CHARTER OF RIGHTS CH.-36 CHARTER OF RIGHTS V. BILL OF RIGHTS, 1960 1. More effective than bill of rights, 1960 2.

COR is a part of consti. While bill of rights is not. 3. Charter applies to both levels of govt. while bill of rights onl on fe!eral govt. ". Charter of rights can onl be a#en!e! b constit$tional a#en!#ent, while %OR is a #ere stat$te an! can be a#en!e! an ti#e. PROTECTION (Safegau !"#OF CIVIL LIBERTIES 1. G$%e &'e&( & COR nee!s protection fro# state action, !ifferent provincial govt.s reviewe! their stat$tes an! enacte! a#en!#ent, to correct the charter violations an! at fe!eral level Minister of '$stice is $n!er stat$tor !$t to review the stat$tes an! report the cases of non(co#pliance of charter to ho$se of co##ons. 2. C$u (" ) )f an law violates the charter, is !eclare! n$gator b the co$rt. 3. *e'$+ a(,+ +-a a+(e $f +$u&( . ) *he #ain safeg$ar! of charter is the !e#ocratic character of the political instit$tions, in!epen!ence of +$!iciar an! tra!ition of the respect for civil liberties. CHARTER IS /NIF0ING INSTR/1ENT & Charter provi!es national stan!ar! an! national co$rts to protect the civil libertites. E2PANSION OF 3/*ICIAL REVIE4 1. Ne5 g $u&!" $f e%,e5- ,ntil 19-2 +$!icial review was confine! to fe!eral gro$n!s, b$t after the a!option of COR, there is s$bstantial e.pansion of '$!icial review on charter gro$n!s. 2. Vague&e"" $f +$&+e6(" - Most of the charter rights are e.presse! in vag$e lang$age, e.g. f$n!a#ental +$stice, life libert an! sec$rit of person, e/$al protection an! e/$al benefits of law, tho$ght belief opinion an! e.pression, etc. *hese vag$e phrases are intreprette! b +$!ges, who are infl$ence! b their own social, econo#ic an! political val$es. 0n attit$!e of 7u!,+,a8 e"( a,&( will res$lt in respecting the !ecisions of legislat$re an! will invali!ate the law onl in cases of clear charter violations. Whereas an attit$!e of 7u!,+,a8 a+(,%,"' will res$lt in fre/$ent invali!ations of the !ecisions of the legislat$re. 1O2)*)O3 )3 C03040( *he s$pre#e co$rt of Cana!a has willingl a!opte! the new powers to interpret the vag$e lang$age of charter of rights. 2ince 19-2 the

perio! is calle! charter revol$tion an! has contrib$te! heavil to the e.pansion of +$!icial review. ,2 1O2)*)O3( 5ochner era & 1906(1937 & a phase of '$!icial 0ctivis# & !efen!e! the val$es of 0#erican conservatives e.g. s$pporte! Laissez Faire theory (5et the #ar8et go free an! $ncontrolle!) Warren 9ra & 1963( 1969 & another phase of +$!icial activis# & !efen!e! the val$es of 0#erican liberals. 9.g. rights to cri#inal !efen!ant :ban on cr$el p$nish#ent;. 3. R$8e $f Se+(,$& ) 1 2ection 1 provi!es that if a law is reasonable an! can be !e#onstrabl +$stifie! in free an! !e#ocratic societ , then even if it is li#iting or violating the charter, it will be vali!. *his !ecision that whether a law is satisf ing the re/$ire#ents of section 1, is initiall #a!e b the govt. an! finall b the reviewing co$rt. <ence is a contrib$ting factor in the e.pansion of +$!icial review. =or e.g. the laws prohibiting fra$!, !efa#ation, #islea!ing a!vertise#ent, se!ition, official secrec , blasphe# , obscenit an! conte#pt of co$rt & $s$all li#its the person>s free!o# of e.pression, b$t the are reasonabl +$stifie! in free an! !e#ocratic societ $n!er section 1. 2ection 1 is the wa to stri8e a balance between conflicting civil 5ibertarian val$es an! societal val$es. 3u!,+,a8 e%,e5 u&!e C-a (e $f R,g-(" ," a 9 "(age 6 $+e"". 1"( "(age is to !eter#ine, whether the challenge! law violates the charter right? (C-e+: 6u 6$"e $ effe+( a&! 5-,+- ,g-( ," %,$8a(e!# )f it violates, then review procee!s to secon! stage. 9&! "(age is to !eter#ine whether the law is +$stifie! $n!er section 1? Co$rt chec8s whether the enacting bo! has !rawn a balance between conflicting civil 5ibertarian val$es an! societal val$es. ;. R$8e $f Se+(,$& 33 *he last wor! in enacting the stat$te lies with the legislat$re, beca$se of the presence of overri!ing cla$se of 2. 33. *his is a 8in! of li#it on the power of +$!icial review b $nelecte! +$!ges. Overri!e cla$se e.ten!s to 2. 2:9.pression;, 2. 7 to 1" :5egal Rights; an! 2. 16 :9/$alit ;. )t !oesn>t appl $pon 2. 3 to 6 :4e#ocratic Rights;, 2. 6 :Mobilit ;, 2. 16 to 23 :5ang$age Rights; an! 2. 2- :2e.$al 9/$alit ;.

0 +$!icial !ecision co$l! be overco#e si#pl b re(enact#ent of the invali! stat$te with the !eclaration of overri!e. <ence 2.33 is the li#it on +$!icial review. *IALOG/E 4ITH LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 1. T-e ,!ea $f !,a8$gue Whenever a law is str$c8 !own on charter gro$n!s b the s$pre#e co$rt of Cana!a, the !ecision is a 8in! of beginning of the !ialog$e with the legislative branch, as to fin! the wa to reconcile the conflicting charter rights of in!ivi!$al with the other societal interests. *he !ecision invo8es the legislative response, which it gets in #ost cases. *he !ecision of the co$rt is a #etho! to co##$nicate to the legislat$re that a !ifferent law, with the sa#e ob+ective, b$t which #a8es less !rastic encroach#ent on the charter rights, wo$l! be a reasonable li#it, which can be +$stifie! in free an! !e#ocratic societ . 9. Se+$&! 8$$: +a"e *he i!ea of !ialog$e shows that if the parlia#ent has revise! an! reenacte! the law, which the co$rts fo$n! to be $nconstit$tional earlier, the co$rt is li8el to $phol! the secon! atte#pt, beca$se the new law was enacte!, !$e to co$rts earlier !ecision. *he re(enact#ent ca#e after consi!ering the co$rts reasons in previo$s !ecision, after long process of cons$ltation b the parlia#ent. Canada V. JTI-Macdonald Corp. (2007) )n this case the reviewe! the secon! atte#pt b parlia#ent to ban the a!vertising of tobacco pro!$cts. *he first act in J case was str$c8 !own as a breach of free!o# of e.pression, beca$se it was too sweeping an! co#pletel banning the a!vertise#ent on tobacco. )n secon! act too8 s$ggestions fro# J an! banne! lifest le a!vertising an! a!vertising !irecte! at chil!ren. *his act was a less encroach#ent $pon free!o# of e.pression an! hence was $phel! in the secon! atte#pt in JTI case. *his is a recent notable e.a#ple of !ialog$e between legislative an! +$!icial branch. Wh secon! stat$te is li8el to be $phel!( 1. *he secon! stat$te is !rafte! b caref$ll consi!ering the reasons an! s$ggestions given b co$rts in the earlier case. 9. 2econ! stat$te $s$all contains a prea#ble, which elaborates in !etail the reasons for the enact#ent of the stat$te an! hence satisf 2. 1 +$stification. 3. Re'e!,a8 *,"+ e(,$& :te#porar parlia#ent correct the law; s$spension of !eclaration of invali!it & let the

0nother wa of initiating the !ialog$e is the 2C of Cana!a>s willingness to s$spen! the !eclaration of invali!it , after fin!ing that the law is $nconstit$tional. *his is the wa to allow the ti#e to legislative bo! to correct the legislation, beca$se +$!iciar respects the a$tono# of the other branches of the govern#ent an! wo$l! prefer the legislat$re to !esign the appropriate re#e! .

*his ra!ical re#e! :te#poraril leaving in force, an $nconstit$tional law; is grante! b the co$rt onl in 3 circ$#stances (!chachter V. Canada "##2)@ Where the i##e!iate stri8ing !own of law@ a; Wo$l! pose !anger to p$blic b; Wo$l! threaten r$le of law c; Wo$l! res$lt in !eprivation of benefits of !eserving person ;. *,a8$gue 5,(-,& g$%e &'e&( *he process of legislative reaction to a 2$pre#e Co$rt !ecision is calle! !ialog$e. *he instances when a law is str$c8 !own on charter gro$n! are ver rare, beca$se govern#ents at all levels tr their best to co#pl with charter. =or that ever govern#ent e#plo s the staff of constit$tional law ers in the !epart#ent hea!e! b attorne general, which is calle! !epart#ent of +$stice. *he e.a#ine the legislative proposals, which are being consi!ere! b the govern#ents an! provi!e an assess#ent of the ris8 of s$ccessf$l constit$tional challenge to each proposal. POLITICAL </ESTION )n ,s the co$rts have at ti#es ref$se! to !eci!e the cases on the basis of Apolitical /$estion !octrineB which #eans that so#e /$estions are too political an! non( +$sticiable for the co$rts to !eci!e. Whereas in Cana!a there is no political /$estion !octrine, an action whether e.ec$tive or legislative, if violating the charter, the /$estion will be answere! b the co$rt, regar!less of the political character of the controvers . 9.g. C$ebec secession reference case. CHARACTERI=ATION OF LA4S 1. C$'6a ,"$& 5,(- fe!e a8,"' e%,e5 Fe!e a8,"' e%,e5 ) the co$rt !eter#ines the p$rpose an! effect of challenge! law in or!er to !eter#ine the pith an! s$bstance of the law, once the p$rpose or pith an! s$bstance is hel! to be with in the co#petence of enacting legislative bo! :2. 91, 92;, it is no ob+ection that the law #a have so#e effect on #atters o$tsi!e the co#petence of the bo! . C-a (e e%,e5 & 2i#ilarl the co$rt !eter#ines the p$rpose an! effect of the challenge! law in or!er to !eter#ine, whether the law is violating the charter, if the p$rpose of law is to violate the charter, the law is hel! to be $nconstit$tional in its entiret . %$t the !ifference lies in ter# of effect, if the effect of law is res$lting in violation of charter, even if the p$rpose is constit$tional an! 8in!, the law !eclare! invali! :if it fails the +$stification test $n!er 2. 1;.

9. Pu 6$"e (e"( $ effe+( (e"( *he co$rt !eter#ines the p$rpose an! effect of the challenge! law in or!er to !eter#ine, whether the law is violating the charter, if the p$rpose of law is to violate the charter, the law is hel! to be $nconstit$tional in its entiret . )n . V. $i% M &r'% Mart ("#()) co$rt hel! the fe!eral 5or! !a act to be invali!. %eca$se the p$rpose was religio$s :Observance of Christian( 2abbath; an! violating the charter rights. )f pri#a facie p$rpose of the law is to violate the charter, then the whole law is hel! to be $nconstit$tional. %$t if the p$rpose is 8in!, b$t the effects of law res$lts in violation of charter, then law nee!s to be +$stifie! $n!er 2. 1. . V. *d+ards $oo,s and -rts("#(.) ( :p$rpose test passe!, effect test faile!( then +$stifie! $n!er 2. 1;1$rpose was goo! an! sec$lar ( $nifor# pa$se !a of rest & b$t effecting the charter rights& +$stifie! $n!er 2.1 & hel! constit$tional. 3. T ,%,a8 effe+( )f the effect of the law on the charter right is ver trivial or ins$bstantial an! +$sticiable $n!er 2. 1, then it is not consi!ere! to be a charter violation. ". Se%e a&+e :the violating provision to be c$t !own, instea! of whole law; Where onl one or few provisions of the challenge! stat$te are violating the charter, the are c$t !own :2evere!; fro# the rest of the stat$te an! the re#aining stat$te s$rvives. >. Rea!,&g *$5& When the lang$age of the stat$te has two interpretations, one which wo$l! violate the charter right an! other which wo$l! not, then the for#er lang$age is selecte!. INTERPRETATION OF CHARTER 1. P $g e"",%e I&(e 6 e(a(,$& Constit$tion is !iffic$lt to a#en! an! sta s in force for a long ti#e, therefore it is written in the lang$age, which is broa! eno$gh to acco##o!ate the $npre!ictable an! $nforeseen circ$#stances. *his calls for the fle.ible an! progressive interpretation of the constit$tion. )n the case *d+ards V. --/. Canada0 it was hel! that Aconstit$tion is li8e a living tree capable of growth an! e.pansion within its nat$ral li#itsB. 1rogressive interpretation is necessar an! !esirable in or!er to a!apt the constit$tion to facts that !i! not e.ist an! co$l! not be foreseen at the ti#e, when it was written. 2. Ge&e $u" I&(e 6 e(a(,$& :%roa!;

)t #eans constit$tion sho$l! not be c$t !own b narrow an! technical constr$ction, rather sho$l! be given a large an! liberal interpretation. %$t while interpreting the charter if the scope of charter right is wi!ene! :incl$!e all the rights; an! the +$stification $n!er section 1 is rela.e! :govt. can easil +$stif ;, it will open the floo! gates an! increase the vol$#e of litigation in co$rts. On the other han! it is better to restrict the scope of charter rights an! #a8e the +$stification $n!er section 1 strict. )t will li#it the n$#ber of case of charter review, hence will not b$r!enso#e the co$rts with wastef$l litigation. 3. Pu 6$",%e I&(e 6 e(a(,$& 0nother wa o$t to restrict the scope of charter witho$t co#pro#ising the civil libertarian val$es is the p$rposive interpretation. *his interpretation fin!s o$t the p$rpose of the charter right an! then interprets the right to incl$!e the activit that co#es with in p$rpose an! e.cl$!es the activit that !oesn>t. 1$rpose can be fo$n! o$t fro# lang$age of the right, pre(charter histor of right, legislative histor , parlia#entar !ebates etc. )t can be concl$!e! that 6u 6$",%e a66 $a+- 5$ : ,& 6e fe+( -a '$&. with strict stan!ar! of +$stification $n!er section 1. Once the right has been confine! to its p$rpose, it>s obvio$s that govt. will have to satisf the strict test $n!er section 1 to $phol! the legislation. ;. H,e a +-. $f R,g-(" 2ection 33 creates two tier of rights a; Co##on Rights :s$b+ect to overri!e; 2. 2:9.pression;, 2. 7 to 1" :5egal Rights; an! 2. 16 :9/$alit ;. L$5e"( ,& H,e a +-.. b; 1rivilege! Rights :not s$b+ect to overri!e; 2. 3 to 6 :4e#ocratic Rights;, 2. 6 :Mobilit ;, 2. 16 to 23 :5ang$age Rights;. 1,!!8e $f H,e a +-.. 2ection 2- :2e.$al 9/$alit ; an! 2ection 36:0boriginal an! *reat Rights; are neither s$b+ect to section 33 nor to section 1. 2o these are at the ($6 $f -,e a +-.. *here is no rational basis for these !istinction. >. C$&f8,+( ?e(5ee& ,g-(" *he hierarch of rights !oesn>t #ean that privilege! rights ta8e priorit over the co##on rights, when the co#e in conflict. *wo conflicts between charter rights are given below@

a; %etween sec. 26 :0boriginal Rights an! =ree!o# not affecte! b charter;an! sec. 16:9/$alit before law on the basis of race, religion, color, se., age, etc.;. b; %etween 2ec. 93:4eno#inational school right to special f$n!ing DRo#an catholic 2choolsE;an! 2ec. 16 :9/$alit before law on the basis of religion;. $.C. /o1ern2ent *2ployees 3nion V. $ritish Col'24ia ("#(() Co$rt iss$e! in+$nction against a $nion to prohibit its #e#ber fro# pic8eting the co$rt ho$se. 2o as to protect the people>s right to access the co$rts. 2C $nani#o$sl $phel! the in+$nction $n!er 2. 1 '$stification as an reasonable li#it on free!o# of e.pression. Whenever the rights co#e in conflict with each other, the scope of one right sho$l! be narrowe! to acco##o!ate the e.ercise of another right. SO/RCES OF CHARTER INTERPRETATION 1. P e C-a (e Ca"e" ) *he cases relating to Cana!ian bill of rights are a so$rce of interpretation. %$t the attit$!e of co$rts at that ti#e was that of restraint, as bill of rights were #ere stat$te onl an! COR are the part of constit$tion. 2. A'e ,+a& Ca"e" ) *he !ecisions of the 2C of ,2 are $sef$l prece!ents for the Cana!ian co$rts, beca$se the are the $sef$l so$rce of i!eas in interpreting the charter. 4espite the $sef$lness of 0#erican cases the sa#e res$lts are not alwa s followe! in Cana!a, as rights broa!l interprete! in Cana!a than 0#erica, beca$se of presence of 2.1 an! 2.33 in Cana!ian charter if Rights. 3. I&(e &a(,$&a8 S$u +e" ) Cana!a is bo$n! b #an treaties !ealing with h$#an rights, which are another so$rce of )nterpretation of charter rights. Where the covenant #a8es a !etaile! provision for the right, which is also g$arantee! b the charter, b$t in lang$age, which is less clear an! inco#plete, then the ter#s of the covenant helps in the interpretation of the charter lang$age. a; )nternational Covenant on Civil an! 1olitical Rights. b; 4ecisions of <$#an Rights Co##ittee of ,nite! 3ation. c; 9$ropean convention on <$#an rights. !; C$sto#ar )nternational law. ". Leg,"8a(,%e H,"($ . ) )t incl$!es parlia#entar interpretation of the charter rights. CO11ENCE1ENT OF CHARTER !ebates which are an ai! to