The Quasi-Legislative Effect of the Supreme Court of Canada Daniele Zerbo 300119020 25 March 2014 INTRODUCTION The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 symbolized a new era for Canada. Championed by Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the charter entrenched the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian society, and allowed for those rights to be enforced by any individual should they be infringed upon. The enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms illustrates yet another shift from traditional Westminster style of governance, and created a new political atmosphere. The notion of Parliamentary supremacy has shifted to accommodate constitutional supremacy, where two institutions must work together to balance the will of the elected and the language of the charter. Constitutions, the most basic of political institutions, have the power to affect politics, by defining the rules of the political sphere. Though Parliament remains supreme, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has empowered the judiciary with the ability to interpret it broadly and settle major questions of public policy, something the Bill of Rights, 1960 could never really achieve. The charter has in effect, given the judiciary a quasi-legislative authority. The Quasi-Legislator This paper will argue that the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a quasi-legislative approach in its decision making as a result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. Quasi-legislative is defined as having a partly legislative character by possession of the right to make rules and regulations, having the force of law (Merriam-Webster). In this paper, it is useful to define quasi-legislative as the court’s ability to influence policy, be it innocent or motivated, through charter enf... ... middle of paper ... ... 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. Conclusion This paper has argued that the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a quasi-legislative role in their decision making as a result of the Charter or Rights and Freedoms, 1982.The broad and liberal interpretation of charter language, for better or worse has and will continue to influence Canadian politics and the formulation and adoption of public policy.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
The Canadian government only protects 18 out of 30 rights in the Universal Declaration and other important rights are ignored. For example, in article 26 of the Universal Declaration, it states that everyone has the right to education. This law is not included in the Charter but I think it is very im...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented 1982 has been essential in providing justice for all Canadian citizens. Countless amounts of cases have been decided to create the Charter that is well known in today’s society. Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were accused of first degree murder and according to the law, the trial was supposed to be tried by a judge and jury. The accused demanded a trial by judge alone because they believed that they were entitled to such a right. The R. v. Turpin case was a significant case that was tough to decide upon because there were many violations of different statutes such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
Blair, Annice. Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2003. Print.
This great country known as Canada, is governed smoothly because of the agreements and rules that have been in place since the beginning of confederation. The Canadian Constitution is one example of these rules. The Canadian Constitution is not just one single documentation, it is a collaboration of documents that make up one enormous document (Dyck 261). The six basic principles of the constitution are: responsible government, federalism, judicial review, the rule of law, constitutional monarchy and democracy; which all helped to shape the Constitution and therefore Canada (Dyck 266).
In America we have a complex system of courts that many do not understand, this is the same in many other countries too. There are many different types of court system you could have. There is Common Law, Civil Law, a mix of both and Islamic Law. America has a type of law called Common Law, which originally comes from England. This type just means that there are decisions by judges and courts. Another country with this law is Canada. When you look at the systems you can see how similar they are to each other. Both of these fine nations have judges and they have courts, where some are higher up than others. There is the Canadian Supreme Court, Tax Court, Court of Appeals, Providential Courts (the equivalent of district courts), and Court Martial Courts (which is our military courts).
Judicial Tyranny was a very thought-provoking read and even though the reader may agree with Mr. Sutherland’s view point, a rational thinker must admit that he and his colleagues do the very same thing they accuse the federal courts are doing - forcing their beliefs and opinions (court rulings) on the reader. It can be reasonably argued that some of the statements written were just as radical and antagonistic as it accused the judiciary of being. Even though I may agree with most of what was written, as an unbiased reader I have to admit that the work was presumptive and does not fully address other important issues concerning the federal court system.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
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 observations to the bail court. What I found is a systemic evidence of a two-tier justice system. In this essay, I will outline the roles of the 'regular players' of the bail court and demonstrate how the current bail process essentially transforms the Canadian Criminal Justice System into a two-tier system where the affluent and powerful are able to receive preferential treatment over the poor.
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 needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
Cameron, Jamie. "Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Law Society of Upper Canada. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
39). In reflecting upon the historical prevalence of men within the facets of law and government, it becomes clear that until quite recently, women were notably absent or underrepresented in the creation, implementation, and evolution of the legal framework which is used to govern Canada. In deconstructing the relationship between society and law, it then becomes necessary to consider the impact of this. A feminist framework in general provides unique insight into the experiences of women, a view which Commack (2014) notes is typically neglected in more traditional theoretical frameworks used to understand the affiliations between law and society (p. 33). Commack (2014) goes on to highlight why this is problematic, explaining that in the perception of radical feminists, “what passes for objectivity, neutrality, and justice [in the Official Version of the Law] is really a male-centered or masculinist way of adjudicating”