In practice, the Supreme Court of Canada does have a quasi-legislative effect on public policy. Conclusion This paper has argued that the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a quasi-legislative role in their decision making as a result of the Charter or Rights and Freedoms, 1982.The broad and liberal interpretation of charter language, for better or worse has and will continue to influence Canadian politics and the formulation and adoption of public policy.
The Canadian provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick signed the Constitution Act of 1867, which made Canada its own country. The act also assigns power go both the provincial and federal governments. The constitution is Canada's supreme law, a... ... middle of paper ... ...o hear the case. Along with deciding cases, the government may ask the court to consider questions that concern the constitution. Overall, the judicial systems of Canada and the United States are very similar.
The complication with the Canadian Bill of Rights was that it was only a federal statute, whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional document. Canada practices the system of parliamentary while the United States uses a presidential system. Each system has a different procedure when it comes to the three different branches of government; executive, judicial, and legislative. Each of these aspects and changes lead to impacting Canada in a positive way. There are numerous institutional structures countries practice.
Every Minister is ultimately accountable for their portfolio to Parliament and therefore in turn responsible to the Canadian electorate. The realization of this responsibility is undertaken upon the assumption of office. Accountability within government is a measure that is used to control the abuse of power by those elected as government representatives. "The government must be able to control and protect its own membership to be able meaningfully to accept responsibility for its direction and impact as a government." Without accountability we are left with a powerful political structure that has the ability to act without conscience or redress and this does not represent a modern democracy.
Instead, the focus has been on sub judice common law contempt, its effect on our rights and freedoms, and the arguments in respect of codification. Balancing the rights and freedoms of Canadians with the administration of justice, the logical step seems to be in the direction of codification. Other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, have taken the positive step toward codification. Perhaps Canada should examine the progress of these jurisdictions, and determine whether their attempts to limit the scope of media restrictions, while protecting the interests involved in trial proceedings, have been successful.
Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just.
The article makes different point for each of the main five themes that are played throughout. The first theme is Identification of British, it focuses on Canadian editorials and newspapers that indicated strong loyalty to Great Britain, and helps define Canadian identity as British. However, before Confederation, Canada was politically, diplomatically, military and interactions with the United States depended on Great Britain. The U.S., British, and Canadian relations was trapped by Canadian foreign affairs and focused on Great Britain reaction to the American crisis that separated Canadian concerns. Great Britain recognized that the Confederate states and Army right to trade over open seas, several news editorials noted that the relation between the United States and Great Britain were tense on their past.
Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall... ... middle of paper ... ...tion to over throw the right and freedoms of individuals who abuse the system. The federal and provincial government’s bona fide ability to implement bounds on the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Citizens of this great nation is an absolute necessity.
Throughout the 20th century Canada slowly started cutting its chains from Britain. The strive for sovereignty began with signing the Treaty of Versailles and ended with the patriation of the BNA. The British North America Act was the name of our original constitution, signed during 1867, by Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald. The initial problem with the BNA, was that it was composed of a set of British laws which could only be changed through the acts of the British parliament. By bringing the constitution home, Canada would have full control over its constitutional laws.
The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature.