Class Notes (839,095)
Canada (511,185)


9 Pages

Political Science
Course Code
Political Science 2230E
Caroline Dick

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 9 pages of the document.
1The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canadian Politics 2230E 02 October 2012 Major Questions: 1) To whom or what does the Charter apply? - courts have the capacity to put down a law that is unconstitutional - widen the scope of judicial review - section 32 (1) applies to the parliament and government - only against the government 2) What does s.1 of the Charter provide? How has the judiciary interpreted s.1? - reasonable limits - rights are not absolute  not guaranteed - okay to be limits on our rights, as long as they are reasonable - open to interpretation  universal… - does not give judges guide lines, or when they can do this - no concrete guidelines - court needs to bring life into section one 3) What does s.33 provide and how does it operate? - federal government or provincial legislation has the rights to violate our rights - the government can pass the same legislation with section 33 attached to it - it’s what Quebec wanted  they thought that government who intrude into their legislation - federal government picked who is on the court  government could strike down provincial legislation they didn’t agree with - there is going to be difference between provinces - no more policy diversity was the idea - major rights can be violated - only lasts for five years  there would be an election to change the government - Quebec has used it a lot - Ford (SSC) - preemptive use - use it before the legislation is changed  can’t challenge it - government should provide legitimacy striping Canadians of their rights - Supreme Court thought it was okay because they didn’t want to review their sovereignty  anti-democratic (moving to courts having the final say) - court does not always have the final say on putting down a legislation 4) What has been the most popular criticism of the Charter enterprise? How is this criticism framed by critics on the left? - anti-democratic - judicial can’t make law - democratic politicians are accountable to the people and make laws - judicial is pulled into law making and public policy - transfer of political power to judges to make public policy - section one cannot override rights - Oakes Test: better way to draw up legislation; do less harm to public rights - they are drawn into areas with no legal definition (absorption, porn, etc.) - gives it to unelected judges - both left and right find it is undemocratic - who’s interest are they going to follow Question Left Right Charter anti- Yes Yes democratic? Who or what is greatest Capital ($) State threat to individual liberty? Who will abuse judicial Capital ($) Court Party review? Which interests will Capital ($) Court Party judge favor? What is the appropriate Expansive/Egalitarian Limited role of the state? 5) Given liberalism’s rationale for rights, should corporations possess Charter rights? Do they possess Charter rights? - public/private distinction (market and family – state does not interfere  self- actualization, no interference into reaching goals) - we have rights to protect us and give us opportunity - judges come from wealthy background - do things that will favor them - if you look at decisions that there is a bias in favor of corporal interest - companies are made up of people - they do possess some charter rights - no religious rights, no section 7 rights - they have freedom of expression rights - legal rights, search and seizure, tried within a reasonable time - no property rights - nobody can bring a charter right is an economic claim  economic interest and an non-economic interest is okay however 6) Most popular criticism of the CORAF enterprise from critics on the rights: - transfer from democratic to undemocratic - one thing for a court to strike down legislation  making the state act for freedom - tell them what they have to do  court creates a new charter right - court party: - who is using the charter litigation (special groups) - collection of social movements that prefers the policy making power of the court - courts are seen as less democratic institutions - social movements/special interest groups  going to the court to get what they want (political agendas) - consists “equality seekers”  bring more social equality (Aboriginal  section 25,35) - “Charter Canadians”  people who gain recognition under section 15 - green people, LGBTQ, etc. are in equality party - their goal is to reverse the decision of elected legislators - another way to do it without lobbying - positive obligation on the state 7) On what grounds do scholars contend that the Charter enhances democracy? Morton and Knopff: - right wing critics - pre-commitment  democratic chosen and agreed to charter  people chose to go to judicial review  have legislation be challenged by court (upholding the charter is when society is going well) - intent of the charter with respect to court party:  benefits member of country party (champion minorities)  tyranny of the majority  wrongly going after charter rights Gregory Hein: - democratic, judicial review enhance democracy, not undermining democracy - litigation is democratic because it gives a voice to those who are shut out of the electoral system - a lot of political interest are not represented in our legislation (geographic location) - provides a voice to those who are not represented (all people must be represented, provide a voice for those who can’t speak loud enough) - protect them from special interest groups (corporations) - legitimate, important part - shows the problems within the legislation Terms: judicial review the Court Party the Oakes test pre-commitment notwithstanding clause judicial democrats preemptive use of s.33 the public/private distinction Cases: R. v. Oakes (1986) (SCC) - case in which they established a framework for section one - whether or not a limit on a right was reasonable - Oakes Test Ford (1988) (SCC) - PQ passed Bill 101 - protect the French language  French advertisement only - freedom of speech was violated - Quebec attached section 33 to very law passed  only lasts for five years *ominous bill - Supreme Court stuck it down - then Quebec passed Bill 178, outdoor has to French, indoors both language but French was dominant  made the legislation immune from challenge Meech Lake Accord: - 1988 - Quebec was a distinct society  used to beat up non-French minorities - section 33 became virtually unusable outside of Quebec - became very unpopular Big M Drug Mart (1985) (SCC): - drug store that was open on Sunday - Lord’s day act – no business on Sunday - infringed their right to have business open - violates employees’ rights  law h
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.