in a way that they may view the United States Constitution in a different light. Dahl does this by pointing out flaws that the Constitution has and, draws on facts based on the other democracies around the world that the United States is compared too. He points out how many democratic ideas and innovations have a occurred since the conception of the American Constitution yet it has only adopted some of those idea.
Democracy is the structure of government still used today in many countries.The definition of democracy is a system of government where people who rule directly are freely elected representatives.In addition, democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia. Demo meaning people and kratia meaning power of rule. For instance, here is an example, Great Britain has a democratic government since elected officials and laws are voted on by the people and also the representatives they elect. Therefore Athens exemplifies a democratic government. “Athenians would meet and vote on a simple question …. is anyone becoming a threat to democracy? If a simple majority voted yes,then they dispersed and reassembled two months later,
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012