3,009
edits
Changes
no edit summary
**a court-appointed interpreter
Other sections deal with enforcing Charter rights and freedoms, whom they can be used against, and how courts have to interpret the Charter.
==Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter rights== Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The 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 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 1 test. But section 1 applies only to written laws, not to government action, because it requires any limit on a Charter right to be “prescribed by law.” So when government action violates the Charter, section 1 does not let the government try to justify the violation. The action is unconstitutional.
==The “notwithstanding clause” —section 33== The federal and provincial governments can override specific Charter rights in certain situations. They can say that a law operates “notwithstanding” (in spite of) some Charter rights. So far, governments have used this power only rarely.
==The Charter controls government, not the private sector== You can’t use the Charter to challenge every possible violation of your rights. The Charter controls government laws and other government actions. It doesn’t control private citizens, businesses, or organizations. Before you can claim the Charter’s protection, you must show that the government, or some agency very closely connected to government, such as a school board or labour-relations board, violated your rights. If a private individual, organization, or company violates your rights, you may be able to complain under the BC ''Human Rights Code '' or the ''Canadian Human Rights Act''. For more information on this, check script [[Human Rights and Discrimination Protection (Script 236 )|236]] on"Human Rights and Discrimination Protection”, and script [[Protection Against Job Discrimination (Script 270)|270 ]] on “Protection Against Job Discrimination”.
==Enforcing Charter rights== Canadian courts interpret and enforce the Charter. The courts have described themselves as the guardians of the Charter. In that role, judges have the power to strike down and invalidate laws or other government actions. 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, you can ask a court to do several things.
What a court can do depends on what you ask for. For example, if you say that a law violates the Charter, a court will decide if the law actually does violate the Charter. If the court finds a violation, the government can try to justify the violation under section 1. You may ask a court to declare that your rights have been violated or to give you a specific remedy. In criminal cases, for example, the accused person can ask the court to end the trial or to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Charter. Or you may ask a court for a general remedy not specific to your case, such as striking down a law entirely. The court will generally assess these questions:
:'''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.
:The government must prove that more severe the violation of , the Charter harder it is reasonable under section 1for government to justify it. OftenOnly after the court considers all these things, can it decide if you deserve a remedy for the government tries Charter violation. Charter cases can be complex and hard to show that the law’s objective is important resolve because courts have to Canadian society, consider and that balance many competing interests. The court must go beyond the violation narrow facts of Charter rights is minimalone case and consider the competing interests in relation to a law and how it operate for society.
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 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.