Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Canada criminal justice system
Juvenile justice system in canada
Canada criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Canada criminal justice system
The basic role of the Canadian court system is to deliver justice between two individuals or two individuals and the state. There are four levels of court in Canada. Provincial courts are the lowest in terms of power. They handle most of the day to day cases. The next court in terms of power is the provincial and territorial superior courts. These courts take care of the more serious crimes that are admitted into the system, and can also take appeals from provincial court judgments. Another that has the same amount of power as the provincial and territorial superior courts is the Federal Court. Next are the provincial courts of appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal. The court with the most power in Canada is the Supreme Court. All members of the judiciary in Canada, regardless of the court, are taken from the legal profession.
Each province and territory has a provincial court. All cases involving either federal or provincial laws take place here. These courts don’t particularly have similar names, but they follow the same rules. Provincial courts deal with the most cases, most of which include: provincial regulatory offences most criminal offences, traffic violations, family law, young offenders. Private disputes involving money can also be dealt with at this level in Small Claims courts. As well, all preliminary inquiries take place before the provincial courts. Some provinces and territories have domestic violence court programs. These programs provide services to victims. There are specific courts set up for certain offences. The object is to address the needs of non-violent offenders who are charged with criminal offences. Youth courts handle cases that have someone with the age of 12-17 is charged with an offence. Depending on the age of the youth, different precautions are taken, for example privacy protection. Courts at either the provincial or superior court level can be designated youth courts. These courts are often referred to as inferior, but are only called that to show the difference in power between the other courts, and it’s ranking with them.
The superior courts of each province and territory both have a court of general trial jurisdiction and a provincial court of appeal. Something different about these courts is that they have more power than just their own province. They have power over areas where the federal government is granted l...
... middle of paper ...
...the lower courts, it can be 75 as well, or 70.
The basic role of the Canadian court system is to deliver justice between two individuals or two individuals and the state. This is achieved through four levels of court. These are the provincial courts, the provincial and territorial superior courts as well as the Federal Court, the provincial courts of appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal and the most powerful, the Supreme Court. All judges are appointed by the Federal government and the provincial government. All of this is done for the needs of the public.
Works cited
Cassel, Blakes. "What is the Canadian court system like." Doing Buisness in Canada. Blake Cassel and Graydon LIP. 07 Jan. 2003 .
"The Canadian Justice System and Law Enforcement." Canadian Embassey. 12 Jun. 2004 .
"The Court System." Justice. 09 May. 2005. .
"Overview of Canadian Law." Canadian Law Site. 12 Oct. 1999 .
"Canada's Court System." Canada's Court System. 20 Sep. 2002 .
MacKenzie, Norman . Canada and the Law of Nations. Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1999.
"Citation Machine." The landmark Project. Landmark. Jan. 2004 .
The Canadian justice system is organized into the police, courts and prisons (Goff, 2013, p.295). When a crime is committed it is up to the justice system to insure that justice is served.
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 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.
In the contentious world of politics the actors at times find themselves at an impasse, unable to move forward between their conflicting visions. In these moments the courts may be asked to mediate between the different levels of government by providing constitutional or legislative advice. These scenarios can become perilous because since the courts must provide insight on issues that are political without stepping outside of its jurisdiction. Regardless of their dangers, however, I would argue that the reference instrument has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing political chaos. In the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Secession Reference the courts ++++---In order to illustrate the importance of reference cases in the Canadian system, despite their shortcomings, I will first look at the history of the advisory mechanism with a view to explain the roll of the courts. I will then look at the constitutional perspectives the courts took in several reference cases, especially the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Cessession Reference. In the next section I will explore the ways in which the courts opinions in these cases impacted Canadian federalism to determine the constitutionality of their advice. Finally I will explore the eventualities of a system without reference cases to demonstrate why they are so important. Attention will also be paid to the reference system of the United States in order to provide a comparative view. I will argue that in reference cases the Supreme Court takes on an important role as a mediator between political actors, however, the Court must act with caution as these are perilous grounds where suggestions can cross into political territory. – Indeed, political actors can abuse the system, >re...
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 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.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.
In Canada, our criminal trial process is based around an adversarial system. What this means is that the disputants are represented by professionals in the field of law. These professionals are called lawyers. The lawyers work so that the truth of the trial is brought forward and justice is served for the greater community. In the adversarial system it is believed that the search for truth is best served by the parties themselves, through their lawyers and not through the judge. This means that lawyers determine the issue in dispute and decide the best way to argue them. Judges generally play a very passive role in the trial process. Their job is merely to ensure a fair trial for the accused, and to make an unbiased, neutral decision at the end of the trial. This decision is based upon the evidence brought forward by the two teams of lawyers during the criminal trial.
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
Canada has a central government designed to deal with the country as a whole. Things like national defense, banking, currency, and commerce are controlled by the central government. All other matters are left to the provinces to deal with. Such as education, hospitals, and civil rights are responsibilities of the states. The Canadian Parliament consists of two houses. Their Senate is made up of 104 members who serve until the age of seventy-five.
Justice is a vital part of the American Court System and influenced and continues to influence since the beginning of American history. Structure and organization is an important factor that creates our outstanding court systems. The State and U.S Constitutions are not the only foundation of the court systems, but also that people that work hard to thrive for justice. Today, justice and equality causes the court systems to change and adapt to continue protecting the rights of the people.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
The judiciary is set up in a form of a hierarchy of courts and it is