|
Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the '' Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and guarantees the civil rights of everyone in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The ''Charter'' was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' was preceded by the '' Canadian Bill of Rights'', enacted in 1960, which was a federal statute rather than a constitutional document. The ''Bill of Rights'' exemplified an international trend towards formalizing human rights protections following the United Nations' ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', instigated by the country's movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged af ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bill Of Rights
A bill of rights, sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights, is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement from public officials and private citizens. Bills of rights may be '' entrenched'' or ''unentrenched''. An entrenched bill of rights cannot be amended or repealed by a country's legislature through regular procedure, instead requiring a supermajority or referendum; often it is part of a country's constitution, and therefore subject to special procedures applicable to constitutional amendments. History The history of legal charters asserting certain rights for particular groups goes back to the Middle Ages and earlier. An example is Magna Carta, an English legal charter agreed between the King and his barons in 1215. In the early modern period, there was renewed interest in Magna Carta. English common law judge Sir Edward Coke revived the idea of rights based on ci ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court System Of Canada
The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial. The Constitution of Canada gives the federal Parliament of Canada exclusive jurisdiction in criminal law, while the provinces have exclusive control over much of civil law. Each province has authority over the administration of justice within that province. Most cases are heard in provincial and territorial courts. Provincial and territorial superior courts have inherent jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases. Provincial and territorial lower courts try most criminal offences, small civil claims, and some family matters. The smaller federal court system consists of the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Tax Court. There are also the courts martial, for military offences, with ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Keegstra
''R v Keegstra'', 9903 SCR 697 is a freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld the ''Criminal Code'' provision prohibiting the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. It is a companion case to '' R v Andrews''. Background James Keegstra (1934–2014) was a public high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta, who began in the position in 1968. He also took on many community roles as a deacon and Sunday school teacher, and in 1974 was acclaimed as mayor of the community, a position he held until 1983. Keegstra's anti-semitic teachings had resulted in complaints in the late-1970s but little action was taken by the school board. Keegstra was warned by the board superintendent in December 1981 to stop "teaching these biased and prejudiced views" and stick to teaching the grade 12 social studies curricu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hate Speech
Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the ''Cambridge Dictionary'' as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The ''Encyclopedia of the American Constitution'' states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Proportionality (law)
Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several separate (although related) concepts: *The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. *Within criminal law, the concept is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. *Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, ''proportionality'' and '' distinction'' are important factors in assessing military necessity. *Under the United Kingdom's Civil Procedure Rules, costs must be "proportionately and reasonably incurred", or "proportionate and reasonable in amount", if they are to form part of a court ruling on costs. Proportionality as a general princ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Oakes
''R v Oakes'' [1986] 1 Supreme Court Reports (Canada), SCR 103 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the legal test for whether a government action infringing a right under the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is justified. David Oakes challenged the validity of provisions under the ''Narcotic Control Act'' that provided a person found in possession of a narcotic, absent of evidence to the contrary, must be convicted of trafficking the narcotic. Oakes contended the presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11(d) of the Charter. The Supreme Court established the ''Oakes'' test as an analysis of the Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, limitations clause (section 1) of the ''Charter'' that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a "pressing and substanti ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section 1 Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 1 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are ''guaranteed''. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's ''Charter'' rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography (e.g., in ''R v Sharpe''), hate speech (e.g., in ''R v Keegstra''), and obscenity (e.g., in ''R v Butler''). When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was ''prescribed by law'' namely, that the law is attuned to the values of ''accessibility'' and ''intelligibility''; and secondly, that it is ''justified in a free and democratic society'', which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional. Text Under ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section 32 Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns the application and scope of the Charter. Only claims based on the type of law contemplated by this section can be brought before a court. Section 32(1) describes the basis on which all rights can be enforced. Section 32(2) was added in order to delay the enforcement of section 15 until government was given time to amend their laws to conform to the section. Text Under the heading "Application of Charter" the section states: The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations. Interpretation The meaning of section 32(1) was first examined in '' RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.'' The Courts found that the "authority" of government consisted of all laws created by the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and administrative), as well as any rules, or regulations created by "government acto ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Twenty-four Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 24 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' provides for remedies available to those whose ''Charter'' rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the ''Charter'' would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 ''Canadian Bill of Rights''. Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.Dyck, Rand. ''Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches.'' Third ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000), p. 442. Text Under the heading "Enforcement," the section states: Remedies Subsection 24(1) must be distinguished from subsection 52(1) of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. Whereas section 52 allows the courts to invalidate laws or parts of laws for breaches of the constitution (including the ''Charter''), section 24 has broader capabilities (hindered only by the "appropriate and just" requirement) and can only be in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Nationality Law
Canadian nationality law details the conditions by which a person is a nationality, national of Canada. The primary law governing these regulations is the Citizenship Act, which coming into force, came into force on February 15, 1977 and is applicable to all provinces and territories of Canada. With few exceptions, almost all individuals born in the country are Jus soli, automatically citizens at birth. Foreign nationals may naturalize after living in Canada for at least three years while holding Permanent residency in Canada, permanent residence and showing proficiency in the English language, English or French language. Canada is composed of several former British colonies whose residents were British subjects. After Canadian Confederation, Confederation into a Dominion within the British Empire in 1867, Canada was granted more autonomy over time and gradually became independent from the United Kingdom. Although Canadian citizens have not been British subjects since 1977, th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Power
The judiciary (also known as the judicial system, judicature, judicial branch, judiciative branch, and court or judiciary system) is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases. Meaning The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets, defends, and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary can also be thought of as the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make statutory law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets, defends, and applies the law to the facts of each case. However, in some countries the judiciary does make common law. In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rule ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Parliamentary Supremacy
Parliamentary sovereignty, also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy, is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, not even a constitution) or by precedent. Changes to the constitution typically require a supermajority, often two thirds of votes instead of one half. In some countries, parliamentary sovereignty may be contrasted with separation of powers and constitutionalism, which limits the legislature's scope often to general law-making and makes it subject to external judicial review, where laws passed by the legislature may be declared invalid in certain circumstances. States that have sovereign legislatures include: the United Kingdom ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
