The world’s earliest extradition agreement was created in the year 1259 BCE by Ramessess ll of Egypt and Hittites. The agreement obligated both Ramessess and Hittites to send criminals and political figures back that have tried to flee to the other side. Extraditions have since grown to be bilateral agreements between nations in transferring criminals from one nation to another. Extradition is requested when an individual commits a crime within the country that is seeking extradition. The request of the extradition includes: the description of the individual, information on the case and the laws pertaining to the case. Each country must agree to extradite to each other for the process to take place. Canada only has fifty-one Canadian treaties with other countries. This Paper will argue that extradition laws in Canada are too slack due to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the need to seek assurances that the death penalty will not be used.
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states each person has the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” thus it is often used as a deterrent so that individuals do not have to be extradited to another country. In the following case, United States v. Burns, Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay-two Canadian citizens-were wanted in Washington of the United States for the murder of Rafay’s parents and sister in 1994. In the subsequent year they were arrested in British Columbia and The United States started the extradition proceedings. The case made it to the Supreme Court of Canada and Burns and Ratify argued that their mobility rights under Section ...
... middle of paper ...
...mment on Canada v. Fischbacher." Gaming Law Review and Economics Jan.-Feb. 2010: 43+. Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Dec. 2013.
McClearn, Matthew. "THE LONG WAY HOME." Canadian Business. 15 Aug. 2005: 28. eLibrary. Web. 07 Dec. 2013.
Roach, Kent. September 11: Consequences for Canada. Montreal Etc.: McGill-Queen's UP, 2003. 100-01. Print.
Roach, Kent W. "Section 7 of the Charter and national security: rights protection and proportionality versus deference and status." Ottawa Law Review Winter 2011: 337+. General OneFile. Web. 28 Dec. 2013.
"Summary." Supreme Court of Canada. N.p., 03 Dec. 2012. Web. 29 Dec. 2013.
"Treaty on Extradition Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America." MLA. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2013.
Westcott, Kathryn, and Vanessa Barford. "10 Things about Extradition." BBC News. BBC, 26 June 2013. Web. 23 Dec. 2013
Glen Burns and Atif Rafay were two Canadian Citizens accused of murdering Rafay’s family in Bellevue, Washington. The two returned to Canada and later confessed to an undercover officer for the crimes they had committed back in the United States, once confronted, they claimed that they had fabricated those confessions but the process of extraditing them to face justice in the United States was started. It is important to mention that this case followed the Charles Ng case which means the ruling that had preceded it could and was used in the favour of the accused. Burns and Rafay used every legislation possible to avoid being extradited and put on the death row. Being Canadian citizens this allowed them to employ Section 6 of the Charter, which states “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” and protects them from exile. Section 7 which protects their right to live “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” in concordance to Section 12 “Everyone has the
In 1759, the Canadian Court Justice system was brought to Canada by the French. After the battle of Quebec, all of Canada then followed the English common law system except for Quebec 1. Based on my understanding and knowledge of N. Christie’s arguments and the Canadian court system, I believe that Christie’s criticism of modern legal system is fair and it effects our current court system today.
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 case is important to Canadians everywhere because it shows the importance our government gives to fairness and equality as well as one’s life and justice. The case gives us something to be proud of, it shows that no matter how many trials it takes, or how long it takes, our jurisprudence aims to always serve justice. The final verdict of the case proved that
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...
McKercher, William R., ed. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
Zhang, Colin, ed. “Canadian Criminal Code.” YourLaws. N.p., 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. .
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
“…sharing of jurisdictional powers between government institutions is already part of the essence of the Canadian state,” (Townshend 39).
The Canadian Justice system has failed its mandate of creating a just and peaceful society for all in regards to treatment of immigrants. Our current system of operations of indefinite immigrant detention is in desperate need of revitalization for as it stands it is one of the weakest and most unnecessarily components of our legislature. As proven through differing worldwide policies a limitation can be applied effectively and national security may still be maintained. Clear limits to the practice of detention are in place in both the European Union and in the United States. In the EU, detention is capped at six months with the possibility of extending to 18 months in certain cases. In the U.S., the period of presumptive release is six months,
Harr, S. J., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice
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...
Li, Peter S. Destination Canada: Immigration debates and issues. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford UP, 2003.