Quiz Part 3 Flashcards
How is Section 1 used by the Supreme Court of Canada when they side with the government when it is “ A reasonable limitation of a persons ‘legal or civil right ‘ that can be demonstrated as justifiable .
Section 1 allows the government to restrict certain rights if it can prove that the restriction is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. The Supreme Court of Canada uses this clause to decide whether a government action that limits rights is allowed.
Section 7-14 Legal Rights How do Criminal defence lawyers use the rights that are found within in the Charter to help their clients be found not guilty ? hint Section 24 .2 Withhold admission of evidence . Right to a Fair Trial may be violated
Criminal defense lawyers in Canada often rely on Sections 7 to 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which cover legal rights. These sections form the basis of fair treatment in the criminal justice system and give defense lawyers tools to challenge how evidence was collected or presented, potentially leading to a finding of “not guilty.”
Under Section 24(2), the court can exclude evidence if its admission would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Defense lawyers often invoke this when evidence was obtained in ways that violate a client’s Charter rights
Section 15 Equality Rights
Guarantees that everyone in Canada is equal under the law and has the right to be treated without discrimination. It aims to ensure fairness and prevent discrimination based on characteristics such as race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability.
Section 16 - 22: Language Rights and General Rights
Section 16: Equal Status for English and French, English and French are Canada’s two official languages, with equal status in government institutions. New Brunswick is the only province where this applies at the provincial level as well.
Section 17: Parliamentary Debates, Anyone can speak in English or French in Parliament and New Brunswick’s legislature.
Section 18: Publishing Laws and Records, All laws, records, and official documents of Parliament and New Brunswick’s legislature must be published in both languages.
Section 19: Language in Courts, People have the right to use English or French in federal and New Brunswick courts.
Section 20: Government Services, Canadians can communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in either English or French where there’s significant demand or if the service itself requires bilingualism.
Section 21: Preservation of Existing Rights, Any language rights that existed before the Charter, like those in the Manitoba Act, 1870, are protected and remain valid.
Section 22: Other Language Rights, This section allows for language rights beyond English and French, such as the protection of Indigenous languages.
2 Languages of Canada and when was it established?
Canada’s Official Languages Act of 1969 established French and English as the two official languages of Canada
What is the only bilingual province in Canada?
New Brunswick is unique in Canada as the only officially bilingual province, meaning all government and public services are available in both French and English. Francophone Canadians can request trials in French, while Anglophones can request trials in English in New Brunswick.
How does Canada support French-speaking schools?
Across Canada, French-language schools are funded by both the federal and provincial governments to ensure access to education in French for French-speaking communities outside Quebec.
Section 24.2 ( Seek a Remedy ) What options are available?
Exclude Evidence, Courts can remove evidence from the case if it was collected by violating rights, like searching without a warrant.
Stop the Trial
In serious cases, if a fair trial isn’t possible, the court can stop the trial completely.
Other Remedies
Courts can also order:
Compensation for harm caused by the rights violation.
An Official Declaration that a right was violated.
What happens when the court finds the “Administration of Justice is in disrepute?’
The Courts will usually side on the legal rights of the accused party i.e Regina v. Fearon ( Cell phone case ) , Regina v. Stinchcombe, Erick Morgan and Brian Cox’s legal rights violations
What does Section 25 say about fishing rights and how Indigenous people are governed?
Section 25 of the Charter protects Indigenous rights, including traditional practices and self-government, meaning these rights aren’t overridden by other Charter rights. Also, Indigenous Rights: Mi’kmaq and other Indigenous groups have treaty rights to fish for a “moderate livelihood” outside federal fishing rules. This right was confirmed by the 1999 Marshall decision by Canada’s Supreme Court.
What is section 52 of the Constitutional Act?
States that the Constitution is the highest law in Canada. This means:
Supremacy of the Constitution: Any law that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid.
Court Power: Courts can strike down or cancel laws that go against the Constitution, especially if they violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Case Studies!
Dagenais v .CBC
In Dagenais v. CBC, the Supreme Court ruled that a publication ban preventing CBC from airing a TV show was unconstitutional. The case established the Dagenais Test, which balances freedom of expression with the right to a fair trial, ensuring that publication bans are only used when absolutely necessary.
Case Studies!
Regina V. Morgantaler
In R. v. Morgentaler (1988), the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law, ruling it unconstitutional. Dr. Henry Morgentaler argued that the law violated women’s rights by limiting their choices and endangering their health. The Court agreed, saying the law went against Section 7 of the Charter, which protects life, liberty, and security. This decision effectively decriminalized abortion in Canada, giving women the right to make their own reproductive choices.
Case Studies!
Regina V. Mann
In R v. Mann, the Supreme Court ruled that police can stop and search someone if they reasonably suspect involvement in a crime, but the search must be limited to checking for weapons for safety. In this case, the search for drugs violated Mann’s right against unreasonable search and seizure, so the evidence was thrown out. (Purpose of the Search)
Case Studies!
Regina v. Fearon
In R. v. Fearon (2014), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on whether police can search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant at the time of arrest. Kevin Fearon was arrested for armed robbery, and police searched his phone without a warrant, finding incriminating evidence. Fearon argued that this violated his Section 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled that police may search a cell phone without a warrant if it is directly related to the arrest if the search is limited in scope, and if officers take detailed notes of the search to ensure it was conducted properly. However, the Court emphasized that such searches must be reasonable to protect privacy rights by only looking for stuff related to the crime.
Case Studies!
BR. v, Children’s Aids society
B.R. v. Children’s Aid Society (2008) was a case about child protection and parental rights. The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) removed a child, B.R., from their parents’ care due to concerns of neglect. The parents challenged this, saying their privacy and parental rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the CAS has the right to intervene when a child’s safety is at risk. The Court emphasized that the best interests of the child should be the most important consideration, even if it means limiting parental rights. (Intravaner status) means third party who helps with a Charter Challenge or example the Canadian civil liberties Association
Case Studies!
Regina v Stinchcombe
In R v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution must disclose all relevant evidence to the defense, whether it helps or hurts their case. This ensures that the accused has a fair trial and can properly defend themselves. The case established that withholding evidence can violate an accused person’s rights. The Stinchcombe test is a rule that requires the Crown to provide full disclosure of any evidence that may be relevant to the defense.
Case Studies!
CBC article - Quebec superior Court Ruling October 2022 (Also How can this ruling affect other province’s policing policies
In the rest of Canada?)
In October 2022, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that police cannot randomly stop drivers without a valid reason, citing that such practices violate rights under the Canadian Charter. This decision was a win for civil liberties, particularly for racialized communities who are disproportionately affected by racial profiling. The case was sparked by a Black Montrealer’s experience with frequent, unjustified police stops. The ruling prevents police from conducting arbitrary traffic stops but still allows other types of checks for safety reasons. This decision is seen as an important step in addressing racial profiling and police powers. (police might be required to justify stops based on clear reasons or evidence, rather than just conducting random checks. This could reduce racial profiling and build more trust between law enforcement and communities. Other provinces may also push for similar legal changes or challenges, using Quebec’s ruling as a model)
Case Studies!
The Interrogation Room Video
The “Interrogation Room Video” involving Erick Morgan, Brian Cox, and Sasha Allison shows a police interrogation using the Reid Technique, which is meant to get confessions. In the video, Morgan is pressured by detectives Cox and Allison, who use tactics like making the crime seem less serious and creating a sense of guilt to push Morgan into confessing. The case highlights concerns that the Reid Technique can lead to false confessions, especially when suspects feel manipulated or coerced. It raises questions about the fairness and reliability of confessions obtained through these methods.
Right to Silence: Suspects may feel pressured to talk, even though they have the right to remain silent.
Right to a Fair Trial: False confessions caused by intense questioning can lead to unfair trials and wrongful convictions.
Right to Protection from Unreasonable Detention: Long interrogations can make suspects feel trapped, even if they aren’t free to leave.
Right Against Self-Incrimination: The technique can push suspects to say things that may hurt their case, even if they’re innocent.
Vulnerability: People who are vulnerable, like those with mental health issues or young people, are especially likely to give false confessions under pressure.
