1. Canadian Constitutional Law Section B: March 24, 2012 Judicial Decisions on the Charter of Rights Course Director: Ian Greene

2. Monahan Ch 13 (Ian Greene) 1968: Trudeau became PM. He wanted: – stronger federation – patriation of constitution – Const. Charter of Rights – better-protected language and mobility rights 1970: Molgate-MacGuigan Committee found strong support for a const. Charter 1971: Victoria Charter – agreement for Ch and pat. – opposed in the end by Quebec and Alberta 1976: PQ elected in Quebec 1980: Referendum – Trudeau promised renewed federalism 1981: – negotiations; no agreement – “unilateral” patriation attempt – reference to 3 Prov Cts of Appeal; appeal to SCC – SCC Ruling: legal, but breaks convention – Nov. 1981 const conference compromise

3. November 1981 compromise Patriation of constitution with the amending formula favoured by most of the premiers (the 7-50 formula), but which Trudeau had opposed acceptance of a constitutional Charter of Rights which would contain a “notwithstanding” (non obstante) clause Trudeau insisted that the notwithstanding clause not cover language rights, minority language education rights, or mobility rights; notwithstanding clause would have a 5-year limit

4. The Charter of Rights became law April, 1982 1. Limitations clause 2. Fundamental freedoms: – conscience and religion – thought, belief, opinion & expression – press and other media – peaceful assembly – association 3-5: Democratic rights: – citizens right to vote and run for office – 5 yr limit to life of H of C or prov. Assembly except during war etc. if supported by 2/3 vote – sitting of Parliament, and prov. Legislatures, at least every 12 months

5. Mobility and Legal Rights 6. Mobility rights – 1. to enter, remain, leave – 2. to move within Can. and pursue livelihood, subject to laws that don’t discriminate and residency provisions, and restrictions in provinces of high unemployment 7-14 Legal rights: eveything in Bill plus – freedom from unreasonable search or seizure (s. 8) – trial within reas time – jury trial if liable to 5 years imprisonment – no retroactive offences – no double jeopardy – least punishment if law varied

6. Equality and Language 15 Equality before and under the law – without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability – Affirmative action programmes OK 16-22: Language – supplements S. 133 of CA, 1867, which is still in effect – applies to Canada (fed) and New Brunswick only, though other prov’s can opt in – Eng & Fr “official langs” – Debates, statutes, Hansard in 2 langs – Eng or Fr can be used in courts – right to receive services or communicate in English or French with gov’t

7. Minority Lang Education, remedies 23: Minority lang ed – citizens whose first lang is Eng or Fr, or who attended prim school in Eng or Fr, have right to educate children in that lang. – Siblings rights – applies where numbers warrant 24: remedies – (1) “...such remedy as the court considers appropriate” – (2) evidence may be excluded if its collection violated a right, if admitting it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”

8. General 25: aboriginal and treaty rights not reduced by charter, including rights under Royal Proclamation of 1763, and land claims agreements 26: other existing rights not reduced by Charter 27: multicultural heritage of Canadians to be kept in mind when interpreting the charter 28: equal guarantee to males and females (this section isn’t covered by the “notwithstanding” clause)

9. General (continued) – 29: denominational school rights in CA, 1867 not reduced – 30: Territories included, now and later – 31: Charter does not extend legislative powers; it is a limit – 32: Application to Parl, legislatures, gov’ts (& 3 year delay for s. 15) – 33: a notwithstanding clause can be inserted into legis. re ss. 2 or 7- 15; 5 year limit; can be renewed – 34: ss. 1-34 of CA, 1982 cited as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

10. The Charter and Its Critics The Charter undermines legislative supremacy & therefore democracy – Mandel: elected legislators are closer to the needs of the poor and oppressed. Judges are business-oriented. No Charter decision has/will benefit the disadvantaged – Morton-Knopff: Judges may be “captured” by special interest groups, mostly on the left. This subverts democracy. – Charter erodes participatory democracy. Human rights can only be protected by the vigilance of citizens Cost of litigation compared to the political process – Lavigne case: NCC spent $500,000; unions $400,000 + – OFVAS case: why didn’t artists use political process to change Ont censorship law? Didn’t know how. (But think of cost of lobbyists) – S. 33 override is undemocratic

11. Charter Critics (2) – Charter litigation focuses attention on cases that happen to get to court, not necessarily most imp issues for society (Dean Monahan, Osgoode Hall Law School). Cts should interpret Ch to promote democracy Courts are inappropriate for making policy on human rights – Stare decisis is backwards looking, compared with the possibility of forward-looking policy formation processes in public service/legislature eg. Appropriate procedure for determination of refugee cases Schachter case (changes to parental leave policy) – Adversary system gov’t lawyers argue for a narrow interpretation of Charter, whether or not this is gov’t policy courts rely on arguments from counsel. Sometimes, no section 1 arguments Do judges get a complete analysis of the issues?

12. Charter critics (3) – Backgrounds of judges older than average adult disproportionately married with children predominantly male New Canadians and Aboriginals under-represented on bench most from business or professional family tend to be successful appointment process for Prov Courts and prov. Superior courts improving. Elevation procedure, and SCC secretive Similar problems with lack of representation in legal profession

13. “Oakes Test” for Section 1 S 1 of the Charter: 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. The Oakes test has two parts: – First, the objective of the government in limiting a right must be of sufficient importance to society to justify encroachment on a right. – Second (“proportionality test”), the limit must be reasonable and demonstrably justified in terms of not being out of proportion to the government objective, and must therefore satisfy three criteria: (a) it must be rationally connected the government objective, and not "arbitrary or capricious“ (“rational connection test”); (b) it should impair the right as little as is necessary to achieve the govern­ ment objective (“minimal impairment test”); and (c) even if all of the points above are satisfied, the effects of the limit cannot be out of proportion to what is accomplished by the government objective — in other words, the cure cannot be allowed to be more harmful than the disease.

14. Monahan Ch 14 Patrick Monahan, Constitutional Law, Chapter 14 (460-475): Grace Yeboah

15. The Court and the Constitution: Leading Cases Case 22, The Queen v. Big M. Drug Mart (freedom of religion, 1985): Lynn Carrier Case 24, The Queen v. Oakes (1986): Anthony Antonacci Case 25, Morgentaler v. The Queen: Sam Saunders Case 26, Quebec v. Ford et al. (Quebec sign case, 1988): Alma Sultafa Case 28, R. v. Keegstra (hate speech, 1990): Steven Brown Case 31, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (AG), (advertising, 1995): Asha Clark

16. The Court and the Constitution: Leading Cases Case 34, Sauvé v. Canada (prisoners voting rights, 2002): Frances LeBlanc Case 36, Chaoulli v. Quebec (AG), (right to adequate health care, 2005): Carlos Royayo Case 37, Health Services and Support (SCC overrules a previous decision and expands labour rights, 2007): Amanda Chum Case 39, Delgamuukw v. BC (aboriginal land claim rights, 1997): Colleen Noble Case 40, R. v. Marshall (aboriginal constitutional fishing rights, 1999): Nadine Persaud Case 48, Ref. re Secession of Quebec (principles of Canadian democracy, 1998): Teodora Pop Canada (AG) v. PHS Community Services Society, (Insite decision2011): Melissa Weatherbie