In the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, the highest level of court in Canada ruled that Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act violated the Quebec Charter. Court also found that Acts violated Section 1 of Quebec Charter in 4 to 3 decision which states that “every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.” But Judge Deschamps did not found that Acts violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedom, therefore leaving the decision on 3 to 3 ties. Chaoulli decision was only applied to Quebec and was not applied to rest of the provinces. Chaoulli case is regarded as the “most significant Canadian …show more content…
Contrary to the dissent opinion from three other judges, as the justice Deschamps write the majority opinion, she emphasizes and encourages the use of social facts in the court to make a superior judgment that can change Canadian’s lifestyle. Both the majority and the dissent opinion often cite each other’s and argue that their own interpretation is correct on multiple occasions. For example, both sides argue about R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 and how it can be referenced in the Chaoulli case. While the majority argued that due to the “consequences of delays, that the procedure then provided for in s. 251 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, jeopardized the right to security of the person” (Chaoulli v. Quebec, para 43). The dissent argued that Morgentaler case was “involved criminal liability, not public health policy” (Chaoulli v. Quebec, para 167) and continue to say that “The proper forum to determine the social policy of Quebec in this matter is the National Assembly” (Chaoulli v. Quebec, …show more content…
Because Supreme Court judges are also human, is it acceptable for court to rule in the matter of public policy that should be frequently appealed and changed in the need of the society? The decision on the Chaoulli case shocked the nation. President of the Canadian Medical Association called the decision “historic and the court has agreed with our fundamental position that Canadians have the right to timely access to health services” and mentioned that “this is the end of Medicare as we know it” (Eggertson 2005, 139). But ten years later, Quebecers are “still waiting for meaningful change” (Labrie 2015). Labrie blame the government as “government chose to interpret the Supreme Court ruling narrowly, and as a consequence, the timid reforms adopted have not led to improved access to hip, knee and cataract surgeries. Patients waiting for treatment today still have very few options outside the public system.” (Labrie 2015). Because the court decided on the public policy without sufficient amount of talk with the government, the policy has been left hang to dry. This shows the risk of the court making the public policy decision, it might not matter after all if the government does not create any meaningful legislation. But Chaoulli cased also created a domino effect for Canadian citizens in other provinces to challenge their own provinces’ policy on the
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
The Canadian justice system, although much evolved, is having difficulty eliminating bias from the legal system. Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan, a 39 year old man, died on June 11 in a Peterborough hospital, while under immigration detention. He came to Canada in 1993 as a refugee and was suffering from mental, and physical health issues such as diabetes and bipolar disorder. There was an overwhelming amount of secrecy surrounding the death of this troubled Toronto man, and to this day no light has been shed on this tragedy. (Keung, 2015) An analysis of the official version of the law will reveal how race class and gender coincide with the bias within the legal system.
From a psychological standpoint, Dellen Millard’s actions and personality are clearly not typical of the average human. Millard was extremely affluent, yet committed murder in order to steal a car he could have easily bought. ‘Why?’ is the question which psychologists would ask. Millard was raised wealthy, educated, and privileged; he was not abused as a child, nor was he denied affection or care. Unlike many psychopaths, sociopaths, and murderers, Millard did not seem to have a troubled or traumatic life at all. What experiences in Millard’s life could have given rise to his manipulative, thrill-seeking and criminal behaviour- as well as his apparent lack of conscience- in spite of his indulgent and ordinary upbringing? Psychology studies- and attempts to comprehend- human behaviour: the human mind, personality, and thinking. As such, psychologists would find interest in understanding the thoughts and motivation behind Millard’s cold-blooded actions. They might look towards his childhood for answers, and endeavour to discover the events in his past that shaped him to be the person he
This shift effectively illustrates a trend toward a more community-based approach to care, and with an aging population it is becoming increasingly clearer to reformers that an institutional approach to health care is not something we can afford. This shift has furthermore caused many hospitals to downsize, and between 1994 and 1996, 85 percent of Canadians hospitals reduced their workforce by 10 percent. Professor Armstrong argues that this tendential shift perpetuates conditions that limit a woman’s access to care. Using the case of Pembroke Civic Hospital and Lowe v. Health Services Restructuring Commission (1997), Professor Armstrong attempts to illustrate just that. Wherein, the closure of Pembroke Civic Hospital was argued to restrict access to health services pertaining to sexuality, reproduction, and abortion. The reason being that these services would be left to the Catholic Hospital, which by religious code would have an obvious bias towards the provision of said services. Ultimately, however the Court rejected the argument due to a physician’s testimony of never experiencing any interference in carrying out his medical responsibilities, and the fact that neither hospital provided abortion as a service in the last 14 years. Consequentially, the Court’s rejection of this claim does not serve to
Jury nullification is the process by which the panel of juries acquit the defendant regardless of evidence provided. Jury are also able to nullify the law if it is applied unjustly, again, regardless of supporting evidence or instructions from the judge. It is clear that there are both, strengths, and weaknesses of this process, which will be discussed in this paper. This paper will champion jury nullification within the Canadian justice system, discuss its pros and cons, as well as propose changes to the process. Ideas of morality, fallibilities of rule of law, and social change will be explored in relation to jury nullification and its effects on the legal system within Canadian
The objection that the plaintiffs in Carter V Canada argued that Canadian law should allow assisted suicide and that there was not a good enough reason under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prevent assisted suicide. In the Carter case the lower court judge Smith allowed the plaintiffs to be successful in there claim that the criminal code section 241(b) was constitutionally invalid and should be reformed because it did not allow a doctor to perform assisted suicide or euthanasia to a person who wished to have that done. The government appealed this decision to the BC court of appeal. The lower court has struck down the lower court ruling and has found that the reasoning used by the lower court judge to legalize assisted suicide is
Cole, D. P. (2008). A Day in the Life of a Judge. In Criminal Justice in Canada: a Reader (3rd ed., pp. 59-75). Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
I believe that everyone should have the right to appropriate medical care in Canada. Whether it is pain and symptom management or access to dying with dignity, it should be our right as citizens to decide for ourselves what we feel is our best option for care. Patients need to be given all the information about their condition and they should be given the opportunity to be involved in their own
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
Cameron, Jamie. "Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Law Society of Upper Canada. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
It is one of the defining documents of Canadian history. The Charter is entrenched in the Constitution as a defined promise between denizens and government for the sustainment of “fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, and equality rights”. As such, it is a fundamental part of our daily lives. Sections 7-12 of the Charter are particularly important. These legal rights directly regulate the relationship between individuals and the law, allowing for direct public influence and openness of government . Section 12 of the Charter’s legal rights particularly stands out in protection against “any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” against citizens. This section defines the essence of ethical human treatment while serving as a governmental check and balance of punishment. The success of section 12 has been proven throughout the years of the Charter. From this, we can conclude that Canadian courts have done historically well in maintaining balance between cause for suffering and rightful legal punishment through the application of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
In the year 1970, the Canadian government founded the Law Reform Commission of Canada to ensure the progression of law making and to make recommendations for legal changes . The Law Reform Commission of Canada is constantly importing and suggesting proposals towards the criminal code of Canada. During the year of 1985, t...