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. One reason why it is justifiable to limit someone’s... ... middle of paper ... ... 1 helps to make sure that no one takes advantage of their rights. The Notwithstanding Clause is another significant reason why it is okay to have limitations on certain rights. It may become necessary to limit people’s rights, and there are several reasons why it is okay to do so. The things that make it appropriate to limit someone’s rights include section 1 of the Charter, The Notwithstanding Clause, and also the Oakes Test. Section 1 of the Charter essentially gives permission to the government to limit rights when clearly necessary, the Notwithstanding Clause basically allows the government to override a right or freedom when necessary, and the Oakes Test assures that rights are not limited to an unconstitutional extent. With these stipulations in place, there should be no problem when it comes to limiting a person’s rights and freedoms, under the Charter.
Her claim of duress did not meet the presence and immediacy requirements of s. 17 of the Criminal Code. When Ms.Ruzic committed the offence, Mirkovic the man who was threatening her was not present and she was not under any type of immediate threat, death or bodily harm. Ms.Ruzic successfully argued that s. 17 of the Code was unconstitutional because it violated her right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms.Ruzic was acquitted on the charge of importing heroin. The Crown appealed the acquittal on the charge of importing heroin, but the court of appeal dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed that s.17 breached s.7 of the Charter because then other people would be defenseless if the threat was not directly
Glen Burns and Atif Rafay were two Canadian Citizens accused of murdering Rafay’s family in Bellevue, Washington. The two returned to Canada and later confessed to an undercover officer for the crimes they had committed back in the United States, once confronted, they claimed that they had fabricated those confessions but the process of extraditing them to face justice in the United States was started. It is important to mention that this case followed the Charles Ng case which means the ruling that had preceded it could and was used in the favour of the accused. Burns and Rafay used every legislation possible to avoid being extradited and put on the death row. Being Canadian citizens this allowed them to employ Section 6 of the Charter, which states “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” and protects them from exile. Section 7 which protects their right to live “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” in concordance to Section 12 “Everyone has the
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
Apart from the other laws in Canada’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important law that affects every Canadian’s rights and freedoms. It was created in 1981 by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to provide legal protection for the most important rights and freedoms. These rights include fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, and legal rights. Most but not all articles included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are protected in the constitution. However, if a Canadian feels that their rights are violated, they can challenge laws and unfair actions using the justice system. In my opinion, I believe the Canadian Charter of Human Rights somewhat protects Canadians’ rights and freedoms to some extent depending on the situation.
In conclusion, the Constitution, may protect us from tyranny in this way.
The Founding Fathers deemed the rights of the individual to be of utmost importance and enumerated specific protections of them in the Bill of Rights. Works Cited The "General Will." Wikipedia. The World of the. Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Dec. 2013.
R v. Keegstra: s. 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms versus s. 319 (2) of the Criminal Code
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your individual rights? . To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedom protects legal rights of Canadian whether they are a teenager or an adult, protects equality rights of Canadian and provides government services to all Canadians no matter what, ensures all laws are passed according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provides equality rights and fundamental freedoms to Canadians for practicing their religion and other rights without interference.
... For example, one right a may be able to override another right b at the individual level of rights; your right to enjoy doing z or your right not to be interfered with your enjoyment of z is “trumped” by my personal property rights to z. But one might ask: can’t rights be suspended or restricted? For instance, is it not permissible to use the death penalty or to restrict a person’s liberty when they have committed a crime? There may be other, perhaps utilitarian reasons to allow these things, but it doesn’t follow that these acts are morally justified at the same time.
...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 the judiciary.
The Bill of Rights are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights works to provide constitutional protection for the individual and to limit government power. The First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment protects the individual by allowing religious and political freedom, and by promising a public and speedy trial. The Fourth Amendment protects the individual’s privacy and limits the reach of the government into people’s homes and personal belongings. The three essential Amendments from the Bill of Rights are: the First Amendment- Religious and Political freedom: the Fourth Amendment- Search and Seizure: and the Sixth Amendment-Criminal Court Procedures.
The United States Government always tries to uphold all of the liberties that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, but sometimes they don’t uphold each liberty like they are suppose to in order to protect the country. The first ten amendments that The Founders wrote help keep an American citizen safe whether it was from an oppressive government or a newfound terrorists group. In the name of national security the sixth amendment and eighth amendments sometimes have to be compromised.
However, this freedom, like all those enshrined in the Charter, is subject to Section 1's qualifier (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html) that rights can be limited if such limitations can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
Freedom has limitations just as it has privileges. Everyone is allowed freedom of speech, but if an individual were to yell fire in a public building they would be thrown in jail. Thus implying that freedom of speech has limitations. The government does in ...