Charter Of Rights And Freedom Essay

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. The charter of rights and freedoms is an important piece of written law in the Canadian constitution. where every person in Canadian society became free in choosing the life and peoples desired under the law. The rights and freedom of people in Canada is protected under the Canadian charter of rights and freedom, it was entrenched into the constitution as part of the Constitutional act of 1982. The government is guided by the Charter when making laws and the court is guided by the Charter when applying laws. It has also provided an entire new identity to the nation and became the symbol of freedom and equality. Charter of rights and freedom has also shown great influence in the Canadian society by affecting the way people are governed and how politics is carried out. It has also brought a society of equality, unity and justice as well as,

diversity in Canada. Charter of Rights and freedoms has given new independence to people in Canadian society.
The impact that charter had brought is, it allowed for actions taken by the executive and legislative parts of government to be reviewed by the judiciary. Where judiciary could invalidate laws and decisions that are proven to violate a Canadian person’s rights as describe in the Charter of rights and freedom.
Peoples has also started demanding the court to protect their rights and provide equal benefits of the law, people cannot have their rights taking away from them no matter of their race, ethnicity or their belonging to a minority group because of the charter of rights.

In the well-known court case Bliss v Canada (AG)[1979] 1 S.C.R. 183, before the Charter was adopted, Stella bliss was pregnant lady who was working and she left her workplace four days prior of giving birth to her child because she was not allowed to get her full benefits instead of that she was subject to section 46 of the bill of right, which is she will not have benefits of six weeks after giving birth. Bliss challenged the limitation of benefits under section 46 as a violation of section 1(b) of the Bill of Rights which protects against discrimination based on sex and ensures "the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law". Bliss claimed that the law violated her right to "equality before the law” ( Wiki . This showed that Bill of the rights has not properly protect the right of peoples in Canada. As we know the rights of pregnant women is protected under section 15 of the Charter of rights and freedom.
Women’s right in the Canadian society has been highly impacted by the Charter, for example nurse from hospital file the case against government for women in the hospital were not being treated equally under the Canadian law. So they had made an appeal from the help of human rights, and case was taken against government. Which was typically solved and was won by group of nurses and received 150-million dollars after the human's right settlement. This case shows, the value of the charter on the gender biased produced from government.
There was also a case about R vs Morgentaler, where three doctors set up an abortion clinic in Toronto, because they knew at that time section 251.9 of the Criminal Code allowed for abortions to be performed only at an accredited hospital with a certificate of approval from the hospital’s Therapeutic Abortion Committee. They were trying to bring awareness to the cause that a woman should have complete control over the decision to have an abortion. Court rule that the case was Criminal Code violated the rights of women under section 7 of the Charter of rights. Without the Charter of rights and freedom this ruling might have never been, so it is clear that in this case the Charter was the determining factor in the outcome of the case.

Aboriginal right had the biggest impacted from charter of right and freedom.

These peoples have received majority of rights from this constitution. For example, the case Calder et al. versus. B.C attorney general(1973), this happen before the Canada added charter to the constitution. In these case Frank Arthur Calder and the Nisga'a Nation Tribal Council brought an action against the British Columbia government that aboriginals were entitle to some land in British Columbia . However, the Court was split on whether the claim to land was valid, but however court later dismissed the appeal and ruled against Calder and the Nisga’a Nation tribal council which saw them lose the case. These case show us that no matter what kind of peoples you are government is going to look after you if you speak out loud. Also in past aboriginal women who married the non- status Indian lost their status lost their status while men who married people with non-status peoples remained as Indian which will also effect the status of their

child.
There was also a case in 1990 between an aboriginal women and Canada when she was married to non-Indian men and where not able to be Indian status for herself and her child, they argued that section 6 of the Indian act violated section 15, the right to gender equality of the Charter of rights and freedom. After reviewing the case the court ruled in favor of mom and child and also ordered the government to amend the Indian act accordingly. These case show that strengthened concern over aboriginal rights and the rights of women, since the Charter of rights took effect.

They also had case about existing aboriginal right which is protected under section 35(1) of the Constitutional act. Where they saw a member of the masqueam band in B.C, who was charged with violating fisheries regulations when he was using the net. The court ruled in support of fisher men. As we all know that police officers are given with lots of power and we have also see that police officer had miss use those power and abuse the right of civilians. The charter of right has brought the limitations needed to protect the right of Canadians from police power. In 1991 there was the popular case in New Brunswick where we saw major suspect was William Stillman a seventeen year old killed a teenager girl. A boy was arrested by the police for murder and the police took hair samples and plasticine teeth impression from the accused under threat of force. The supreme court of Canada found that the police had violated boy fundamental rights, because he was made to incriminate himself by providing bodily evidence, which is known to be in violation of section 24(2) of the Charter and thus all evidence gotten by the police was excluded from evidence.
There is also another case where a men was caught with hashish oil which he claimed that it was given under government and he had no intension of any kind of stealing it. But under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act he was believed to have an intension to traffic. He challenged the case by saying that the presumption of him possessing the narcotic was for trafficking was a violation of the assumption of innocence guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter. Court decide that it was ridiculous to determine that a men possessing a small amount of has the intension of trafficking it, As it was stated that section 8 of the Narcotics Control Act was in violation of the Charter and therefore should not be taken into effect.