query: who has final authority of interpretation of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms

pos: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter. With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism. However, under section 24 of the Charter, courts also gained new powers to enforce creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials. Courts have since made many important decisions, including "R. v. Morgentaler" (1988), which struck down Canada's abortion law,

pos: Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 9 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Section nine states: Detainment within the meaning of both section nine and section ten is not invoked unless there is significant physical or psychological restraint. Detainment can be found to be arbitrary where there is "no express or implied criteria which govern its exercise." The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that "detention" refers to a suspension of an individual's liberty interest by

pos: Women in law women and girls under the law.". Established on April 19, 1985, LEAF was formed in response to the enactment of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that there was fair and unbiased interpretation of women’s Charter rights by the courts. LEAF performs legal research and intervenes in appellate and Supreme Court of Canada cases on women's issues . LEAF has been an intervener in many significant decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly cases involving section 15 Charter challenges. In addition to its legal work, LEAF also organizes speaking engagements and projects that

pos: Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 29 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section of "Charter" that most specifically addresses rights regarding denominational schools and separate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite freedom of religion and religious equality under sections 2 and 15 of the "Charter". Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments. In the case "Mahe v. Alberta" (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada also had to reconcile denominational

pos: Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under investigation." This test was upheld and expanded upon by the Supreme Court of Canada in "R. v. Mann". In "Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)", the Supreme Court ruled that the Canada's security certificate regime, which enabled the pretrial detention of those suspected of posing a threat to national security, constituted arbitrary detention within the meaning of Section 9 of the "Charter". Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 9 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment.

pos: Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explained, This interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 in "Sriskandarajah v. United States of America". The application of extradition laws to try individuals in countries where constitutional standards are lower or sentences higher remains a controversial practice, and was used by the Canadian government against Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, alleged war criminal Michael Seifert, and marijuana seed vendor Marc Emery, none of whom were convicted of a crime in Canada. Canadian courts have demonstrated an ongoing lack of willingness to apply constitutional remedies in such cases. Some rights in the Charter, such as freedom of

pos: Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms obtained during cross examination in the last trial. This section serves a similar purpose as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but does not provide witnesses the same opportunity to excuse themselves from testifying. In "R. v. Nedelcu", 2012 SCC 59, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that the prosecution in a criminal trial could use prior inconsistent testimony from a civil trial to impeach an accused person's credibility. Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter

neg: Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a part of Aboriginal life? (3) would the remedy possibly given by the Charter limit Aboriginal rights? Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 25 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the first section under the heading "General" in the "Charter", and like other sections within the "General" sphere, it aids in the interpretation of rights elsewhere in the "Charter". While section 25 is also the Charter section that deals most directly with Aboriginal peoples in Canada, it does not create or constitutionalize rights for them. The "Charter" is a part of

neg: Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 25 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the first section under the heading "General" in the "Charter", and like other sections within the "General" sphere, it aids in the interpretation of rights elsewhere in the "Charter". While section 25 is also the Charter section that deals most directly with Aboriginal peoples in Canada, it does not create or constitutionalize rights for them. The "Charter" is a part of the larger "Constitution Act, 1982". Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under section 35

neg: Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Dyment" (1988), the Court defined it simply as the "taking of a thing from a person by a public authority without that person's consent." This meaning has been narrowed to cover property taken in furtherance of administration or criminal investigation ("Quebec (Attorney General) v. Laroche", [2002]). Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal

neg: Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms interpretations of section 133, including the interpretation of similar language rights in the Parliament of Canada found in section 133 and section 17 of the "Charter". This interpretation of section 19 has been disputed. In the same case, Chief Justice Brian Dickson and Justice Bertha Wilson both found that a right to be understood by a judge regardless of whether one chooses to speak English or French could be found in the penumbra of section 19. However, the restrictive interpretation of language rights in "Société des Acadiens" was largely overturned in R. v. Beaulac. Section 19 of the Canadian Charter

neg: Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was noted that municipalities exist under the authority of the provincial governments, which are bound by the "Charter" under section 32. (A related case later went to the Supreme Court as "Charlebois v. Saint John (City)".) Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 18 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the provisions of the Constitution that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", section 18 requires that all statutes and other records made by the Parliament of Canada must

neg: Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 34 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the last section of Canada's Charter of Rights, which is entrenched in the "Constitution Act, 1982". Section 34 provides guidance for the legal citation of the "Charter". The section has been interpreted by Canadian writers, who have analyzed both its intention and its meaning. Because the section affirms the name of the "Charter" and thus entrenches it in the "Constitution Act", it came into focus in 1994 when a Member of Parliament (MP) proposed to change the name of

neg: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the Charter was adopted in 1982, but rather on changing the scope of rights as appropriate to fit their broader purpose. This is tied to the "generous interpretation" of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers. Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has approved of the generous approach in some cases, although for others he argues the purpose of the provisions was not to achieve a set of

neg: Canadian privacy law "Hunter v. Southam". In this case, Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) was found "to protect individuals from unjustified state intrusions upon their privacy" and the court stated such "Charter" rights should be interpreted broadly. Later, in a 1988 Supreme Court case, the right to privacy was established as "an essential component of individual freedom". The court report from "R. v. Dyment" states, "From the earliest stage of "Charter" interpretation, this Court has made it clear that the rights it guarantees [including privacy rights] must be interpreted generously, and not in a narrow or legalistic

neg: Purposive approach to go beyond the text in some circumstances to examine the subjective purposes of the text's author. Barak believes intentionalism is too limited in its assessment of subjectivity. "On a number of occasions, Justice Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court has remarked that, in the enactment of its new Basic Laws on human rights, Israel walks in the path of the Canadian Charter of RIghts and Freedoms". Barak has encouraged Israel's judiciary to make reference to the Canadian Supreme Court's purposive approach to Charter rights and its rights-forwarding orientation. Barak has not only written in support of purposive interpretation but

neg: Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 1 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are "guaranteed". The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's "Charter" rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in "R v Keegstra") and obscenity (e.g., in "R v Butler"). When the government has limited an

neg: Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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

neg: Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to "habeas corpus". As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test and/or the notwithstanding clause. However, section 10 has also spawned considerable litigation, and has made an impact in numerous cases. The section reads: Section 10 is only triggered if a person is arrested or detained. In R

neg: Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter which, along with section 11 (c), specifies rights regarding self-incrimination. It reads: Rights against self-incrimination had existed in Canadian law even before the Charter, but these applied to cases in which an individual might incriminate him or herself while giving testimony in another person's trial. Since the enactment of the Charter, the right has been extended in case law in regard to retrials, to exclude from one's retrial self-incriminating evidence if it had been

neg: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms text. For example, a right to legal aid has been read into section 10 of the Charter (the right to counsel), but the Covenant explicitly guarantees the accused need not pay "if he does not have sufficient means." The Canadian Charter has little to say, explicitly at least, about economic and social rights. On this point, it stands in marked contrast with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are some who feel economic rights ought to be read into section 7 rights to security of the

neg: Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms However, Morton and Knopff's source is "anonymous". Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 1 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are "guaranteed". The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's "Charter" rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in "R v Keegstra") and obscenity (e.g., in "R v

neg: Section 30 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 30 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 30 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section that, like other provisions within the section 25 to section 31 block, provides a guide as to how Charter rights should be interpreted and applied by Canadian courts. Section 30's particular role is to address how the Charter applies in the territories of Canada. In 1982, when section 30 first became law, these were the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. The Yukon Territory has since been renamed Yukon, and Nunavut was created from the eastern Northwest

neg: Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada, which clarifies that the Charter does not increase the powers of either the federal government or the legislatures of the provinces of Canada. As a result, only the courts may enforce the rights in the Charter. The section reads, As the government of Canada notes, this shows the Charter does not disturb the balance of the distribution of legislative powers under the Constitution Act, 1867. Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has called section

neg: Canada (AG) v Lavell was very controversial and would prove influential in the drafting of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Supreme Court's narrow and restrained interpretations of the "Canadian Bill of Rights" in cases like "Lavell" certainly reinforced the push for an entrenched bill of rights, like the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Section 15 of the October 1980 draft version of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" guaranteed that 15. (1) Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the law without

neg: Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 23 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section of the Constitution of Canada that guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking minorities in Quebec. The section may be particularly notable, in that some scholars believe that section 23 "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned." Trudeau was the prime minister who fought for the inclusion of the "Charter of Rights" in the Constitution of Canada in 1982. Section 23(1)(b),

neg: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice. This "Charter" provision provides both substantive and procedural rights. It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings

neg: Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of law" also appear in the party's official policies regarding what they feel all laws should be based upon, and the party states, "'Human rights' as expressed in the ;"Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" can only, therefore, be legitimately interpreted in light of, or in conjunction with, the higher Moral Law of God." Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the introductory sentence to the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights and "Constitution Act, 1982". In full, it reads, Writing in 1982, when the "Charter" came

neg: Hate speech laws in Canada to the hate propaganda offences in the "Criminal Code", and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is part of the Constitution of Canada. Section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, and also freedom of religion. Section 1 of the Charter guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, but also

neg: Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (""Charter"") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the "Charter" calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Section 1

neg: Official bilingualism in Canada the interpretation made by the provincial administration of the "major part" criterion in Quebec's "language of instruction" provisions violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This criterion allows students who have completed the "major part" of their primary education in English in Canada to continue their studies in English in Quebec. The Court did not strike down the law but, as it had done in its 1988 ruling on sign laws, presented the province with a set of criteria for interpreting the law in conformity with the "Charter of Rights", broadening the interpretation of the phrase "major part". French

neg: Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs (affirmative action) and rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools (religious education). Rights under section 15 include racial equality, sexual equality, mental disability, and physical disability. In its jurisprudence, it has also been a source of gay rights in Canada.

neg: Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms by public bodies and the Protection of personal information. Having precedence over all provincial legislation (including the latter), the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stands at the pinnacle of Quebec's legal system. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoys priority over the Quebec charter. The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms consists of six parts: The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is unique among Canadian (and North American) human rights documents in that it covers not only the fundamental (civil and political) human rights, but also a number of important social

neg: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (), in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the "Constitution Act, 1982". The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April

neg: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (), in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the "Constitution Act, 1982". The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17,

neg: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Act, may be collectively referred to as the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Many of the rights and freedoms that are protected under the Charter, including the rights to freedom of speech, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence, have their roots in a set of Canadian laws and legal precedents sometimes known as the Implied Bill of Rights. Many of these rights were also included in the Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Canadian Parliament enacted in 1960. However, the Canadian Bill of Rights had a number of shortcomings. Unlike the Charter, it was an ordinary

neg: Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms aspires to be a statement by Canadians about the rights and freedoms which we as Canadians deeply value in our democratic society." MacLellan added that section 1 implied a need for responsibilities, so "It is not necessary to change the title of this charter to emphasize the integral relationship between the individual's rights and his or her responsibility to the rest of society." Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 34 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the last section of Canada's Charter of Rights, which is entrenched in the "Constitution Act, 1982".

neg: Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are parallel service providers, and therefore as an essential component of the collective rights of Ottawa's Franco-Ontarian population. The Government of Ontario criticized the decision as judicial activism, and charged that "The divisional court decision has effectively rewritten the constitution to make [Section] 16.1 applicable to Ontario despite the express intention that it apply to New Brunswick alone." Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 16.1 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the newest section of the Charter. It was enacted by the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick) and guarantees equality between English-speaking

neg: Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on their powers, but the opposition would have been stronger had Parliament been able to exert its authority over the provinces. As Hogg notes, section 31 also distinguishes the Charter from various rights in the amendments to the United States Constitution. In the United States, the federal Congress has the authority to enforce various rights, including those in the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment, which binds the states to respect due process, and the Fifteenth Amendment, which contains a partial right to vote. While section 31 denies remedial powers in respect of the Charter for Parliament and

neg: Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has argued that it is the elected governments and "political compromise", rather than the courts, that will mostly advance language rights. Justice Wilson added that subsection 16(3) demonstrates that while language rights need to be improved, they should not be eroded once they have been established. Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 16 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the first of several sections of the Constitution dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Section 16 declares that English and French are the official languages of Canada and of the

neg: Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 6 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause. Along with the language rights in the "Charter" (sections 16–23), section 6 was meant to protect Canadian unity.

neg: Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States Bill of Rights, saying that those documents were written by men who had just emerged from conflict and still remembered it, and thus Canada could be duller. However, he noted there was some drama in the "Charter" in that it was written when there was a threat of Quebec separatism, and section 27 (multiculturalism), section 25 (Aboriginal rights), and section 15(2) (affirmative action) of the "Charter" could change the country. In 1994, the House of Commons of Canada debated changing the name of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" to the "Canadian Charter of Rights,

neg: Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 24 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" 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": Namely, Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights. Under the heading "Enforcement," the section states: Subsection 24(1) must be distinguished from subsection 52(1)

neg: Section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms well as a stronger section regarding the Charter and aboriginal rights, section 25, were added to the Constitution of Canada instead. Section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like other provisions within the section 25 to 31 bloc, provides a guide in interpreting how the Charter should affect Canadian society. The section's particular role is to address rights not covered by or mentioned in the Charter. The section reads: As constitutional scholar Peter Hogg notes, this section is analogous to the Ninth Amendment to the United States

neg: Section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like other provisions within the section 25 to 31 bloc, provides a guide in interpreting how the Charter should affect Canadian society. The section's particular role is to address rights not covered by or mentioned in the Charter. The section reads: As constitutional scholar Peter Hogg notes, this section is analogous to the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, In other words, section 26 confirms that rights "not within" the Charter are nevertheless as real as they

neg: Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case "R. v. Smith" (1987), in which it was partially defined, and "R. v. Latimer" (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual. The section states:

neg: Section 21 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 25 refers to Aboriginal rights and section 26 refers to other rights not in the "Charter", although unlike section 21 these sections recognize rights outside the Constitution. Section 21 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 21 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of several sections of the "Charter" relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16 of the "Charter", are English and French. Sections 16 to 20 guarantee a number of rights in regard to the use of these languages in the federal and New Brunswick courts and

neg: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provincial governments, including that of Prince Edward Island, as well as the New Democratic Party, opposed the change. The NDP thought that if property rights were enshrined in the Charter, other economic rights should be added. In September 1982, after the Charter had been enacted, the government of British Columbia approved of an unsuccessful amendment to section 7 that would protect property rights. "See Unsuccessful attempts to amend the Canadian Constitution for more information. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is a constitutional provision that protects

neg: Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms write, "section 10(b) of the Charter overrules "Hogan"." In "R. v. Bartle" (1994) the Supreme Court ruled that rights to be informed that one may seek counsel included rights to be told of duty counsel and how to obtain it (e.g., through a free telephone call). Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to "habeas corpus". As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section

neg: Canadian Bill of Rights not directly applicable to provincial laws. As to Canadian federal law, the Bill of Rights has subsequently acquired through judicial interpretation a quasi-constitutional status through the paramountcy doctrine. These legal and constitutional limitations were a significant reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established as an unambiguously-constitutional-level Bill of Rights for all Canadians, governing the application of both federal and provincial law in Canada, with the patriation of the Constitution of Canada in 1982. Since patriation, its usefulness at federal law in Canada is mostly limited to issues pertaining to the enjoyment of property, as set forth

neg: Section 30 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should together indicate such rights exist in the territories. The courts dismissed the argument since a literal reading of section 20 shows it bounds only the federal government (and New Brunswick), not the territorial governments. Section 30 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 30 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section that, like other provisions within the section 25 to section 31 block, provides a guide as to how Charter rights should be interpreted and applied by Canadian courts. Section 30's particular role is to address how the Charter applies in the territories

neg: Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section 27 "officially recognized" a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism. The section reads, When the Charter was enacted in 1982, constitutional scholar Peter Hogg observed that this section did not actually contain a right; namely, it did

neg: Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 14 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the "Charter". It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if the person does not speak the language being used or is deaf. The section states: Before the "Charter" was enacted in 1982, the right to an interpreter in a trial existed under the common law, because it was believed to be necessary for natural justice. The right was incorporated into the "Canadian Bill of Rights" in

neg: Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms religious teachings could be provided in French. Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 29 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section of "Charter" that most specifically addresses rights regarding denominational schools and separate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite freedom of religion and religious equality under sections 2 and 15 of the "Charter". Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments. In the case "Mahe v. Alberta" (1990), the Supreme Court

neg: Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case, was the abolishment of federal Sunday closing laws. In "Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem", the Supreme Court drew up a definition of freedom of religion under the "Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms", mindful of the overlap with section 2(a). The majority found freedom of religion encompasses a right to religious practices if the individual has a sincere belief that the practice is connected to religion. It would not matter whether the practice was needed according to religious authority. If courts can believe an individual is telling the truth in saying a practice is connected to religion, the courts

neg: Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts." In "United States of America v. Cotroni", the Court wrote that "the International Covenant on Political Rights, Article 12... contains no right to remain in one's own country, although it contains all the other rights listed in ss. 6(1) and 6(2)(a) of the Charter." Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 6 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian

neg: Section 21 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 21 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 21 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of several sections of the "Charter" relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16 of the "Charter", are English and French. Sections 16 to 20 guarantee a number of rights in regard to the use of these languages in the federal and New Brunswick courts and other government institutions. Thus, section 21 clarifies that language rights regarding English and French in the Constitution of Canada, outside the "Charter", remain valid and are not

neg: Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the introductory sentence to the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights and "Constitution Act, 1982". In full, it reads, Writing in 1982, when the "Charter" came into force, constitutional scholar Peter Hogg noted that these words, being a preamble, could not really be applied by the courts but in theory could help to determine how other sections of the "Charter" should be read and applied. In this particular case, however, Hogg expressed doubt as to how much help this preamble

neg: Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 19 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the provisions of the Constitution of Canada that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", section 19 allows anyone to speak English or French in federal courts. However, only section 133 extends these rights to Quebec courts, while section 19 extends these rights to courts in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the "Charter". Section 19 reads,

neg: Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandatory under section 133, since there is no guarantee everyone will be able to understand an MP when he or she chooses to speak in English or French. These rights are thus negative rights only. An unconstitutional action would be for Parliament or a legislature to force a person to leave for speaking in English or French. Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 17 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the provisions of the "Charter" that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. While the section

neg: Section 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "relevant" to this debate, and that this section stated that the other Charter rights could not diminish rights regarding Inuktitut. Senator Serge Joyal, in expressing concern that "12 Aboriginal languages will have disappeared" in the year 2020 "because people are not using them," argued that section 22 provided "a foundation in the Constitution" for a "principle" that could be invoked to guard against this. This senator argued that aboriginal languages, by custom, should have rights as to their usage. Section 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 22 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is

neg: Women's Legal Education and Action Fund Women's Legal Education and Action Fund Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, referred to by the acronym LEAF, is "the only national organization in Canada that exists to ensure the equality rights of women and girls under the law.". Established on April 19, 1985, LEAF was formed in response to the enactment of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that there was fair and unbiased interpretation of women's Charter rights by the courts. LEAF performs legal research and intervenes in appellate and Supreme Court of Canada cases on women's issues . LEAF has been

neg: Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms any inequality between how cultural groups are funded. In various cases, courts have refused to use section 27 (or section 25) to give First Nations a right to have a certain number of seats on a jury in a trial. Section 27 is referenced by the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, legislation enacted in 1988. Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in

neg: Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 18 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the provisions of the Constitution that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", section 18 requires that all statutes and other records made by the Parliament of Canada must be available in both official languages. Section 133 places a similar obligation on the legislature of Quebec, and this is reaffirmed by section 21 of the "Charter". Section 18 of the "Charter" places a similar obligation

neg: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Human Rights and Responsibilities" fulfils a similar purpose. Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 33 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the "Charter. The section states: The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the "Charter", thereby

neg: Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 17 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the provisions of the "Charter" that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. While the section 17 right to use either language within the Parliament of Canada repeats a right already anchored in section 133 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", section 17 also guarantees the right to use both languages in the legislature of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the "Charter". Section 17 reads, As noted in

neg: Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms Youth Rights Commission. The commission will investigate the matter and attempt to foster a settlement between the parties. It may recommend corrective measures. If those are not followed, the commission may introduce litigation before a court (usually, but not necessarily, the Human Rights Tribunal). Victims will be represented free of charge by the commission. The Quebec charter does not apply to federally regulated activities in Quebec. Those are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or the Canadian Human Rights Act. Notable cases decided under the Charter include: Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms The Charter of

neg: Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11. Section 11(a) provides that The right of a person charged with an offence to be informed of the offence originated in section 510 of the "Criminal Code" as well as legal

neg: Section 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 22 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of several sections of the "Charter" relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16, are English and French. Section 22 is specifically concerned with political rights relating to languages besides English and French. It reads, Section 22 ensures that political rights regarding the use of other languages besides English and French are not limited by the fact that English and French are the only languages recognized as being official by the other provisions

neg: Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada. It does not contain a right so much as it provides a guide as to how to "interpret" rights in the Charter. Specifically, section 28 addresses concerns of sexual equality, and is analogous to (and was modelled after) the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the United States. The section reads: Section 28 is not so much a right because it does not state that men and women are equal; this is done

neg: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 33 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the "Charter. The section states: The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the "Charter", thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the "Charter"

neg: Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it had lost under the Charter, by invoking the notwithstanding clause. In 2001, the Federal Court decided against claims that section 30 of the Charter should mean territories should be treated generally like provinces. The Court pointed to section 31, saying section 30 cannot increase the powers of the territorial legislature to the extent that a territory can achieve equality with the provinces. Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada, which clarifies that the Charter does not increase the

neg: Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns the application and scope of the Charter. Only claims based on the type of law contemplated by this section can be brought before a court. Section 32(1) describes the basis on which all rights can be enforced. Section 32(2) was added in order to delay the enforcement of section 15 until government was given time to amend their laws to conform to the section. Under the heading "Application of Charter" the section states: The purpose of this section is

neg: Section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada, and the last of three democratic rights in the Charter. Its role is to establish a rule regarding how frequently the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces and territories of Canada must meet. This section is thus meant to reflect and constitutionally guarantee a "basic democratic principle" that "a government must explain its actions to the people." The section reads, Section 5 guarantees that, since Parliament and each legislature

neg: Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 3 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is a section that constitutionally guarantees Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly, subject to the requirements of Section 1 of the Charter. Federal judges, prisoners and those in mental institutions have gained the franchise as a result of this provision, whereas the restriction on minors voting was found to be permissible due to

neg: Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do governments have to commit themselves to the result of a referendum. Thus, how a referendum is administered is within governmental discretion. Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 3 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is a section that constitutionally guarantees Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly, subject to the requirements of Section 1 of the Charter. Federal judges, prisoners and those in mental institutions have

neg: Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Although municipalities are not mentioned by section 4, they are under the control of the provinces, which are bound by section 4. However, the court refused to accept that just because the municipal council was under the control of the legislative assembly, it could be considered a legislative assembly itself and was thus bound by section 4. The municipal council would rather be a creation of the legislature. Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 4 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of three democratic rights sections in the Charter. Section 4

neg: Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms freedom of expression contradicted "the large and liberal interpretation given the freedom of expression in Irwin Toy" and at any rate "s. 1 of the Charter is especially well suited to the task of balancing." Legal scholar Walter Tarnopolsky speculated in 1982 that section 27 could probably be most relevant to the interpretation of the section 15 equality rights. As he wrote, section 15 already protects ethnic origin and religion, but section 15's guarantee of "equal benefit of the law," combined with section 27, could lead to governments financially supporting minority culture. This would be particularly true if there was

neg: Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be fulfilled and carries the burden of proof that he or she actually does not understand the court's language. The court itself is also responsible for satisfying the right, and sometimes a section 14 request does not have to be made by a defendant in order for an interpreter to be provided under section 14. Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 14 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the "Charter". It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if

neg: Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevent the government from outsourcing services to private organizations in order to get around the "control test". For example, in "Eldridge v. British Columbia", the Court found that though hospitals are not considered government actors, they are often subject to Charter scrutiny as many government policies are designed to be carried out by the hospitals. Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns the application and scope of the Charter. Only claims based on the type of law contemplated by this section can be brought before a

neg: Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms providing $5 million annually to restore the Court Challenges Program. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs (affirmative action) and rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools (religious education). Rights under section 15 include racial equality, sexual equality, mental disability, and physical disability. In its jurisprudence, it

neg: Quasi-constitutionality it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights." The "Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms" states that contradictory acts are do not apply "unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter." Similarly, subsection 82(1) of the "Official Languages Act" states that "in the event of any inconsistency" between Parts I - V of that Act, and any part of any later Act of Parliament, the provisions of the "Official Languages Act" will prevail. The first Canadian law to establish a claim to quasi-constitutional status was the "Interpretation Act", which was enacted in November 1867 at

neg: Constitution Act, 1886 has been replaced by section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Parliament's power to "make provision for the representation in the...House of Commons...of any territor[y]" is likely limited by the democratic rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 3 of the Charter guarantees to Canadian citizens residing in each territory "right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons...and to be qualified for membership therein". Section 3 applies to "the Parliament...of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament "including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest

neg: Constitution Act, 1982 Proclamation which brought the "Constitution Act, 1982" into force. The proclamation confirmed that Canada had formally assumed authority over its constitution, the final step to full sovereignty. As of 2018, the government of Quebec has never formally approved of the enactment of the act, though the Supreme Court concluded that Quebec's formal consent was never necessary. Nonetheless, it has remained a persistent political issue in Quebec. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords were designed to secure approval from Quebec, but both efforts failed to do so. The "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the first Part of the "Constitution

neg: Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 4 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of three democratic rights sections in the Charter. Section 4 guarantees that federal and provincial elections must take place from time to time. Subsection 4(1) provides that the maximum term of the House of Commons, and of all the provincial legislative assemblies, is five years. Under subsection 4(2), an exception is made if war or rebellion causes two-thirds of the membership to believe a House of Commons or legislature should last longer. The section reads, Section 4, with

neg: Culture of Canada in law over all other languages used in Canada. Prior to the advent of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960 and its successor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the laws of Canada did not provide much in the way of civil rights and this issue was typically of limited concern to the courts. Canada since the 1960s has placed emphasis on equality and inclusiveness for all people. Multiculturalism in Canada was adopted as the official policy of the Canadian government and is enshrined in Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In

neg: Law of Canada litigation over the years. Quebec, being a civil law jurisdiction, does not have contract law, but rather has its own law of obligations. Constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the Courts. This is represented in the "Constitution Act, 1867", "Constitution Act, 1982" and "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Copyright law of Canada governs the legally enforceable rights to creative and artistic works under the laws of Canada. Criminal law in Canada falls under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. The power to enact

neg: Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance. Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states: Any property found or seized by means of a violation of section 8 can be excluded as evidence in a trial under

neg: Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that judges have a common law discretionary authority to impose publication bans on information revealed in a criminal trial. The judge, however, must weigh competing rights, such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial, to minimize the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has

neg: Grant Huscroft Grant Huscroft Grant Huscroft is a Canadian jurist, who currently serves as a justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Huscroft was educated at the University of Western Ontario (BA 1980), Queen's University (LL.B. 1984), and the University of Auckland (LL.M. 1987). He taught at the University of Auckland Law School between 1992 and 2001 and University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law from 2002 and 2014. Huscroft is a critic of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He argues that the passage of the Charter has provided constitutional status to rights and freedoms while empowering judges to

neg: Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms language provision of the "Charter", section 20, are limited, this does not mean that section 16 is limited or cannot have an effect on the growth of language rights. As far as New Brunswick is concerned, she added, bilingualism was considered "crucial" to "social and cultural development," and thus there should be "heightened public expectations" that this could be supported by the "Charter". In "R. v. Beaulac" (1999), the Supreme Court rejected some of its earlier conservative interpretations. It ruled that a purposive (generous) interpretation would be appropriate for language rights, since this would help minority language communities (i.e. those

neg: Iain Benson Benson was a member of the draft committee for the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms, a document which sets out core aspects of citizenship and the rights and freedoms of religion and conscience in a constitutional democracy. He has also made significant contributions to the understanding of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and religious freedom under Canadian law. He was retained by the Government of Canada to author material concerning "Religion and Public Policy" as an aspect of "Federal Multi-Culturalism Policy" and is an ongoing expert advisor to the South African "Council for the Promotion

neg: Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the basis upon which French language (minority) instruction rights are respected. Minority language instruction in Manitoba is in transition and still presents various legal issues and related constitutionally charged questions (see Manitoba Act 1870, Louis Riel, Manitoba Schools Question, Laurier-Greenway Compromise). Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 23 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the section of the Constitution of Canada that guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking minorities in Quebec. The section may be particularly notable, in that some scholars believe

neg: Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 16 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the first of several sections of the Constitution dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Section 16 declares that English and French are the official languages of Canada and of the province of New Brunswick. Under the heading "Official Languages of Canada", the section reads: This section sets out general principles that are expanded in sections 16.1 to 22. Section 16 itself expands upon language rights in the "Constitution Act, 1867"; whereas section 133 of the "Constitution

neg: Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 20 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the sections of the Constitution of Canada dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Along with section 16, section 20 is one of the few sections under the title "Official Languages of Canada" that guarantees bilingualism outside Parliament, legislatures and courts. This also makes it more extensive than language rights in the "Constitution Act, 1867". Section 20's specific function is to establish a right to English and French services from the governments of Canada and

neg: Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 20. Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 20 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is one of the sections of the Constitution of Canada dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Along with section 16, section 20 is one of the few sections under the title "Official Languages of Canada" that guarantees bilingualism outside Parliament, legislatures and courts. This also makes it more extensive than language rights in the "Constitution Act, 1867". Section 20's specific function is to establish a right to English and French services from the governments of Canada

neg: Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms goes back to "R. v. Smith", in which Justice Lamer said that "some punishments or treatments will always be grossly disproportionate and will always outrage our standards of decency: for example, the infliction of corporal punishment." In addition to violating section 12, in "Suresh" it was found that torture violates rights to liberty and security of person under section 7, and shocks the conscience. Therefore, Canada may not extradite people to countries where they may face torture. Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of

neg: Section 34 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 36, since section 24 refers only to the "Charter". Canadian poet George Elliott Clarke once analyzed section 34, calling it "bland legalese." He wrote it was "reassuring" because it was dull, signalling neither fear nor excitement. Thus, it seemed to imply the "Charter of Rights" was not a radical constitutional change, despite the fact that it was potentially revolutionary for a constitutional monarchy. In considering the name "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Clarke felt the first word, "Canadian," hinted at Canadian nationalism. He then compared this to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

neg: Canadian Bill of Rights the Bill of Rights was not a constitutional amendment, there was some debate as to whether it was binding on future Parliaments. Third, because it is an ordinary statute, the authority of the Bill of Rights is limited to matters set out in Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 as being under the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. However, the 1960 Act does enumerate some rights (property rights and specific legal rights, for example) not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For this and other reasons, the 1960 Act is regularly referenced in court

neg: Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 16.1 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the newest section of the Charter. It was enacted by the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick) and guarantees equality between English-speaking and French-speaking New Brunswickers. Section 16.1 (pronounced "sixteen point one") is not to be confused with subsection 16(1) ("sixteen one"), which is part of section 16 and goes back to 1982. Section 16.1 is a separate section; the "point one" numbering simply indicates that at some time (i.e. in 1993) an amendment inserted this new section between two

neg: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 1, set out in the case "R. v. Oakes" (1986), and the (now defunct) "Law test" for section 15, developed in "Law v. Canada" (1999). Since "Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act" (1985), various approaches to defining and expanding the scope of fundamental justice (the Canadian name for natural justice or due process) under section 7 have been adopted. ("For more information, see the "). In general, courts have embraced a "purposive interpretation" of Charter rights. This means that since early cases like "Hunter v. Southam" (1984) and "R. v. Big M Drug Mart" (1985), they have concentrated not on