Unit 2 Module 2

Question 1

Singh (1985), the Supreme Court concluded

Answer 1

Singh (1985), the Supreme Court concluded that notwithstanding the Charter, the Bill of Rights would continue to offer overlapping but distinct protections. By the same token, administrative law provides overlapping but distinct protections as those contained in the Charter which have continued to develop alongside Charter rights

Question 2

In Baker (1999) a case involving the discretion of humanitarian and compassionate leave officers, the Supreme Court concluded that

Answer 2

For example, in Baker (1999) a case involving the discretion of humanitarian and compassionate leave officers, the Supreme Court concluded that since the rights of the affected person could be resolved under administrative law, it would be inappropriate to determine whether the Charter was breached although the Charter issues, in that case, were argued extensively at trial. In Suresh (2002), the Supreme Court confirmed that the procedural fairness protection contained in s.7 of the Charter would follow the same contextual approach as the Court had set out in Baker for determining administrative law procedural fairness protections.

Question 3

In Slaight(1989), the Court for the first time attempted to

Answer 3

In Slaight(1989), the Court for the first time attempted to reconcile the Charter and Administrative Law protections where they overlap. With respect to exercises of discretion in particular, the Court reasoned that no legislature could grant discretionary authority to act in violation of Charter rights – therefore, all such authority should be interpreted by Courts in a manner consistent with Charter protections unless the wording of the statute itself is inconsistent with a Charter right, in which case, if it could not be justified under s.1 of the Charter, that provision would have to be struck down. In effect, the Supreme Court decided that when reviewing an exercise of discretion, Courts should look to the Charter if necessary, but not necessarily the Charter.

Question 4

broader implications of Justice Abella’s reasons suggest a new way of

Answer 4

The broader implications of Justice Abella’s reasons suggest a new way of understanding the relationship between the Charter and administrative law. Rather than an oppositional approach under which the Charter and administrative law are two entirely distinct legal pathways, Abella J. highlight the similar rationale of deference underlying the administrative law standard of review and the proportionality approach to the Oakes test. More significantly, the Abella J. emphasizes that a more “robust” approach to administrative law incorporates the same fundamental rights as those animating the Charter. While characterized as a “completely revised” approach, she also observes that the focus on Charter values builds on the trend in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence:

These cases emphasize that administrative bodies are empowered, and indeed required, to consider Charter values within their scope of expertise. Integrating Charter values into the administrative approach, and recognizing the expertise of these decision-makers, opens “an institutional dialogue about the appropriate use and control of discretion, rather than the older command-and-control relationship” (Liston, at p. 100).

Question 5

relationship between the Charter and administrative law,

Answer 5

While Doré represents a major step forward for the relationship between the Charter and administrative law, important unsettled questions remain, including whether tribunal statutory remedies also should be informed by Charter values, and who has the onus in determining whether a breach of Charter values is “reasonable.” These specific questions speak to a broader one – how can the core principles of the Charter, and the fundamental rights that the Charter embodies, be adapted to the diversity and practical dynamics of discretionary administrative decision-making? If the principles of Doré continue to be expanded and developed, the Charter may become far more relevant in the lives of far more people as a result.

Question 6

purpose of administrative law

Answer 6

is to prevent administrators from abusing their powers and from acting unfairly. It accomplishes this by controlling the power of the executive both to make regulations and bylaws, and to implement and enforce laws.
Although administrative law generally does not apply to the statute-making power of legislatures or the decision-making powers of courts, the rights and freedoms found in the Charter limit the law-making power of the legislative branch, and, in some cases, the procedures and decision-making powers of the courts. In addition, the Charter can be used to prevent abuse and unfairness in administrative actions and delegated lawmaking. In this respect, its requirements supplement those of administrative law.

Question 7

reach of administrative law is limited to

Answer 7

While the reach of administrative law is limited to striking down the unfair or unauthorized actions of administrators, unfair policies or procedures, and unauthorized delegated legislation, the Charter can be used to strike down or amend statutes themselves if they violate Charter rights.

Question 8

Who Is Bound by the Charter?

Answer 8

Section 32 of the Charter states that the Charter applies to the Parliament and government of Canada as well as to the legislature and government of each province. This means that it also applies to the ministries and departments of government, as well as to the agencies, boards, and commissions (ABCs) created (by statutes passed by Parliament and the provincial legislatures) to carry out delegated government functions such as regulation and adjudication.

Question 9

To decide whether the Charter applies to a body, the courts must determine

Answer 9

1. the extent to which the government exercises control over the body; and
2. the extent to which the body is carrying out functions that are essentially governmental in nature.
   If a body is carrying out a public policy or program, 2 it will be considered part of the government for Charter purposes, even if it is a private body, and the Charter will, therefore, apply to it.

Question 10

Charter does not regulate private activity by private persons, such as individuals and corporations, in a dispute between private individuals or organizations, the courts will not find a common law rule invalid on the basis that it violates the Charter

Answer 10

Charter does not regulate private activity by private persons, such as individuals and corporations, in a dispute between private individuals or organizations, the courts will not find a common law rule invalid on the basis that it violates the Charter. For example, the common law rule prohibiting defamation may restrict freedom of expression, which is a Charter right, but the courts can still apply the rule against defamation in a dispute between individuals because the Charter does not apply to such private disputes.

Question 11

Rights and Freedoms Guaranteed by the Charter

Answer 11

The Charter protects several categories of rights and freedoms, including political rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights, and minority educational rights. In relation to administrative law, the most important of these rights and freedoms are the fundamental freedoms of religion, expression, peaceful assembly, and association found in section 2, as well as some of the legal rights set out in sections 1 to 14. The equality rights found in section 15 may also have some impact on administrative law.

Question 12

The Charter provides for two classes of rights and freedoms pertaining to procedural fairness:

Answer 12

1. In the first class are rights addressed by sections 9, 11, and 13. These rights are available primarily or only with respect to penal matters, which are usually decided by courts rather than by tribunals or agencies. They impose duties on courts to act fairly when dealing with criminal or regulatory offences subject to punishment. Generally, these provisions cannot be used to enhance common law or statutory fairness requirements for agencies (although sections 11 and 13 may apply in some circumstances).
2. In the second class are rights addressed by sections 7, 8, and 14, which do not refer to the penal context. These are the principal provisions that may apply where administrative law principles apply—namely, where government conduct affects a person’s right to fair treatment, whether or not a punishment is involved.

Question 13

Section 2 of the Charter guarantees

Answer 13

Section 2 of the Charter guarantees the freedoms of expression, religion, peaceful assembly, and association. The courts have given a particularly broad interpretation to the first of these—freedom of expression. In addition to the right to speak freely, this freedom guarantees individuals the right to receive information they need to form sound opinions. As a result, the Supreme Court of Canada has found that section 2 guarantees the traditional common law requirement that courts conduct their proceedings in public (known as the “open court” or “open justice” principle), except where a court order limiting access is necessary to prevent a serious risk of substantial harm to another right or interest that outweighs the public interest in open government. 7

Question 14

“open court” or “open justice” principle),

Answer 14

section 2 guarantees the traditional common law requirement that courts conduct their proceedings in public

Question 15

Section 7 has the potential to

Answer 15

Section 7 has the potential to add new procedural safeguards to the list of those that administrators and tribunals must follow under the common law principles of procedural fairness, and to expand existing procedural fairness requirements to new contexts.
Section 7 provides protection against government interference with individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and security of the person except in accordance with principles of “fundamental justice” (see below).

Question 16

For a government action to be found invalid on the basis of section 7, two conditions must be met:

Answer 16

first, the action must violate principles of fundamental justice, and
second, the action must threaten the life, liberty, or security of the person affected by the action.

Question 17

In R v Malmo-Levine, the Court explained that to be a basic tenet of the legal system, a rule must meet three tests:

Answer 17

first, it must be a “legal principle”;
second, there must be “a significant societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate”; and
third, the rule must be capable of being “identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard.”

Question 18

fundamental justice incorporates

Answer 18

fundamental justice incorporates the common law rules of procedural fairness. Therefore, to comply with the requirement to provide fundamental justice, the procedure followed by administrators and tribunals generally will, at the very least, have to conform to the requirements of common law procedural fairness.
However, fundamental justice is not limited to common law procedural fairness requirements. In cases where the life, liberty, or security of a person is at issue, fundamental justice may require protections beyond those traditionally required by procedural fairness, such as full disclosure of evidence or a decision without delay.

Question 19

substantive fundamental justice is the rule that a person should not be convicted of any offence for doing things that he or she could not avoid.

Answer 19

it would offend fundamental justice to convict a person of illegal parking when a blizzard has buried his or her car in snow and it is not possible to move it due to the conditions. A law that is arbitrary, excessively vague, or “over-broad”—that is, broader than necessary to achieve its purpose—will offend the principles of fundamental justice.

Question 20

whenever a government authority deprives a person of liberty or threatens a person’s security

Answer 20

section 7 is potentially available whenever a government authority deprives a person of liberty or threatens a person’s security. Although the Supreme Court has confirmed that section 7 can apply to tribunals and other government decision-makers, to date the courts generally have not extended the degree of fairness required by fundamental justice beyond what the common law doctrine of procedural fairness would require in a particular situation. However, the Supreme Court has established that section 7 provides a right to disclosure of evidence in certain administrative proceedings.

Question 21

Canada (Justice) v Khadr ,

Answer 21

the Supreme Court ruled that the duty of disclosure required by section 7, which usually applies only to criminal and regulatory offences committed in Canada, extends beyond the duty to disclose evidence in those proceedings.
When Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was held illegally in a US prison on murder charges under US law, the Supreme Court held that section 7 required disclosure to him of the evidence obtained from him and passed on to the US government by Canadian officials who were participating in a process that was contrary to international law. The Supreme Court also held that when the federal government holds a hearing to remove a suspected terrorist from the country using a “security certificate,” which prohibits him from seeing some of the evidence against him on the grounds that disclosure of the evidence would threaten national security, “it becomes necessary to recognize a duty to disclose evidence based on s.7.”
In a more recent decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that there is “an incompressible minimum” of disclosure that the person whom the government seeks to remove from Canada must receive in order for the security certificate scheme to comply with section 7 of the Charter.

Question 22

Section 8 of the Charter prohibits unreasonable search or seizure.

Answer 22

Section 8 of the Charter prohibits unreasonable search or seizure. It prevents government authorities from searching premises, seizing property, or demanding that individuals produce or provide documents, property, or information unless they have grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. Even then, if a search or seizure is conducted for the purpose of investigating an offence, it is considered “reasonable” only after authorization has been obtained from a court.

Question 23

The reason the courts have given for requiring a warrant where government officials are investigating an offence but not for a routine inspection or other administrative action is that the right to be free from such scrutiny arises

Answer 23

only where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court has decided that it is not reasonable for people carrying on businesses to expect to be free from routine inspections and inquiries.

Question 24

section 11 generally applies in the context of penal matters.

Answer 24

It provides certain procedural safeguards for individuals, including a person’s right to be informed of the allegations against him or her, the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the right not to testify against oneself, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair hearing held in public before an independent and impartial tribunal, the right not to be denied reasonable bail without good reason, and the right not to be punished more than once for the same offence.
A precondition for the application of section 11 is that a person must be “charged with an offence.”

Question 25

Hallmarks of a proceeding that is criminal rather than administrative include the following:

Answer 25

the laying of a charge, an arrest, a summons to appear before a court of criminal jurisdiction, and a finding of responsibility that leads to a criminal record.
A “true penal consequence” is imprisonment
or a fine that, by its magnitude, appears to have been imposed for the purpose of remedying a wrong to society at large rather than disciplining an individual.
Because there are few circumstances in which an agency has the power to impose such punishments or follows criminal procedures, section 11 has had virtually no impact on administrative law.

Question 26

Section 12 of the Charter provides for the right of an individual not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Answer 26

In the context of administrative agencies, a decision to deport an immigrant to a country where he or she may be tortured, to require students to undergo random tests for drugs, or even to ban smoking in prisons might be argued to be cruel and unusual treatment.
However, this is primarily a substantive right rather than a procedural one.

Question 27

Section 13 protects the right of witnesses who testify in proceedings not to incriminate themselves.

Answer 27

This includes proceedings before tribunals in addition to before courts. In contrast to the United States, where a person can refuse to testify before courts and tribunals if the testimony would reveal that the person has committed an offence, a witness called before a Canadian court or tribunal must testify, even if this means providing evidence that he or she has committed a criminal or regulatory offence.
However, this evidence, and any further evidence obtained as a result of the witness’s testimony, may not be used against the witness in any future prosecution of him or her.
Although the right against self-incrimination is not a common law rule of procedural fairness, it was incorporated into many statutes governing procedures before tribunals before it was recognized as a fundamental right under the Charter.

Question 28

Section 14 provides for the right to an interpreter in any proceeding where a party or witness does not understand or speak the language used, or is deaf.

Answer 28

This section applies to proceedings before courts as well as tribunals. Section 14 may not apply at the first level of decision-making—for example, when a government official is making a decision that may be appealed to a tribunal—because the process is generally not considered a “proceeding.” However, where a decision-maker holds a hearing and the consequences are significant (as in the case of a deportation hearing or a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine whether a person is eligible for refugee status), the affected individual would probably be entitled to an interpreter if he or she did not have a good grasp of English or French.

Question 29

administrative law prohibits the making of?

Answer 29

administrative law prohibits the making of regulations or the passing of bylaws that discriminate, unless the enabling statute explicitly or implicitly authorizes the discrimination. In addition, where a decision-maker has discretion, he or she must exercise it in a non-discriminatory manner, treating similar cases in a similar way.

Question 30

In deciding whether there is discrimination, a court is to consider four factors:

Answer 30

• the existence of pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability;
• the correspondence between the distinction and the claimant’s characteristics or circumstances;
• the existence of ameliorative purposes or effects on other groups; and
• the nature of the interest affected. The Supreme Court has continued to elaborate
• the existence of ameliorative purposes or effects on other groups; and
• the nature of the interest affected.

Question 31

Limits to Charter Rights

Section 1 of the Charter states that

Answer 31

the rights and freedoms set out in it are guaranteed “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” If a law or practice is found to violate a Charter right, the onus is on the government to establish that the violation of the right is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” To succeed,

Question 32

In Order to show the onus is on the government to establish that the violation of the right is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” the government must meet the requirements of each part of the following four-part test:

Answer 32

1. Sufficiently important objective The objective of the law or action must be sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right. That is, the problem to be solved must be “pressing and substantial.”

Question 33

Section 33: The “Notwithstanding” Clause

Answer 33

Section 33 of the Charter gives Parliament or the legislature of a province the right to override section 2, which guarantees fundamental freedoms, and sections 7 to 15, which protect the legal rights that are most connected to procedural fairness. Parliament or a provincial legislature can do this by amending any statute to state expressly that the Act or a provision of the Act continues to operate “notwithstanding” a provision in one of the above sections of the Charter.
The only limit on notwithstanding clauses is their shelf life; to stay in effect, they must be renewed every five years.

Question 34

Section 33: The “Notwithstanding” Clause

Answer 34

gives Parliament or the legislature of a province the right to override section 2, which guarantees fundamental freedoms, and sections 7 to 15, which protect the legal rights that are most connected to procedural fairness. Parliament or a provincial legislature can do this by amending any statute to state expressly that the Act or a provision of the Act continues to operate “notwithstanding” a provision in one of the above sections of the Charter.
section 33 does not require any proof that overriding the right or freedom is justified by the need to solve some important social problem.
That notwithstanding clause overrode a decision of the Supreme Court that had ruled that a Quebec law banning the use of languages other than French on such signs violated the freedom of expression guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter.

Question 35

What is the limit to section 33?

Answer 35

The only limit on notwithstanding clauses is their shelf life; to stay in effect, they must be renewed every five years.

Question 36

The Charter and Positive Obligations

Answer 36

Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) ,
it was argued unsuccessfully that section 7 imposed a positive duty on government to provide more adequate welfare benefits to certain people who were entitled to lower payments under the scheme enacted by the Quebec government. The Supreme Court ruled that while section 7 of the Charter imposed a duty not to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or security, it had never been interpreted to impose positive obligations on the state to ensure that every person enjoyed life, liberty, and security. However, McLachlinCJ was careful not to close the door completely on the possibility that in future the Charter might be interpreted more expansively.

Question 37

The Charter and Discretionary Administrative Decisions

Answer 37

In exercising discretion, administrative decision-makers must act consistently with Charter values. When an individual does not challenge a law or other rule, but rather challenges a discretionary decision made to implement that rule, the correct approach to deciding whether the discretion was properly exercised is not to determine whether the decision violates the Charter, but to apply administrative law principles for deciding the validity of the exercise of discretion, taking into account whether sufficient consideration was given to Charter values in making the decision.

Question 38

What Remedies Are Available for a Charter Violation?

Answer 38

“where there is a right, there is a remedy.” There are two sources of remedies for violations of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter: section 24(1) of the Charter and section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 . 26

Question 39

Section 24

Answer 39

-  24(1) Charter allows an individual to apply for a remedy for any breach of a Charter right or freedom; this includes the right to challenge any administrative action that allegedly violates a right under the Charter. 
Section 24(2) allows a court to exclude evidence obtained through a breach of a Charter right.
section 24 does not provide for remedies for other constitutional violations, such as a provincial legislature passing legislation that can only legally be passed by Parliament, or vice versa; the remedies for these violations arise from section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982  (see below). 
Under section 24(1), a court or tribunal may declare a law to be inapplicable in a particular situation, but a law can only be declared void or invalid under section 52(1).

Question 40

providing a remedy under section 24(1),

Answer 40

Typically, in providing a remedy under section 24(1), a tribunal may overrule a decision-maker who has made a decision or followed a procedure that is contrary to the Charter, or refuse to follow such a procedure itself; grant an adjournment; stay proceedings; or refuse to apply a law that contravenes the Charter.
only a court “of competent jurisdiction” can grant remedies under section 24.

Question 41

The Supreme Court of Canada said that a court of competent jurisdiction was a body that …

Answer 41

(a) possesses jurisdiction over the parties,
(b) possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter, and (c)has jurisdiction to grant the remedy requested. Because tribunals are creatures of statute, it was necessary to examine a particular tribunal’s enabling statute to determine whether the statute either explicitly provided the tribunal with these three attributes or, if not, whether the context and purpose of the statute required that it be interpreted in a way that would grant these powers to the tribunal.

Question 42

In 2010, in R v Conway , 28 the Supreme Court of Canada set out a new approach for deciding whether a tribunal can grant remedies for Charter breaches under section 24(1) of the Charter.

Answer 42

The new approach does not consider whether the tribunal can award the particular remedy as a component of whether the tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction. Instead, the question of jurisdiction to grant the particular remedy is decided after it has been decided that the tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction.

Question 43

When a remedy is sought from a tribunal, the initial question to be answered is whether the tribunal can grant Charter remedies generally.

Answer 43

To make this determination, the first question is whether the tribunal has jurisdiction—explicit or implied— to decide questions of law. If it does, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the legislature intended to exclude the Charter from the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction and can consider and apply the Charter.
Once the threshold question is decided in favour of Charter jurisdiction, the remaining question is whether the tribunal can grant the particular remedy sought. As indicated above, where the statute is silent on this point, this is a question of statutory interpretation, requiring consideration of the tribunal’s statutory mandate and functions to determine whether the kinds of remedies sought are the kinds of remedies that the legislature appears to have anticipated would fit within the statutory scheme governing the tribunal. It is likely that under this approach, more tribunals will be able to grant Charter remedies, and a wider variety of remedies will be available from tribunals than under the previous approach to determining section 24(1) jurisdiction.

Question 44

In Vancouver (City) v Ward, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the circumstances in which courts and tribunals that have jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies can award damages for a Charter breach.

Answer 44

The Court also provided guidance as to the appropriate amount of damages.
The decision is likely to expand the availability of damages as a remedy for Charter violations. Mr. Ward’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated by Vancouver and British Columbia officials who detained him, stripsearched him, and seized his car without cause.
He sued for damages for these breaches of his Charter rights.
The Supreme Court noted that even though the Charter was 28 years old, there were few court rulings on whether damages were an available remedy under section 24(1). Therefore, the Court conducted an extensive analysis of the purposes served by granting damages for Charter breaches and the considerations that guide their award. The Court ruled that damages are available for Charter breaches of a serious nature, even if the breaches are not tortious or in bad faith. The decision addressed the power of courts, rather than tribunals, to award Charter damages.
However, the decision sets out tests that tribunals, as well as courts, would apply in deciding whether to award damages, provided that a tribunal has jurisdiction to award Charter damages under the rules established in Conway .

Question 45

Charter damages are a just and appropriate remedy if

Answer 45

they fulfill one or more of the related functions of compensation, vindication of the Charter right, or deterrence of future breaches.
The more egregious the breach is and the more serious the repercussions on the claimant are, the higher the award for vindication or deterrence will be.
However, the amount of damages must also be fair to the state. The court may take into account the public interest in good governance, the danger of deterring governments from undertaking beneficial new policies and programs, and the need to avoid diverting large sums of funds from public programs to private interests.

Question 46

Section 52(1)

Answer 46

In contrast to section 24 of the Charter, which provides a remedy for the administration of a statute in a manner that infringes the Charter, 
section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982  provides a remedy where the law itself—whether a statute, regulation, bylaw, or common law principle—is inconsistent with the Charter. 
It also applies where a legislative body passes a law that it is not permitted to pass under the division of legislative powers in the Constitution (for example, where a province passes a criminal law, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government).
remedy provided by section 52 is to declare the unconstitutional law to be void—that is, “of no force or effect.”

Question 47

powerof courts or tribunals in section 52

Answer 47

powerof courts or tribunals in section 52 to declare laws to be void does not dependon whether the body is a “court of competent jurisdiction.”
Rather, whether a tribunal has the power to strike down an unconstitutional law or provision depends on whether the legislature intended to grant the tribunal the power to interpret and apply the Charter.
Because tribunals are creatures of statute, a court will determine the legislature’s intention with regard to this by looking at the tribunal’s enabling statute.

Question 48

tribunal authority

Answer 48

If the statute does not explicitly grant the tribunal authority to decide the constitutional validity of statutes, the court will consider the statute as a whole to determine whether this power is implied.
If the power of the tribunal to decide questions of law is expressly stated in or can be implied from the tribunal’s enabling statute, there is a presumption that this power includes the power to decide constitutional questions, including Charter questions; the presumption may only be rebutted by showing that the legislature clearly intended to exclude Charter or other constitutional questions from the tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide questions of law.
Because most tribunals have either explicit or implicit jurisdiction to decide questions of law—at least those they must answer in order to resolve the dispute before them— the result is that most also have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Question 49

Charter values:

Answer 49

the values that underlie the specific rights and freedoms set out in the Charter; for example, the value “privacy” underlies the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in section 8 of the Charter; also called “Charter principles”

Question 50

court of competent jurisdiction:

Answer 50

in respect to the power to grant a remedy under section 24 of the Charter, a body that

(a) possesses jurisdiction over the parties,
(b) possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter, and
(c) has jurisdiction to grant the remedy requested

Question 51

fundamental justice:

Answer 51

the basic tenets of the legal system;
includes the right to procedural fairness in criminal proceedings and administrative decision-making, as well as certain substantive principles of fairness

Question 52

notwithstanding clause:

Answer 52

a clause in a statute that states expressly that a provision of the statute continues to operate notwithstanding that it violates a right or freedom guaranteed by section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter