HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

Section 24 of the ''
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (french: Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part o ...
'' 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
statute A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs the legal entities of a city, state, or country by way of consent. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. Statutes are rules made by le ...
s on the basis that they contradicted a
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 pri ...
.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 The ''Constitution Act, 1982'' (french: link=no, Loi constitutionnelle de 1982) is a part of the Constitution of Canada.Formally enacted as Schedule B of the ''Canada Act 1982'', enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Section 60 of t ...
''. 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 invoked when a claimant's rights are violated. Among other things, section 24 seems to give judges the power to place positive obligations upon a government, as well as to enforce more
imaginative Imagination is the production or simulation of novel objects, sensations, and ideas in the mind without any immediate input of the senses. Stefan Szczelkun characterises it as the forming of experiences in one's mind, which can be re-creations ...
remedies. An example of an imaginative remedy can be found in the landmark case '' Doucet-Boudreau'', (2003) 3 S.C.R. 3, as the claimants challenged the
Nova Scotia Nova Scotia ( ; ; ) is one of the thirteen provinces and territories of Canada. It is one of the three Maritime provinces and one of the four Atlantic provinces. Nova Scotia is Latin for "New Scotland". Most of the population are native Eng ...
government's delay in building
French language French ( or ) is a Romance language of the Indo-European family. It descended from the Vulgar Latin of the Roman Empire, as did all Romance languages. French evolved from Gallo-Romance, the Latin spoken in Gaul, and more specifically in Nor ...
school A school is an educational institution designed to provide learning spaces and learning environments for the teaching of students under the direction of teachers. Most countries have systems of formal education, which is sometimes compuls ...
s as a breach of their section 23 rights. A lower-court judge had ruled in the claimants' favour, and then demanded the government report to him as
construction Construction is a general term meaning the art and science to form objects, systems, or organizations,"Construction" def. 1.a. 1.b. and 1.c. ''Oxford English Dictionary'' Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0) Oxford University Press 2009 and com ...
progressed. Despite the
Supreme Court A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in most legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of ...
minority's objections that this use of section 24 violated "
fundamental justice In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as ...
" and the "'' functus officio''" rule, in which a judge makes a ruling and afterwards has no role to play, the majority upheld the earlier decision. As the majority argued, section 24 is "responsive to the needs of a given case," and as such "novel remedies" may not only be permissible, but also required. The "appropriate and just" limit was defined in this case as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what is appropriate and just (although they should keep in mind traditional
common law In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresen ...
limits on judicial power; in this case it was denied that ''functus officio'' was violated), and also as requiring courts to remember that section 24 is itself a part of the constitution and allows judges to carry out their function of enforcing rights.


Courts of competent jurisdiction

These section 24(1) remedies may only be dispensed by a "court of competent jurisdiction". In '' R. v. Rahey'' (1987), it was found that in any case, provincial superior and appellate courts, and courts created by the federal government, will qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction and may award remedies where it is considered "appropriate and just". An inferior provincial court may qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction where the remedy sought relates to trial procedure. An administrative tribunal may qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction where it has been granted statutory jurisdiction over the parties, subject matter, and remedy sought. It is important to note that the jurisdiction over "remedy sought" means the jurisdiction as granted by statute, irrespective of the total remedies available under section 24(1) that may be applied by other courts. Even where a tribunal is not found to be a court of competent jurisdiction it is still nonetheless capable of applying the ''Charter''. Where a tribunal has been given the power to decide questions of law it must conform to the Constitution in all of its application of law and so invalid laws must be treated as having no force or effect. However, even if the tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction it cannot make a declaration of invalidity for any invalid law, it can only treat it as no force or effect. Overall, section 24's "competent jurisdiction" limit on which courts may award remedies, in '' R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc.'' (2001), was taken as meaning that while Charter rights are generous, they exist within a framework set up by Parliament and the provincial governments. These elected governments have the authority to grant varying degrees of powers to courts and tribunals, and deference should be shown to the governments' decisions. Reviewing courts may, however, have to exercise interpretation regarding whether lower courts have powers to award certain remedies if it is not explicit in the laws. This involves examining whether the lower court can consider Charter arguments and if allowing the lower court to dispense section 24(1) remedies would disrupt its general operations or be too much of a work burden for the court staff.


Exclusion of evidence

Practices regarding what evidence may be brought against an individual in
trials In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information (in the form of evidence) in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, w ...
are addressed by section 24(2). When evidence is obtained through the violation of a ''Charter'' right, the claimant is able to apply to have the evidence excluded from the trial under this section. At common law, all evidence, regardless of how it was obtained, can be submitted in a trial. The US
exclusionary rule In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be consider ...
excludes all evidence acquired through the violation of the
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 pri ...
. Canada has taken a middle ground, ''sometimes'' allowing for the exclusion of evidence, whenever its use threatens to bring the "administration of justice" into "disrepute." In the 2009 case '' R. v. Grant'', the Supreme Court of Canada created a new test to determine when the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute (replacing the 1987 test in '' R. v. Collins''). The ''Grant'' test lists three factors the courts must consider: (1) the seriousness of the ''Charter''-infringing conduct (focusing on a review of how society would view the actions of the state), (2) the impact of the breach on the ''Charter''-protected interests of the accused (focusing on a review of how the state's actions affected the accused), and (3) society's interests in the adjudication of the case on its merits (focusing on a review of the importance and reliability of the evidence).


Past interpretations

The 1987 case '' R. v. Collins'' had established three factors to consider when determining whether to exclude evidence. First, the courts would look at whether the admission of the evidence would affect the fairness of the trial. Second, they would look at the seriousness of the Charter violation, and third, they would look at the effect of excluding the evidence on the administration of justice. Typically, evidence obtained through violating an accused's right to have counsel ( section 10(b)) or the right to security from unreasonable search and seizure ( section 8) was excluded by this section. After ''Collins'' and other such decisions, by 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada had used the ''Charter'' to exclude evidence in 45% of section 24(2) cases that come before the Court.Morton, FL and Ranier Knopff. ''The Charter Revolution & the Court Party''. (Broadview Press, 2000), p. 39.


Footnotes


External links


section24(2) digest by retired P.E.I. Chief Justice Hon. Gerard Mitchell
- current to January 2014

at
Canlii The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII; french: Institut canadien d'information juridique) is a non-profit organization created and funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in 2001 on behalf of its 14 member societies. CanLI ...
- current to April 2005
Fundamental Freedoms: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Charter of Rights website with video, audio and the Charter in over 20 languages {{DEFAULTSORT:Section Twenty-Four Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Section 24 Evidence law