Canadian Constitutional LawSection B: March 9, 2013Judicial Decisions on the Charter of

RightsCourse Director:

Ian Greene

Monahan Ch 13 (Ian Greene)

• 1968: Trudeau became PM. He wanted:– stronger federation– patriation of constitution– Const. Charter of Rights– better-protected language and

mobility rights

• 1970: Molgate-MacGuigan Committee found strong support for a const. Charter

• 1971: Victoria Charter– agreement for Ch and pat.– opposed in the end by Quebec

and Alberta

• 1976: PQ elected in Quebec• 1980: Referendum

– Trudeau promised renewed federalism

• 1981: – negotiations; no agreement– “unilateral” patriation attempt– reference to 3 Prov Cts of

Appeal; appeal to SCC– SCC Ruling:

• legal, but breaks convention

– Nov. 1981 const conference• compromise

November 1981 compromise

• Patriation of constitution with the amending formula favoured by most of the premiers (the 7-50 formula), but which Trudeau had opposed

• acceptance of a constitutional Charter of Rights which would contain a “notwithstanding” (non obstante) clause

• Trudeau insisted that the notwithstanding clause not cover language rights, minority language education rights, or mobility rights; notwithstanding clause would have a 5-year limit

The Charter of Rightsbecame law April, 1982

• 1. Limitations clause• 2. Fundamental

freedoms:– conscience and religion– thought, belief, opinion

& expression– press and other media– peaceful assembly– association

• 3-5: Democratic rights: – citizens right to vote and run

for office– 5 yr limit to life of H of C or

prov. Assembly except during war etc. if supported by 2/3 vote

– sitting of Parliament, and prov. Legislatures, at least every 12 months

Mobility and Legal Rights

• 6. Mobility rights– 1. to enter, remain,

leave– 2. to move within Can.

and pursue livelihood, subject to laws that don’t discriminate and residency provisions, and restrictions in provinces of high unemployment

• 7-14 Legal rights: eveything in Bill plus– freedom from unreasonable

search or seizure (s. 8)– trial within reas time– jury trial if liable to 5 years

imprisonment– no retroactive offences– no double jeopardy– least punishment if law varied

Equality and Language

• 15 Equality before and under the law– without discrimination

based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability

– Affirmative action programmes OK

• 16-22: Language– supplements S. 133 of CA, 1867,

which is still in effect– applies to Canada (fed) and New

Brunswick only, though other prov’s can opt in

– Eng & Fr “official langs”– Debates, statutes, Hansard in 2

langs– Eng or Fr can be used in courts– right to receive services or

communicate in English or French with gov’t

Minority Lang Education, remedies

• 23: Minority lang ed– citizens whose first lang

is Eng or Fr, or who attended prim school in Eng or Fr, have right to educate children in that lang.

– Siblings rights– applies where numbers

warrant

• 24: remedies– (1) “...such remedy as

the court considers appropriate”

– (2) evidence may be excluded if its collection violated a right, if admitting it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”

General

• 25: aboriginal and treaty rights not reduced by charter, including rights under Royal Proclamation of 1763, and land claims agreements

• 26: other existing rights not reduced by Charter

• 27: multicultural heritage of Canadians to be kept in mind when interpreting the charter

• 28: equal guarantee to males and females (this section isn’t covered by the “notwithstanding” clause)

General (continued)

– 29: denominational school rights in CA, 1867 not reduced

– 30: Territories included, now and later

– 31: Charter does not extend legislative powers; it is a limit

– 32: Application to Parl, legislatures, gov’ts (& 3 year delay for s. 15)

– 33: a notwithstanding clause can be inserted into legis. re ss. 2 or 7-15; 5 year limit; can be renewed

– 34: ss. 1-34 of CA, 1982 cited as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Charter and Its Critics• The Charter undermines

legislative supremacy & therefore democracy– Mandel: elected legislators are

closer to the needs of the poor and oppressed. Judges are business-oriented. No Charter decision has/will benefit the disadvantaged

– Morton-Knopff: Judges may be “captured” by special interest groups, mostly on the left. This subverts democracy.

– Charter erodes participatory democracy. Human rights can only be protected by the vigilance of citizens

• Cost of litigation compared to the political process– Lavigne case: NCC spent

$500,000; unions $400,000 +– OFVAS case: why didn’t artists

use political process to change Ont censorship law? Didn’t know how. (But think of cost of lobbyists)

– S. 33 override is undemocratic

Charter Critics (2)– Charter litigation focuses

attention on cases that happen to get to court, not necessarily most imp issues for society (Dean Monahan, Osgoode Hall Law School). • Cts should interpret Ch to

promote democracy

• Courts are inappropriate for making policy on human rights– Stare decisis is backwards

looking, compared with the possibility of forward-looking policy formation processes in public service/legislature

• eg. Appropriate procedure for determination of refugee cases

• Schachter case (changes to parental leave policy)

– Adversary system• gov’t lawyers argue for a narrow

interpretation of Charter, whether or not this is gov’t policy

• courts rely on arguments from counsel. Sometimes, no section 1 arguments

• Do judges get a complete analysis of the issues?

Charter critics (3)– Backgrounds of judges

• older than average adult• disproportionately married with children• predominantly male• New Canadians and Aboriginals under-represented on

bench• most from business or professional family• tend to be successful• appointment process for Prov Courts and prov. Superior

courts improving. Elevation procedure, and SCC secretive

• Similar problems with lack of representation in legal profession

“Oakes Test” for Section 1• S 1 of the Charter: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the

rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limitsprescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free anddemocratic society.

• The Oakes test has two parts: – First, the objective of the government in limiting a right must be of sufficient

importance to society to justify encroachment on a right. – Second (“proportionality test”), the limit must be reasonable and

demonstrably justified in terms of not being out of proportion to the government objective, and must therefore satisfy three criteria: • (a) it must be rationally connected the government objective, and not

"arbitrary or capricious“ (“rational connection test”); • (b) it should impair the right as little as is necessary to achieve the govern

ment objective (“minimal impairment test”); and • (c) even if all of the points above are satisfied, the effects of the limit

cannot be out of proportion to what is accomplished by the government objective — in other words, the cure cannot be allowed to be more harmful than the disease.

Presentations• Monahan Ch 14 (439-460): Ketevan

Tkabladze• Monahan Ch 14 (460-475): Leah Godin• Case 22, The Queen v. Big M Drug Mart

(freedom of religion, 1985): Stacey Berry• -Case 24, The Queen v. Oakes (1986): Helga

Gonzalez Leyton• Case 25, Morgentaler v. The Queen (abortion,

1988): Aleem Maginley

Presentations continued• Case 28, R. v. Keegstra (hate speech, 1990):

Suren Ganeswaren• Case 31, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (AG),

(advertising, 1995): Monica Ahmed• Case 34, Sauvé v. Canada (prisoners voting

rights, 2002): Kyi Kyi Thin• Case 36, Chaoulli v. Quebec (AG), (right to

adequate health care, 2005): Faud Adbi

Presentations (continued)• Case 37, Health Services and Support (SCC

overrules a previous decision and expands labour rights, 2007): Parastoo Aznavehzadeh

• Case 39, Delgamuukw v. BC (aboriginal land claim rights, 1997): Maiwand Noor

• Case 40, R. v. Marshall (aboriginal constitutional fishing rights, 1999): Obaid Daud

Presentations (continued)

• Case 48, Ref. re Secession of Quebec (principles of Canadian democracy, 1998): Lil Manger

• Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (Insite decision): Farrah Zandnia

Monahan Part Six (Conclusion)• Is Quebec secession as much of an issue now

as in the past?• Problem with power imbalance between

legislative and executive branches: would senate reform help?

• Shift away from constitutional concerns to economic concerns

• What viewpoints do you think Patrick Monahan will bring to Ontario’s role in Canada in his new role as Deputy Attorney General?

Greene, The Charter of Rights, Ch 5• General trends in legal rights decisions by the

Supreme Court• Capital punishment and the Burns case (2001)• Fighting Terrorism while respecting human

rights: Charkaoui (2007 & 2008) and Khadr (2008 & 2010)

Course evaluations

• Need a class rep to collect the evaluations and deliver them to Jasmattie

• Professor will not see the evaluations until after the last date for appealing grades has expired, and all appeals (if any) have been settled at the highest level.