3,009
edits
Changes
no edit summary
{{Dial-A-Law Blurb}}
Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter rights Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The Supreme Court has said Charter and the courts recognize that governments can make laws in the broader public interest, even if a law violates a Charter right or freedom. In such a case, a court will ask if the government can justify the central purpose violation under section 1. This section says that Charter rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably (clearly) justified in a free and democratic society. A court may allow a violation of a Charter right if the government can meet this section 15 is 1 test. But section 1 applies only to written laws, not to government action, because it requires any limit on a Charter right to promote “substantive equality” be “prescribed by fighting discriminationlaw. ” So in additionwhen government action violates the Charter, courts will focus on whether section 1 does not let the law or government try to justify the violation. The action is discriminatory in creating a disadvantage by perpetuating (or indefinitely continuing) prejudice or stereotypingunconstitutional.
Enforcing Charter rights Canadian courts interpret and enforce the Charter. The essential questions courts must decide under section 1 are whether have described themselves as the law has a very important objective and whether guardians of the government chose a proportionate way to meet that objective—a way Charter. In that interferes as little as possible with constitutional rights. For examplerole, could judges have the power to strike down and invalidate laws or other government achieve its objective in another wayactions. They will do so if necessary to defend a protected right or freedom. If you think a provincial or federal law or action violates your Charter rights, without violating equality rights? Does the law you can ask a court to do more harm than good?several things.
First: was your Charter right violated? You have to show the court that one of your Charter rights was violated. This usually means persuading the judge that the law or government action violated a specific Charter right. For example, you might complain that a law restricting what signs you can put in your window violates freedom of expression. But even if you prove a violation, Charter rights are balanced against the rights of others and the interests of society, as explained in the earlier paragraph on reasonable limits under section 1. Second: can the government justify—under section 1—a law that violates the Charter right? If a court finds that the government violated your rights, the next step depends on what caused the violation: was it a written law—or action by the government or a government actor. If government action caused the violation, the government does not get a chance to justify it under section 1. In this case, the court just decides the right remedy (which the next section explains). But if a written law violated your rights, the court decides whether the government can justify the violation under section 1. Is the violation reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society? To decide that, the court looks at several things, including whether the government has an important objective in violating your right. Specifically, a court will ask if the government acted reasonably in achieving its objective. If the court finds that the government’s objective is important, the court must decide if the government is acting in a reasonable and justified way to achieve that objective. The Supreme Court of Canada says this usually depends on the answers to three more informationquestions:1.Are the means that the government used to achieve its objective rationally connected to that objective?2.Could the government have achieved the same objective in some other way, without violating anyone’s rights or freedoms, or violating them to a lesser degree?3.Is the government’s objective important enough – and are the benefits of the law significant enough—to justify violating a Charter right? The government must prove that the violation of the Charter is reasonable under section 1. Often, refer the government tries to show that the law’s objective is important to Canadian society, and that the violation of Charter itselfrights is minimal. The more severe the violation, the harder it is for government to justify it. Only after the court considers all these things, script [[can it decide if you deserve a remedy for the Charter violation. Charter cases can be complex and hard to resolve because courts have to consider and balance many competing interests. The court must go beyond the narrow facts of one case and consider the competing interests in relation to a law and how it operate for society. Individual and broad remedies if Charter rights violated If you prove a violation of a Charter right, and the government cannot justify it under section 1, the next question is what kind of Rights remedy or consequence is appropriate. Different kinds of remedies apply to different types of cases. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 says that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is of no force or effect. So a court may declare that a law is unconstitutional. This is what the news media mean when they talk about a court striking down a law. In such a case, a court may “suspend” its declaration to give the government time to make a new law that will be valid. In other cases, an individual (personal) remedy is necessary. Section 24 of the Charter allows a person whose rights have been violated to apply to a court for a remedy the court considers appropriate and Freedoms: Legal Rights just in the circumstances. The Charter gives courts a lot of discretion about the kind of remedies they can order if a Charter right is violated. The type of remedy a court gives normally depends on the type of government action that violates the Charter. If a government official took the action—for example, a police officer conducted an unreasonable search—the court will give an individual remedy that helps only the victim of the search. (Script 200In that example, the court may say that the drugs found during the illegal search can’t be used as evidence in the criminal trial. This helps the accused person, but it doesn’t change the law for anyone else)|200]]. In other cases, a broad remedy, such as striking down the law, may be necessary. For example, if the government passed a law that discriminated based on sex, the court would give a remedy that helps everyone affected by the law. Usually, when someone illegally interferes with your rights, called “you can sue them to recover any losses you suffer as a result. But this does not help someone charged with a crime after an illegal search or after they've confessed to a crime without being told of their right to speak to a lawyer. In this type of case, a court can exclude evidence in a criminal trial if the way it was obtained violated a Charter right. A court will exclude evidence only if the accused person can show that using the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In other cases, the court may be able to do something else, like stop a prosecution, order one side to pay the other side's legal costs, or declare that certain rights were violated. The court will always decide what is fair and appropriate depending on the facts of the specific case. More information For more information, check the Charter itself, script 200, called “Charter of Rights and Freedoms'': Legal Rights”, and script [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Overview (Script 230)|230]]232, called “''Charter “Charter of Rights and Freedoms'': Overview”Equality Rights”.
[updated July 2014]
----