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.
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
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.
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
Missing from this article is an explanation of what Miranda rights are, and how are they different from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name 'Miranda rights' comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to council. Therefore if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Mi...
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.
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 Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
... 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.
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.
Except, practically usually isn’t good enough. Without the rights directly spelled out, the government can twist the words of the Constitution and abuse these rights. This is the main argument for the anti-federalist side to why there needs to be a Bill of Rights. While the federalists may believe a Bill of Rights limits a person’s rights to that list, without the Bill of Rights at all there could technically be no rights. With the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, the rights are definitely insured and guaranteed by the government. That doesn’t mean a person’s rights are limited to the list at all; it just means the rights that are in the bill are the ones definitely protected by the government. Obviously the federalists’ argument didn’t hold up very well as there is a Bill of Rights today, and I believe that is probably a good thing as looking at all the protesting that goes on today and how all of those people always directly quote the Bill of Rights, I can definitely say it was more beneficial and not at all negative like the federalists believed it were to
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
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 ...