329 Antaki Constitutionallaw Winter2005 2

7/23/2019 329 Antaki Constitutionallaw Winter2005 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/329-antaki-constitutionallaw-winter2005-2 1/77

Constitutional Law: 2004-2005 Kirk Shannon

CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2004-2005; PROF. MARK ANTAKISummary by Kirk Shannon adapted from Derek !Kee"s 02#0$ summary

%: %mendment and &ntren!hment''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''$(: )oli!y *nstruments and +le,ibility in the +ederal System''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''5

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC)....................................................................................................................6 Coughlin v. Ontario Highway Transort Board!.................................................................................................................6

Andrew Petter! "#ederalis$ and the %yth of the #ederal &ending Power' (*) (CB.+,-)........................................* &uit Choudhry! "Recasting &ocial Canada/ A Reconsideration of #ederal 0urisdiction over &ocial Policy') (1221)(CB.+,3).......................................................................................................................................................................... *

C: .th C' odel of )arl' /s' odern !on!eption of )arl''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Andras &a4! "5ining 7ov8t/ An 9ntroduction to Constitutionalis$'...................................................................................* Carl &ch$itt/ "The Crisis of Parlia$entary :e$ocracy'....................................................................................................*

D: %nte!edents 1o the Charter''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .i: Rights and Federalism........................................................................................................................................................... .9

;nion Colliery Co. v. Bryden............................................................................................................................................2 Cunningha$ v. To$ey Ho$$a.......................................................................................................................................2 Bruce Ryder! "Racis$ and the Constitution/ British Colu$<ia Anti=Asian 5egislation! *31=1,' (CB.6-2)...............2 >uong ?ing v. The @ing..................................................................................................................................................

ii: The Implied Bill of Rights....................................................................................................................................................11

Reference Re Al<erta &tatutes........................................................................................................................................&au$ur v. City of >ue<ec................................................................................................................................................ 1 &wit$an v. l<ling.......................................................................................................................................................... 1

A7 Canada v. :uond.....................................................................................................................................................,iii: The Canadian Bill of Rights................................................................................................................................................13

R v. :ry<ones.................................................................................................................................................................. +

&: 1he %dent of the Charter''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 55orraine ?einri<! " Canada8s Charter of Rights/ Paradig$ 5ost'..................................................................................-

Andrew Petter! "The Charter8s Hidden Agenda' (*3) (CB.32+).................................................................................- Alan Hutchinson! "?aiting for Coraf/ A CritiDue of 5aw and Rights' (-) (CB.3,)...................................................- Peter Hogg and Alison Bushell! "The Charter :ialogue Between Courts and 5egislatures' (3) (CB.3-)..............-

+: +ramework of the Charter''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 3i. INTERPRETING RIGT!............................................................................................................................................ ...... 1"The P#rposi$e %pproa&h...........................................................................................................................................................1"

Hunter v. &outha$........................................................................................................................................................... 3 ii. 'EFINING (I)IT%TI*N!: s.1.......................................................................................................................................... 1+

Oaes Test...................................................................................................................................................................... R. v. Oaes...................................................................................................................................................................... Reference re &a$e=&eE %arriage...................................................................................................................................12

iii: %ids to Interpretation...........................................................................................................................................................,-d$onton 0ournal v. Al<erta............................................................................................................................................1

: emedies and &nfor!ement'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 22@ent Roach! "Constitutional Re$edies in Canada' (+) (CB.16+)..........................................................................11

Remedies #nder !.,................................................................................................................................................................,3Remedies #nder s./,.................................................................................................................................................................,3

&chacter v. Canada......................................................................................................................................................... 1+5ittle &isters Boo and Art $oriu$ v. Canada.............................................................................................................1-

6: %dministratie 1ribunals and emedies'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 23%dministrati$e Tri0#nals and Remedies...................................................................................................................................,"

?e<er v. Ontario Hydro........................................................................................................................................... ........ 13 %orin v. Canada.............................................................................................................................................................. 1* Cooer............................................................................................................................................................................. 1Fova &cotia ?orer8s Co$ensation Board v. %artin....................................................................................................1

*: 1he &thos of Charter *nterpretation'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $07: 1he %ppli!ation of the Charter: State %!tion''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $

Retail! ?holesale and :eart$ent &tore ;nion! 5ocal -*2 v. :olhin :elivery 5td.......................................................,%c@inney v. ;niversity of 7uelh....................................................................................................................................,1 7od<out v. 5ongueuil....................................................................................................................................................... ,,Hill v. &cientology............................................................................................................................................................,+

)a8e




K: Limitations on Charter i8hts'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''$5R v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical ..............................................................................................................................,-

#di&ial 'eferen&e....................................................................................................................................................................32Contet#al %pproa&h and !.1....................................................................................................................................................3+

R0R %acdonald............................................................................................................................................................... ,* B#dgetar4 Constraints and the Charter.....................................................................................................................................39

Fewfoundland (Treasury Board) v. Fewfoundland and 5a<. Association of Pu<lic and Private $loyees (F.A.P..). .,

L: +reedom of eli8ion 9 s'2a;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''$.Richard %oon! "The &eculariation of Religious #reedo$' (CB.*3)...........................................................................,R. v. Big % :rug %art 5td................................................................................................................................................+2 dwards Boos and Art 5td. v. The >ueen......................................................................................................................+B.(R.) v. Children8s Aid &ociety of %etroolitan Toronto..................................................................................................+1

: +reedom of &,pression 9 s'2b;'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 4$9rwin Toy 5td. v. >ue<ec (A7)! G* &CR 13. (CB.23)........................................................................................+,

ate !pee&h..............................................................................................................................................................................R. v. @eegstra.................................................................................................................................................................. ++Richard %oon! "The Constitutional Protection of #reedo$ of Eression' (1222) (CB.*6)........................................+- Retail! ?holesale and :eart$ent &tore ;nion! 5ocal -*2 v. :olhin :elivery 5td.......................................................+-

!e#all4 Epli&it )aterial......................................................................................................................................................../R. v. Butler....................................................................................................................................................................... +6 5ittle &isters Boo and Art $oriu$ v. Canada.............................................................................................................+3

Themati& %nal4sis of Freedom of Epression Cases.................................................................................................................+

<: Life= Liberty= and Se!urity of the )erson 9 s'>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''4.Reference re &ection +(1) of the %otor Iehicle Act (BC)..............................................................................................-2 R. v. %orgentaler.............................................................................................................................................................-Rodrigue v. British Colu$<ia (A.7.)...............................................................................................................................-&uresh v. Canada (%inister of Citienshi and 9$$igration)...........................................................................................-,Few Brunswic (%inister of Health and Co$$unity &ervices) v. 7. (0.).........................................................................-,

?: Se!tion > and the Liti8ation of )oerty''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 54:. ?ise$an! "The Charter and Poverty/ Beyond 9nusticia<ility'.....................................................................................-+

): &@uality i8hts s' 5''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''54%. &chwartschild! "Constitutional 5aw and Duality'.....................................................................................................-+?. Blac and 5. &$ith! "The Duality Rights'..................................................................................................................-- ?.&.Tarnoolsy! "The Duality Rights'..........................................................................................................................--

Andrews v. 5aw &ociety of British Colu$<ia...................................................................................................................-- 5aw v. Canada (%inister of $loy$ent and 9$$igration..............................................................................................-3

ldridge v. British Colu$<ia (A.=7.).................................................................................................................................-Colleen &heard! "Of #orest #ires and &yste$ic :iscri$ination' (122) (CB.2)...................................................-:iane Pothier! "Connecting 7rounds of :iscri$ination to Real Peole8s Eeriences' (122) (CB.+).................. .62 Cor<iJre v. Canada (%inister of 9ndian and Forthern Affairs)..........................................................................................62 5ovelace v. Ontario.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

A: Lan8ua8e i8hts 9 s'3-2$''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''32 A. BraKn! "5anguage Rights' (*3) (CB.111)............................................................................................................61 P.A. Coulo$<e! "5anguage Rights in #rench Canada' (*3) (CB.111).....................................................................61

!e&tion ,3................................................................................................................................................................................."3%ahe v. Al<erta................................................................................................................................................................ 6,#ord v. >ue<ec (A7).......................................................................................................................................................6+:oucet.............................................................................................................................................................................6-

: %bori8inal )eoples and 1he Constitution''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 357uerin v. The >ueen....................................................................................................................................................... 66

S: Constitutional &ntren!hment of %bori8inal i8hts'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 3>R. v. &arrow.......................................................................................................................................................... ......... 63 R. v. Ian der Peet............................................................................................................................................................6* R. v. 7ladstone................................................................................................................................................................ 6Haida Fation v. B.C. (%inister of #orests).......................................................................................................................32 :elga$uuw v. B.C.................................................................................................................................................... ..... 3

)a8e 2




A: Amendment and nt!en"#ment

Pre 19+,o %mendments to the most important parts of the Cdn &onstit. re5#ired legislation from the British Parl.

o Pro&ess 6as initiated 04 7oint resol#tion of the senate and ofC

o Patriation Ref 819+1 allo6ed for Feds to amend #nilaterall4 0#t held that a s#0stantial degree; of pro$in&ial

&onsent 6as re5#ired as a &onstit &on$ention. for&ed feds to negotiate 6ith pro$s. <&ompare 6ith Haida &ase6here s#0stantial degree of &ons#lting 6as also re5#ired=

o >#e0e& not gi$en a $eto 04 the &o#rts 6here an amendment 6o#ld re5#ire >#e0e&?s agreement.

Change to %mendment form#la 6ith Regional @etoo In %&t passed in 199"A no minister &an propose an amendment 6itho#t the agreement of all fi$e regions of Canada

<of 6hi&h >#e0e& is one=

!e&ession Referen&e #di&ial 'eferen&e

o Co#rt lea$es definition of Clear; to politi&al a&tors and left appli&ation of &onstit#tional r#les to the politi&al a&tors.

Politi&s and %mendmento The arg#ment is made in the CC( thatA from )ee&h and Charlotteto6nA amendments are done thro#gh mega

&hanges. Politi&al a&tors are not interested in tinering. Changes &ome as massi$e o$erha#ls that totall4 re$amp the&onstit. Either all amendments in the pa&age pass or all fall.

Eamination of s./,<1= of the &onstit sa4s the &onstit is s#preme and all la6s deri$e from that. !. /,<,= states that the &onstitin&l#des man4 a&tsD indi&ates that it is not eha#sti$e written vs. Unwirtten

Written

Treaties 6ith %0originals!#preme Co#rt %&t

Unwritten

Constit#tional Con$entions%0original rightstitle

Constitutional Conventions

Is there something important a0o#t lea$ing some part of the &onstit o#tside the p#r$ie6 of the &o#rts )#st 6e prote&t&ertain pra&ti&es ie. entren&hment of &ertain #n6ritten or 6ritten items.

o If 4o# 0ring a la6 or &on$ention into s./,A 4o# &o#ld #se it to strie do6n another la6. hat if it is not 0ro#ght into

s./, Co#ld still sa4 that other things <&onstit &on$entions= &o#ld still 0e s#premeA fo#ndational <eg. responsi0lego$?t=.

!ho#ld 4o# 0ring all &onstit#tional &on$entions into s./, then 4o# are mo$ing more and more a6a4 from an #n6ritten

&onstit and mo$ing to6ards a 6ritten &onstit.o )onahan sa4s 6e &an infer &ertain prin&iples <&on$entions= from the tet 04 reading 0n the lines. e sa4s there is

still a 0asis in 6ritten. Constit#tional &on$entions are 0inding on politi&al a&tors 0#t are not prono#n&ed dire&tl4 on 04 &o#rts. The4 6ill refer to

them 0#t &annot 0e dire&tl4 legall4 0inding. <0rief a&&o#nt of 6hat &onstit &on$ention in CC( p. /"=

Antaki on Constits

o The more 6e mo$e to6ards a 6ritten &onstitA the more 6e separate o#rsel$es from the &onstit.

o o#ld it mae sense to sa4A not e$er4thing &an 0e amended hat if !.3+ is limited.

o Pa4ne?s theor4 that e$er4 generation sho#ld 0e a0le to re$amp the &onstit a&&ording to 6hat it sees as important.

@ers#s B#reA the &onstit is 6here 6e &ome from.o Constit is entren&hedA it is hard to &hange. Narro6 #nderstanding

Look for instances where unwritten principle is invoked with direct legal effect

o Co#ld 0e Ron&arelli

o #di&ial independen&e

)a8e $




Defn of Entrenchment and Amendment

Entren&hment: Bro#ght into s./,<,= of the &onstit and therefore part of the &onstit itself.

• hat is in&l#ded

Eample of the !#preme Co#rt %&t. It is not in /,<,= 0#t is referred to in general amending

form#laD.so is it entren&hed Case of New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. NS !tates that the defn of in&l#des; in s./, to 0e nonehas#ti$e.

%mendment Iss#e related to the lo&#s of so$ereignt4 H ie. 6hi&h instit#tions sho#ld 0e $ested 6ith the po6er of &onstit amendment <eg.

dire&tl4 6ith &itiensA onl4 go$?tsA &onstit#ent assem0l4= 0alan&e 0n flei0ilit4 and rigidit4 m#st 0e fo#nd s#&h that &onstit is amenda0le 0#t not easil4 so. For eample H sho#ld

there 0e a s#perma7orit4 re5#irement 6ithin legislati$e assem0lies Relates to the relati$e Narro6ness or 0roadness of 6hat 6e thin of a &onstit#tion is

Comparison to how the CCL examines the issue vs. how Monahan does

CCL

1. Designo !o$ereignt4 <6ho gets to &hange=

o !ta0ilit4flei0ilit4

• )etaphor of Jl4sse4s and the !irens. Constit as t4ing 4o#rself do6n for limitation as one possi0ilit4

2. Process

• Pre 19+, 6ith t6o &onstit &on$entions no >#e0e& $eto and s#0stantial degree needed;

o Political consequences of Constit conventions Deal with leitimac! and not lealit! "CC is not

involved here

o 4o# ha$e a distin&tion 0n the leal re5#irement and the political re5#irement.

o !CC is read4 to prono#n&e <in the patriation ref= on &onstit &on$entions h4 does it prono#n&e on

something that is not an iss#e of legalit4......To 6hat etent in this ref is it #s#rping the demo&rati& pro&essh4 is this not left to the politi&al a&tors

%mending form#la?s

• Fi$e r#les for amendment in the &onstit#tion?s Patriation Pa&age1. General %mending form#la <or the 2/- form#la= re5#ires &onsent of the Parl and legislat#res of ,3?s of the

pro$in&es and m#st ha$e /-K of the pop#lation H no pro$in&e alone &an $eto <!.3+= #esidual <thoseamendments not &a#ght 04 other form#las. %lsoA &an #se it to &hange spe&ifi& things relating to 0asi&instit#tions <!. ,<1==.

• Time limits amendment &annot 0e pro&laimed #ntil one 4ear after the initiation of the

amendment pro&ess #nless e$er4 pro$in&e has indi&ated assent or dissent

• %n amendment dies #nless it I has re&ei$ed the appropriate degree of s#pport 6in three

4ears

• %llo6s for a pro$in&e to opt o#t if amendment transfers legislati$e po6ers from the

pro$in&es in relation to ed# and &#lt#ral matters 6ith &ompensation,. The #nanimit4 pro&ed#re &onsent from all pro$in&es and feds in relation to amending the offi&e of the

5#eenA the GG or the (GA n#m0er of )Ps per pro$in&eA #se of English or Fren&hA &omposition of the !CCAamending the amending form#la. <!.1=

3. The 0ilateral pro&ed#re <spe&ial arraignment pro&ed#re= &onsent re5#ired onl4 of affe&ted pro$in&es and

feds 6hen amendment onl4 affe&ts one or some pro$in&es 0#t not all. <!.3=. The federal #nilateral pro&ed#re Parl alone &an amend fed ee&#ti$eA ofC or senate as long as does not

affe&t distri0#tion of po6ers 6ith pro$s. <!. =/. The Pro$in&ial Jnilateral Pro&ed#re allo6s pro$in&es to amend their &onstits as long as does not affe&t

other parts of the &onstit or things lie (G. <!. /=

Is e$er4thing %menda0le in a &onstit#tion

)a8e 4




o 'oes rigidit4 of the amending form#la limit this to the point 6here it is not a pro0lem

o Is there something pro0lemati& 6ith the tho#ght that e$er4thing is #p for gra0s or amenda0le in a &onstit NoA

a&&ording to someA Les a&&ording to others.o 'is&#ssion of &ore 0eliefs and $al#es. 'is&#ssion of prote&tion 04 the amending form#la.

o If e$er4thing is amenda0le then it is possi0le to ha$e a legal re$ol#tion 6here the entire fa&e of the &o#ntr4 &an 0e

&hanged 04 legal means. If e$er4thing is not amenda0le then etralegal pro&ess <$iolen&e= m#st tae pla&e for

&omplete re$ol#tion.

3. Evaluation of the Amendment formulas

o %fter 19+,: (ist 1 s#&essf#l amendment and , #ns#&&essf#l. Idea of mega&onstit#tional &hanges

o 'emo&rati& pra&ti&e

o %lan Cairns sa4s amending gi$es po6ers to go$?t not to people there sho#ld 0e more pop#lar inp#t in

amending pro&ed#re.o )onahan disagrees &iting Charlotteto6n referend#m as the demo&rati& potential

o >#estion then 0e&omes is H 6hose &onsent is needed for an amendment.

o >#e0e&

o (egal d#t4 to negotiate Is it a legal d#t4 *n 6hat 0asis is it a legal d#t4 Jn6ritten prin&iples are relied

#pon to negotiate. !imilar set of 5#estions as Patriation Ref 0#t a different 0asis for the de&ision In 19+-

6as 0ased on &onstit#tional &on$entions 6hereas in the Secession Ref referred to these #n6ritten prin&iples.

o6e$erA still #sing the lang#age of legitima&4.

!onahan Account

1. Attention to what is included or entrenched

o Re ritten: P. 12+ list of thing that are not formall4 in&l#ded 0#t are of a &onstit#tional nat#re. o6 o#ght the

&o#rt de&ide 6here something sho#ld 0e in&l#ded. Certain things are in the amending form#la o#ght to 0ein&l#ded or entren&hed. Eample of the !#preme Co#rt %&t. If it is not read as &onstit#tionalA then parl &o#ld&hange it at 6illD.0#tD..need to #se amending form#laD.soA &ontradi&tion.

o Re Jn6ritten: %re &onstit#tional prin&iples from the Secession Ref entren&hed

$: P%&'"( In)t!*ment) and F&e+','&'t( 'n t#e Fede!a& S()tem

(ooed at the manner to &hange the po6ers in the &onstit#tion a0o$e. No6 eamine the manner in 6hi&h le$els of go$?t6or 6ithin the di$ision of po6ers as the4 &#rrentl4 are.

%#thors of the CC( refer on se$eral o&&asions to so&ial poli&4; as iss#es of flei0ilit4 &ame to the forefront 6hen so&ial

poli&4 and the idea of the 6elfare state &ame to 0e &reated. hen there 6as a minimal role 04 the go$?t in so&iet4A di$ision of po6ers 6ored fine. hen the role is in&reased 6e m#st rethin this di$ision of po6ers.

o6 does so&ial poli&4 relate to flei0le federalism. Go$?t is straight7a&eted 04 s.91A9,. !tate is ased to do more and getin$ol$ed. )#st re&on&ile the di$ision of po6ers.

!pending Po6er ".#. $anting %&he past speaks to the future' Lessons from the Postwar (ocial )nion*

ith post6ar de$el of 6elfare stateA Feds 0egan to 0e&ome in$ol$ed 6ith gi$ing &ertain 0enefits to &itiens. There 6ere$ario#s +ederal ,nstruments #sed to do this:

1. Direct +ederal Programs: Feds ha$e s#0stantial part in so&ial poli&4. Thro#gh: In&ome se&#rit4 H JI and pensioinsA famil4 allo6an&esA old age se&#rit4. Feds ept right to mae pa4ments to instit#tionsA go$?ts for an4 p#rpose. %lso taation.

,. (hared Cost Programs: In health &areA so&ial assistan&eA postse&ondar4 ed#. Feds stim#lated gro6th of so&ialser$i&es.

• !#7it Cho#dhr4 points o#t that the federal standards atta&hed to shared&ost programs are generall4 not

enfor&edA d#e to:

• la& of reso#r&es for information gathering

• la& of politi&al 6ill to interfere in something seen as pro$in&ial

)a8e 5




• la& of legitima&4 follo6ing federal &#t0a&s

3. E-ualiation #rants: Third instr#ment that s#stained panCanadianism. The4 are #n&onditional and in theor4are to red#&e pro$in&ial taes <not impro$e pro$in&ial programs=. In the &onstit#tion in !. 3"<,=.

Antakis /its

Formal Flei0ilit4 %ltering di$ision of po6ers

Informal Fle

Getting aro#nd the di$ision of po6ers <CC( p. "=$. %nterov&tal areements

• Tied #p 6ith the spending po6er.

• Iss#e of enfor&ea0ilit4

• intergo$ernmental agreements: These &an 0e detailed &ontra&ts <lie the %greement on Internal Trade= or

general statements of goals and poli&ies

• CC( sa4sA ma40e 6e sho#ld thin a0o#t &onstit#tionaliing this t4pe of agreement. Complaints that the4 do not

0ind Parl. !oA as ee&A 4o# &an enter a agreement 0#t then as Parl 4o# are not 0o#nd. Iss#es 6ith parliamentar4s#prema&4 right no6 in&reases idea of demo&ra&4 <not 7#st the ee& doing its thing 0#t the ele&ted offi&ials

ha$ing their sa4.

0eference 0e Canada Assistance Plan $C

#risdi&tion BC !CC81991Fa&ts dealt 6ith the legitima&4 of the federal go$ernment?s #nilateral de&ision to p#t a &ap on C%P; dispite

intergo$ernmental agreement <6hi&h 6as a federal la6=A i.e. to limit the mone4 going to the ha$e; pro$in&es of %l0ertaA B.C. and *ntario for so&ial assistan&e and 6elfare. Feds #nilaterall4 de&ided to red#&e transfer 04 /K. Initiation of a referen&e. %greement spe&ifies: Feds m#st transfer M 6ith no amo#nt. )#st &ons#lt the la6. Federal la6 spe&ifies: Is s#07e&t to the interpretation a&t 6hi&h allo6s for repeal. The B.C. go$ernment initiated a referen&e to the B.C. Co#rt of %ppeal. That &o#rt held that the federalgo$ernment 6as 0o#nd 04 its agreement 6ith B.C. and had to o0tain B.C.?s &onsent to red#&e its transfer.

Iss#es Can feds #nilaterall4 amend the C%P

olding The !CC <!opina = o$ert#rned this de&isionA and allo6ed the &ap on C%P. FedsA in this &ase &o#ld#nilaterall4 amend.

Ratio !#7it Cho#dhr4 notes three readings of this de&ision <CBp./=:

LAW A'D P(L%)%C"1. The agreement did not spe&if4 the amo#nt of f#ndingA so it 6as ne$er 0rea&hed <0ased on points infa&ts; a0o$e=

,. The agreement 6as 0indingA 0#t it &o#ld 0e &ir&#m$ented 04 legislation <and onl4 04 legislation=.3. The agreement onl4 &reated politi&al o0ligationsA not legal ones.

*. Deleation as an instrument of flexi+ilit!

• h4 might it not 0e permitted in o#r federal s4stem

• Eample of delegation of po6ers to 0e administered 04 0oards. Pro0lems 6ith this as it is Parliament?s d#ties.

From one &ase <!opina .= ho6 &an 4o# ha$e a &riminal offen&e 0ased on 6hat a 0oard de&ides. This is&ompara0le to a de0ate in the J!. Tension that 6e 6ant Parl to do this and not a 0oard of eperts 0ehind &loseddoors.

• hat &on&l#sions &an 4o# mae a0o#t Cdn Constit la6 on delegation Parl and pro$in&ial &annot delegate

the other to mae la6s to the other le$el of go$?t <from a N! <19//= &ase=.• %lso related to the follo6ing &ase.

Coughlin v. ntario 4ighwa5 &ransport $oard ,

#risdi&tion 819"+ !CR /"9

Fa&ts Co#ghlin is an etrapro$in&ial tr#&er 6ho m#st get li&ense for tr#&ing in *nt. Ea&h of the pro$in&es alread4 had a Board reg#lating intrapro$in&ial tr#&ingA 0#t interpro$in&ial tr#&ing6as te&hni&all4 #nder federal 7#risdi&tion

Iss#es Is the po6er to reg interpro$in&ial tr#&ing ultra vires *ntario.

olding the !CC #pheld se&tions of the federal Motor Vehicle Transport ct 6hi&h delegated the li&ensing of

)a8e 3




interpro$in&ial tr#&ing to pro$in&ial agen&ies.

Ratio Federal la6 is in eisten&e. It maes the &onditions needed for intrapro$ li&en&es the same as thoseneeded for interpro$in&ial li&en&e and allo6s the pro$ 0oard to determine those re5#irements.Cart6right . It is not delegation of la6maing po6er 0#t the adoption 04 Parl in the eer&ise of its e&l#si$e po6erA of the legislation of another 0od4 as it ma4 from time to time eist. <!o#nds lie pigg40a&ing=

'ifferen&e 0n a0di&ation and delegation. %0di&ation is not oA 0#t delegation <tho#ght the 6ord is not#sed= is o so long as the po6er &an 0e taen 0a&. 'isting#ishes from N! &ase 6hi&h stated that Parl and pro$in&ial legislat#res &annot delegate a#thorit4 0.n ea&h other.

'issent: Ri&hie : Centered aro#nd fa&t that pro$in&ial la6s go$ern federal la6s. %nd an e&eption is not a la6. Feds sho#ld al6a4s ha$e a#thorit4 on interpro$in&ial. Points to the histor4 of this legislation and the manner it 6as re&ei$ed as 6ell as a &ase in NB that 6as$er4 similar 0#t NB 6as not allo6ed to reg interpro$in&ial tr#&ing. There is an etension of Pro$in&ial po6er from the NB &ase to allo6 *nt to ha$e more po6er and reg#late interpro$in&ial tr#&ing. Ri&hie has no pro0lem 6ith simple in&orporation H 4o# said that and 6e 6ill in&orporate it into o#r la6.as a pro0lem 6ith allo6ing the pro$in&ial legislat#re to &hange the la6 from time to time. %nti&ipator4

in&orporation 04 referen&e. #st 0& 4o# reser$e 4o#r right to &reate e&eptionsA does not mean 4o# ha$e not delegated.

Notes In$ol$es Administrative deleation thro#gh the pro$in&ial 0oard. %ncorp +! ref 04 the fed go$?t of r#les of *ntario on tr#&ing li&en&e. It is anti&ipator4 as 6hen the pro$r#les &hange then so 6ill the feds. Conditional leislation. Pro$in&e m#st ha$e a la6 in order for the federal la6 to 0e triggered. itho#titA 6o#ld not 6or

In the No$a !&otia Interdelegation &ase <19/1=A the !CC too a prin&ipled and &oherent positionA sa4ing that neitherParliament nor the pro$in&ial legislat#res &o#ld delegate legislati$e po6er to the other le$el of go$ernment.

• o6e$erA the federal go$ernment and the pro$in&es ha$e #sed de$i&es; to get aro#nd this r#ling:

1. administrative deleation: 6hen one le$el of go$ernment &arries o#t the f#n&tions legislated 04 the other,. incorporation +! reference- 6hen the la6s of one le$el of go$ernment a&no6ledge the a#thorit4 of theother le$el?s la63. conditional leislation: legislation 6hi&h re5#ires the other le$el of go$ernment?s appro$al 0efore &ominginto effe&t.

. "pendin power

a. hat is it

• Po6er of federal go$?t to spend mone4 o#tside its 7#risdi&tion.

0. o6 has it 0een eer&ised

• 'ire&t FederalD

• !hared &ost programs )ost &ontro$ersial 0& there are &onditions atta&hed to the mone4.

ThereforeA the 5#estion is raisedA are 4o# merel4 spending mone4 or are 4o# tr4ing to dosomething else. <'oes not in&l#de e5#aliation pa4ments as there are no strings atta&hed=

&. Possi0le &onstit 0ases or defen&es for the spending po6er

• #stifi&ation that an4 legal person sho#ld 0e a0le to spend mone4.

• !. 91a s.91<"= and !. 1-"

• In %#s there is epli&it ref to spending po6ers 0#t still &ontro$ersial• E5#alisation grantsD.0#t the4 might not 0e &onsidered spending po6er as there is a tet#al 0asis

for them and not &onditions are atta&hed.

• Co#ld 0e &onsidered to &hallenge federalism tho#ghD.

d. #sti&ia0le or Constit#tional limits

• 6interheaven &ase sa4s the &onditions are o so long as the4 don?t amo#nt to &ontrol or

reg#lation. Co#rt not 6anting to &ommit 0#t lea$ing themsel$es a 6a4 o#t in the f#t#re.

• CP &ase H less &lear the 6a4 that the &o#rt is lea$ing themsel$es a 6a4 o#t.

e. h4 la& of ans6ers H re: s&ope and limits

)a8e >




• Neither the feds nor the pro$in&es 6ant to go to &o#rt.

• hat are &o#rts s#pposed to do 6hen there has 0een a pra&ti&e for - or /- 4ears 0#t there is no

&onstit 0asis for it hat is the 6eight of thatf. indo6 into federalism and &onstit#tionalism

• Federalism: ho 0etter refle&ts the $al#es and needs of the people H are the feds going against the

prin&iples of federalismD..Petter arg#ment see 0elo6. Lo# ha$e national ma7orities and regional

ma7orities and the4 sometimes &ome into &onfli&t.• Federalism: Ca#ses pro0lems dealing 6ith responsi0le go$?t. ho is a&&o#nta0le for 6hat

de&isions. Gi$e mone4 0#t then &annot 0e 0lamed for the de&isions on spending. Iss#es of poli&4. %lso iss#es of taation.

Antaki

Faith in &onstit#tional tets. It does not deal 6ith this iss#e. o6 m#&h does the &o#ntr4 reall4 refle&ted in &onstit#tion.

!pending Po6er and the Constit#tion !pending po6er originall4 limited to areas of 7#risdi&tion 0#t epanded in !CC?s 7#dgment on !ne"plo#"ent

$nsurance Ref 8193" 6here f#nding &an 0e gi$en 6ith stip#lation as pro$in&es are a0le to a&&ept or de&linef#nding 6ith &onditions atta&hed.

(oo no6 to 6hether the &onditions atta&hed to the grants amo#nt to a federal attempt to legislate in areas of

pro$in&ial 7#risdi&tion.Andrew Petter, /0ederalism and the M!th of the 0ederal "pendin Power1 2$3435 2C6p.785

• Petter finds the spending po6er pro0lemati& on t6o gro#nds:

1. It allo6s the federal go$ernment to meddle in areas that are &learl4 of pro$in&ial 7#risdi&tion. It is th#s inimi&al to 0asi& federalist prin&iples. <Petter seems to 0e defending a ind of s#0sidiarit4.=

2. It mies #p responsi0ilit4 for &ertain fields 0et6een t6o le$els of go$ernmentA 6hi&h detra&ts from a&&o#nta0ilit4and responsi0le go$ernment.; This also &onf#ses &itiens 6ho 6o#ld lie to &ampaign for an4 ind of poli&4&hanges6hi&h le$el of go$ernment sho#ld the4 address

"u9it Choudhr!, /#ecastin "ocial Canada- A #econsideration of 0ederal :urisdiction over "ocial Polic!15 2*;;*5

2C6p.7<5

• Cho#dhr4 arg#es in fa$o#r of federal 7#risdi&tion o$er so&ial poli&4 0ased on the idea of a ind of ra&e to the 0ottom;:

Pro$in&es that ta the ri&h to pro$ide for more genero#s ser$i&es 6ill see an eod#s of ri&h people and an infl# of poor

people.1. This s&enario ass#mes that mo$ing is &heap.2. !omeone &ommented in &lass that mo$ing is &heap for poor peopleA and this s&enario seems to refle&t 6hat

happened in B.C. #nder the N'P go$ernment: There 6as an infl# of homeless people.3. %ntai is against the idea of e&onomi& &itienship

C: 19th C. Model of Parl. Vs. Modern conception of Parl

Andras "a9=, /Lin>in ?ov&t- An %ntroduction to Constitutionalism1

• Parlimentarism as a rational de0ate is not in to#&h 6ith realit4. istori&al &onditions ha$e &hanged sin&e the

nineteenth C.

• Part4 s4stem has totall4 &hanged this original form of parliament. It has de&lined into a part4 s4stem.

• 19th C. Parl 6as a for#m of openness. This has disappeared. Real de0ates no longer happen in ParlA happen in the

parties 6ith the 0#siness interests.

• Chara&teristi& of the de&ision maing pro&ess. In 19th C.A de0ate &o#ld &hange or transform others to &ome to a tr#th.

No6A one &annot 0e transformed 0#t is seeing to impro$e his or her o6n interests.

• Parl s4stem is s#pposed to sele&t the 0est indi$id#als or at least &hange them. The 0elief in this s4stem has 0een

shaen.

Carl "chmitt- /)he Crisis of Parliamentar! Democrac!1

)a8e




• 'el$es more into Parl as an instit#tion. Gli&hes that 6e ha$e are to do 6ith 0roader 0eliefs that 6e ha$e.

• Inherent &ontradi&tion 6hen tr4ing to mi li0eralism and demo&ra&4.

• Idea that a good presidential s4stem &o#ld 0e e5#all4 effe&ti$e.

• >#estion of legitima&4. Can Parl still offer legitima&4 Presidential relies on &harismati& legit H 6hereas parl?s

legit is s#pposed to deri$e from some6here else. !#pposed to &ome from legit de0ate sear&hing for tr#th.

• hen an instit#tion has &ertain intelle&t#al fo#ndations that are &hanged <de&isions in the Parl to de&isions in the

parties= ho6 do 6e see this instit#tion.Li+eral %deas in Parl Come to the ta0le 6ith m4 opinion and listen to 4o#rs and allo6 it to infl#en&e m4 o6n. Not 7#st

&ome to the ta0le 6ith a set of interests. Per !a7oA at the tho#ght of the people.Democratic %dea- !omeone 6ho speas for #s. Fo&#s on representation. Per !a7oA at the 6ill of the people.

• Transformation from fo&#s on tr#th to a fo&#s on interest. This is 0& of the rise of demo&ra&4A mass mediaA part4

s4stem. 'emo&ra&4 itself #ndermined the (i0eral idea of Parl.

• o6 do o#r o6n positions &om0ine &4ni&ism 6ith a nai$etO sho#ld 0e a 5#estion 6e as.

• This s4stem that is lo$ed 04 these t6o 6riters sho#ld 0e e$al#ated o#tside of progressi$e $al#es 6e ha$e toda4.

• hat 6o#ld 0e the &onditions of the old model of Parl toda4 H is it possi0le to ha$e a parl 6o#t some ind of

elitism.

• hat has 0een lost H some sense of legitima&4.

Thin a0o#t: o6 ha$e tets shed light on 6hat 6e ha$e &o$ered in the past and 6ill &o$er in the f#t#re%s1= o6 do these tets help #s thin a0o#t 0asi& &onstit prin&iples,= o6 do these tets intro or help #s thin a0o#t &harter.

Tho#ghts from t#torial gro#p:

• !a7o: Parliament is not the organisation of the 6ill of the people 0#t that of the tho#ght of the people.

• B#shel and ogg <p.21/= 'ialog#e 0n the Parl and the 7#di&iar4. In a sense this &o#ld 0e &onsidered a ret#rn to

!a7o?s 19th C. li0eral prin&iples.

• !&hmitt: )odern mass demo&ra&4 has made arg#mentati$e p#0li& dis&#ssion an empt4 formalit4.;

• Co#ld 0e &onsidered to 0e applied 04 'i&son in %dwards 6here he 0asi&all4 sa4s &an?t interpret the

Charter s#&h that it simpl4 0e&omes an instr#ment of 0etter sit#ated indi$id#als to roll 0a& legislation6hi&h has as its o07e&t the impro$ement of the &onditions of less ad$antaged. <CBp. +3+=

• e ha$e this li0eral do&#ment and the first thing 6e see is a referen&e to free and demo&rati& in s.1 6hi&hseems to mae sense.

D: Antecedents To the Charter

i- #ihts and 0ederalism

as the &harter a 0rea thro#gh in rights H is there an4thing that 6as alread4 there ma7or &hange is from e$al#ation to

po6ers to e$al#ation of rights. Relationship 0n go$ernments is emphasised and relationship 6ith &itiens to go$?t is pla4eddo6n.

• #dge?s logi& fo&#ses here on Pith and !#0stan&e and if right is s#0s#med #nder an en#merated head of s.919,. It

la&s an4 &ontet#al anal4sis.

Three Bran&hes:1. British Constit and R#le of (a6,. Federalism

Ra&e

Implied Bill of Rights

3. *rdinar4 legislation and Bill of Rights

#ihts and 0ederalism

@Federalism <di$ision of po6ers= is another ante&edent to Charter. T6o themes:

)a8e .




1= First is the 6a4s that rights 6ere prote&ted in the 0asi& idea of federalism itself and in terms of BN% %&t.Federalism ma4 0e 6a4 of prote&ting rights 04 separating gro#ps that ma4 5#arrel and see to oppress ea&h other if&om0ined in the same state.,= !e&ond is the 6a4s that rights 6ere prote&ted <or ignored= in de&isions re: di$ision of po6ers. !ee this in Federalism andRa&e and Implied Bill of Rights.A. 0ederalism and #ace

'is&riminator4 legislation restri&ting immigration 04 prohi0itionsA taesA lang#age tests denied fran&hise and restri&tedeligi0ilit4 for p#0li& offi&e dis&riminator4 li&ense re5#irement on 0#sinesses and prohi0itions against emplo4ment.

+ederalism and racial minorities

The 6a4 that the &o#rts ha$e dealt 6ith legislation that is epli&itl4 ra&ist is disheartening. Ba&gro#nd H from mid19th ConA there 6as signifi&ant immigration to 6estern Canada 04 Chinese and later apanese. Responsi0le for 0#ilding the rail6a4.Immediatel4 attra&ted the attention of the legislat#resA 6ho restri&ted their li0erties.

)nion Collier5 Co. v. $r5den

#risdi&tion 81+99 %.C. /+- <P.C.=. <CBp.""= British Col#m0ia

Fa&ts The B.C. Coal Mines Regulation ct prohi0ited emplo4ment of Chinamen; for #ndergro#nd 6or in &oalmines. )ine o6ners didn?t lie it 0e&a#se it denied them &heap la0o#rA and man4 of them diso0e4ed it.Br4denA a shareholder in Jnion Collier4A s#ed Jnion Collier4 for emplo4ing Chinese 6orersA in hopes of

ha$ing the la6 de&lared ultra vires.Iss#es 'id B.C.?s dis&riminator4 la6 en&roa&h on federal 7#risdi&tion

olding Les.

Ratio (ord atson held thatA altho#gh the %&t had to do 6ith propert4 and &i$il rightsA it also en&roa&hed on thefederal s.91<,/=A nat#raliation and aliens.; <ie. &o#ld 0e do#0le aspe&t=. atson held that s.91<,/=in&l#ded not 7#st the pro&ess of nat#raliationA 0#t also the rights and privileges of people who have /een

naturalied . atson interpreted the r#le to appl4 onl4 to aliens and nat#ralied s#07e&ts <i.e.A not toCanadian0orn Chinese=A and therefore fo#nd that the pith and s#0stan&e of the reg#lation 6asnat#raliation and aliens. <(ord atson 6as formalisti&: he said he 6asn?t asing 6hether the legislation6as 6ise.= s. 3$2*85 ives parliament exclusive authorit! over aliens and naturalied su+9ects, includin the

effectsBconsequences of naturaliation, vis@@vis civil and political rihts. "o, laws aainst all Chinese

persons trenches on federal 9urisdiction.

Comments It?s #n&lear 6hether there 6ere no ChineseCanadian menA 0orn in Canada and old eno#gh to 6or on themines 04 this timeA or 6hether atson #sed a 0#rea#&rati& <rather than a ra&ial= definition of Chinaman.;The latter possi0ilit4 seems lie it 6o#ld ha$e 0een ahead of its time.

Cunningham v. &ome5 4omma

#risdi&tion 819-3 %.C. 1/1 <P.C.=. <CBp."+= British Col#m0ia

Fa&ts B.C.?s la6s prohi0ited apanese <6hether nat#ralied or not= from 0eing entered on the ele&toral rolls. Tome4omma applied to ha$e his name listedA and C#nningham <the offi&ial= ref#sed.

Iss#es as B.C. #ltra $ires in 0anning apanese from $oting

olding No.

Ratio (ord als0#r4 a&no6ledged that the Naturali&ation ct of Canada stated that a nat#ralied alien shall6ithin Canada 0e entitled to all politi&al and other rightsA po6ers and pri$ileges to 6hi&h a nat#ral0ornBritish s#07e&t is entitled in Canada.; o6e$erA he fo#nd that the B.C. la6 fell #nder s.9,<1=A regarding the&onstit#tion of the pro$in&e <repealed in 19+,=. It 6as 6ithin the pro$in&e?s po6er to grant s#ffrage or tae ita6a4 s#ffrage 6as a pri$ilege.; als0#r4 disting#ished !nion Collier#A sin&e this dealt 6ith the ordinar4rights; of inha0itants of B.C. %gainA the CPC said that it 6as not assessing the 6isdom or fairness of thela6. 3$2*85 is concerned onl! with definin alienae and naturaliation, and does not confer 9urisdictional

over the privilees that ma! or ma! not +e attached to naturalied su+9ects.

Comments It?s generall4 a&no6ledged that this de&ision 6as in&onsistent 6ith !nion Coller# <see Br#&e R4derA 0elo6=.I?m p#led as to 6h4 the iss#e of paramo#nt&4 didn?t &ome #pit seems to me that there 6as a dire&t&onfli&t 0et6een the Naturali&ation ct of Canada and the B.C. la6.

)a8e 0




Antaki on Cunningham

!nion Collier# 6as here limited in s&ope as 6as said to deal onl4 6ith ordinar4 rights

6ruce #!der, /#acism and the Constitution- 6ritish Colum+ia Anti@Asian Leislation, $4<*@$3*1 2C6p.8;5

• R4der sa4s that Cunningha" v. To"e# Ho""a' s limiting of the !nion Collier# &ase &an onl4 0e #nderstood in terms of

the ra&ist ass#mptions and 0eliefs pre$alent in so&iet4 at that time. Pro$in&ial la6s imposing ra&ial disa0ilities 6ere

held to 0e $alid 6hen the4 6ere 0elie$ed to rest on a&&#rate ass#mptions a0o#t ra&ial differen&e.; Th#s no one &o#ld 0e pre$ented from earning a li$ing <espe&iall4 as a la0o#rer=A 0#t $oting rights and rights as emplo4ers 6ere anothermatter.

7uong 6ing v. &he "ing

#risdi&tion 8191A 9 !CR -. <CBp."/1= !asat&he6anA 'a$ies .

Fa&ts !asat&he6an ena&ted the (e"ale %"plo#"ent ct A 6hi&h prohi0ited an4 apaneseA Chinaman or other*riental person; from emplo4ing a 6hite 6oman or girl.; >#ong ing emplo4ed t6o 6hite 6omen as6aitresses in his resta#rantA and 6as &harged #nder the %&t.

Iss#es as the legislation ultra vires

olding No. intra vires

Ratio 'a$ies <intra $ires= In an #ltraformalist 7#dgment <hat o07e&ts or moti$es ma4 ha$e &ontrolled orind#&ed the passage of the legislation in 5#estion I do not no6.;=A 'a$ies fo#nd that the riht to emplo!

white women was a civil riht under s.3*2$5A and that it 6as one that the legislat#re &o#ld grant or taea6a4. e sa6 no &onstit#tional reason 6h4 s#&h a right &o#ld not 0e denied to a ra&ial gro#p. e disting#ished!nion Collier#A 0e&a#se he did not find that the pith and s#0stan&e of this la6 dealt 6ith nat#raliation andaliens. '#ff: <intra $ires= %&t applies to ra&esA 6hi&h &an 0e defined 04 &ommon &hara&teristi&s and ha0itsA6itho#t regard to nationalit4. Nothing in the a&t goes 0e4ond lo&al &on&erns 0e&a#se it doesn?t addressnat#raliation. Classifi&ation 0ased on ra&e not on nationalit4 therefore does not infringe on s.91<,/=.

'issent In a searing re0#eA Idington <dissent= arg#ed for e5#alit4 rightsA and &ondemned the (e"ale %"lo#"ent

ct as 0eing the prod#&t of the mode of tho#ght that 0egot and maintained sla$er4.; e also appears to ha$emade a paramo#nt&4 arg#mentA 0ased on the Naturali&ation ct of Canada. Idington 6o#ld ha$e readdo6n the legislation to ha$e it onl4 appl4 to nonnat#ralied Chinamen.;

Antaki on 7uong 6ing

!till sa4 the4 are tr4ing not to 0e politi&al. 'isting#ishing themsel$es from politi&al de&isions. B#t 4etD.seedifferen&e from this de&ision and !nion Coller#

ere againA does not 6ant to 7#dge the 6isdom of the legislation; 0#t rather to eamine 6here the po6er lies.

ii- )he %mplied 6ill of #ihts

• The implied 6ill of #ihts: the Constit#tion did not epressl4 limit the legislati$e a#thorit4 of Parliament or a pro$in&e

to interfere 6ith f#ndamental freedoms.

• Generall4A the legislati$e a#thorit4 to interfere 6ith f#ndamental freedoms is distri0#ted 0et6een the t6o le$els of

go$ernmentA 6ith the &riti&al iss#e 0eing 6hether the la6 in 5#estion is in relation to s#07e&t matter that is assigned to thele$el of go$ernment that ena&ted it <0asi& traditional federalism st#ff=.

• Based on British Constit#tionalism st#ff.

0eference 0e Al/erta (tatutes

#risdi&tion 8193+ !CR 1--. <CBp."/2= %l0ertaFa&ts The ne6l4ele&ted !o&ial Credit go$ernmentA #nder fire from the %l0erta pressA introd#&ed the Pu)lication of

ccurate News and $nfor"ation Bill A 6hi&h re5#ired ne6spapers to p#0lish statements of go$ernment propaganda. hen the (ie#tenant Go$ernor ref#sed to assent to the Bill <as 6ell as t6o e&onomi& poli&4 0ills=A the iss#e 6as referred to the !CC.

Iss#es as the Bill ultra vires the pro$in&e

olding Les. !ltra vires

Ratio Cannon held that the 0ill 6as in pith and s#0stan&e &riminal la6A 0e&a#se it dealt 6ith p#0li& 6rongsA not pri$ate onesA and &on&erned matters that 6ere traditionall4 dealt 6ith #nder &riminal la6 <seditio#s li0el;=.

)a8e




Cannon then lined the pream0le of C%1+"2 to demo&ra&4A 6hi&h he lined to freedom of spee&h.o6e$erA he 6ent on to sa4 that Parliament &o#ld &#rtail freedom of the press if deemed epedient and inthe p#0li& interest.; '#ff CC <&on&#rring= made a stronger stand in fa$o#r of free spee&h <deri$ed from the pream0le=Aaltho#gh he too admitted that it &o#ld 0e limited in &ertain 6a4s. <e said that Parliament had the a#thorit4 tolegislate for the prote&tion; of free spee&h.= The pro$in&es &ertainl4 &o#ld not interfere.

Comments Antaki on 0e Al/erta (tatutes

o T6o pla&es that &o#ld allo6 Parl to limit free spee&h H &riminal po6er and possi0ilit4 of national &on&ern.

6ac>round for #oncarelli

(aumur v. Cit5 of 7ue/ec

#risdi&tion 819/3 , !CR ,99. <CBp."",= >#e0e&

Fa&ts !a#m#rA a eho$ah?s itnessA 6as &on$i&ted for distri0#ting pamphlets in the streets #nder >#e0e& Cit4?santipamphleting 04la6.

Iss#es as the 04la6 #ltra $ires

olding Les. </ splitA a tangle of se$en different 7#dgments=

Ratio Rand denied that the 04la6 6as in pith and s#0stan&e &on&erned 6ith the reg#lation of streets <as the &it4&laimed=. e held that freedom of religion originated as a prelegal right. e also dre6 s#pport from the

prote&tion of denominational s&hools in C% 1+"2A and from the pream0le. e held thatA if pro$in&iallegislation 6o#ld need to en&roa&h on rights in&identall4A it sho#ld ha$e to 0e spe&ifi&. Provinces cannot

restrict freedoms of citiens in a manner incompati+le with the pream+le of the 6'AA.

Rinfret CCA dissentingA too a formalist approa&h: e too the 04la6 at fa&e $al#eA a&&epting that it hadnothing to do 6ith religion. e ne$ertheless o07e&ted to the &ontent of the pamphletA and 5#otes some of themore spe&ta&#lar passages in his 7#dgment in order to dis&redit the eho$ah?s itnesses.

Comments Rand 6as infl#en&ed 04 J.!. legal realismA and 6as m#&h more &omforta0le interpreting la6s in terms oftheir poli&4 meaning.

Antaki on (aumur

o (imited so$ereignt4 and original freedom &o#ld 0e 7#st an interpreti$e te&hni5#e

o Rand refers to these original freedoms as ne&essar4 and primar4

o Rinfret 7#dgement is one of the fe6 7#dgements 6here a 7#dge 6ears his 0iases on his slee$e stri&tl4 roman

&atholi& 6ith little toleran&e for pamphlets that are so inde&ent;.

(witman v. El/ling

#risdi&tion 819/2 !CR ,+/. <CBp.""+= >#e0e&

Fa&ts >#e0e&?s infamo#s padlo& la6; made it illegal to #se an4 ho#se to propagate &omm#nism. !6itman #sedhis ho#se to propagate &omm#nismA and his landlord tried to e$i&t him.

Iss#es as the padlo& la6; ultra vires

olding Les. ultra vires

Ratio Rand relied on the pream0leA 6hi&h he said implied freedom of spee&h. e denied that the la6 &o#ld 0enarro6l4 defined to fall #nder s.9,<13= or s.9,<1"=. e did ho6e$er apparentl4 lea$e open the possi0ilit4 thatParliament &o#ld limit free spee&h #sing the &riminal la6 po6er <in &rimes lie sedition=. Provinces cannot

suppress civil li+erties throuh an exercise of 3*2$5 and 3*2$5 powers.

%00ott appears to ha$e gone e$en f#rtherA arg#ing on the 0asis of the pream0le that neither the pro$in&esnor Parliament &o#ld a0rogate; the right of dis&#ssion and de0ate. <%ltho#gh he did a&no6ledge the

&riminal la6 po6er and P*GG.= &his is the first suggestion that the federal government could also /e/ound /5 the implied /ill of rights. <It?s interesting to &ompare this to Idington?s dissent in *uong +ing .= Tas&herea# dissentedA arg#ing that this la6 &o#ld not 0e &onsidered a &riminal la6A 0e&a#se it did not taea &riminal la6 form <prohi0ition and penalt4=. e felt that it had more to do 6ith s#ppressing the conditions that led to &rime. hile a&no6ledging the importan&e of freedom of spee&hA he arg#ed that &omm#nism6as a threat to that freedomA and so on.

Comments It?s interesting to &ompare Tas&herea#?s &ondemnation of &omm#nism to later &ontro$ersies aro#nd hatespee&h.

Antaki

o %00ott etends prote&tion to dis&#ssion and de0ate. 'oes not etend them to religion.

)a8e 2




o To 6hat etend is the freedom of epression atta&hed to !a7o and !&hmitt arti&les this is the $er4 0asis of

parliament.o >#estion raised do 6e need the lang#age of rights or &an 6e do the same thing thro#gh other po6ers

o >#estion raised #se of the &riminal la6. If pro$?s &an?t do it 0& it is lie a &riminal la6A &an Parl do it o6

stri&tl4 6ill 4o# read the &riminal

A# Canada v. Dupond

#risdi&tion 8192+ , !CR 22-. <CBp."2,= >#e0e&

Fa&ts '#pond &hallenged a )ontreal m#ni&ipal 04la6 6hi&h imposed a 3-da4 0an on an4 demonstrations or p#0li& gatherings.

Iss#es as the 04la6 &ontrar4 to the implied 0ill of rights <or the Canadian Bill of Rights=

olding No. B4la6 is &onstit#tional

Ratio 6eet : accepted the implied +ill of rihtsA 0#t held that mar&hing 6as not in&l#ded. e held thatdemonstrations are not a form of spee&h 0#t of &olle&ti$e a&tion. The4 are of the nat#re of a displa4 of for&erather than an appeal to reasonD; e disting#ished freedom of spee&hA freedom of asso&iationA freedom of assem0l4 et&. from the right tohold a demonstration on p#0li& gro#ndA 6hi&h 6as not part of British la6 <and therefore not &o$ered 04 the pream0le=. <The Canadian Bill of Rights onl4 applied to federal la6s.=

The se&ond gro#nd of &ontest is hopelessl4 $ag#eA 0#t &an 0e &o#ntered 6ith the follo6ing propositions:1= none of the freedoms referred to is 0e4ond the rea&h of &ompetent legislation,= all of these freedoms ha$e m#ltiple aspe&tsopen to 0oth le$els of 7#risdi&tion3= Freedom of spee&h QQ fa&#lt4 of holding assem0lies and gatherings on p#0li& domain= no right to hold meetings in p#0li& spa&es eists in English la6/= assem0lies and gatherings on p#0li& domain &an 0e reg#lated 04 0oth le$els of go$ernment"= Cdn Bill of rights does not appl4 to pro$in&ial or m#ni&ipal leglislation.Constitutionalism does not protect freedom of assem+l! on pu+lic domain.

Comments ogg adds that the J did not ha$e a long tradition of prote&ting &i$il li0erties and h#man rights. hat ithad 6as a tradition of parliamentar4 so$ereignt4 and parliamentar4 rights.

• In the ,PS%! &ase <19+2=A Beet again referred to the implied 0ill of rightsA and said that it remains in effe&t e$en

tho#gh 6e no6 ha$e the Charter. <*f &o#rseA he said it didn?t appl4 in that &ase either.=

• The *ue)ec Secession Reference of &o#rse implied $ario#s rights and prin&iples too. #dges ma4 0e impl4ing ne6 rights

<e$en after 19+,= in order to gi$e themsel$es more dis&retion.• It?s interesting to &ompare these &ases 6ith &ontemporar4 %#straliaA 6here there is still no epli&it 0ill of rightsA 0#t the

igh Co#rt has de$eloped an implied 0ill of rights <see p. "2/=.

(tatutor5 provisions

• In the aftermath of II another instr#ment for the prote&tion of legal rights is a stat#tor4 h#man rights &ode. %s

another legal instr#ment for prote&ting h#man rights.

• *ntario 6ent first H follo6ing the olo&a#st and the emergen&e of h#man rights norms internationall4. !#0se5#ent to

the *ntario h#man rights &ode all of the other pro$in&es legislated on this.

• Common to all &odes:

1. prohi0it dis&rimination re. rental of a&&ommodationA emplo4mentA hiring,. administrati$e tri0#nals for &omplaintsA a h#man rights &ommission in esta0lishing fa&tsA et&.

3. the stat#tor4 &odes don?t 7#st appl4 to the p#0li& sphere H the4 appl4 to pri$ate matters as 6ell. <the &harter onl4applies to p#0li&=

iii- )he Canadian 6ill of #ihts

• First 0ill of rights passed in !asat&he6an 192. Federal $ersion Passed 04 Canadian go$ernment in 19"-.

0eatures-

1. federal legislation that onl4 applies to federal la6,. ordinar4 stat#te of CanadaA not entren&hed in an4 6a4A &an 0e remo$ed 04 ordinar4 legislati$e pro&esses.

)a8e $




3. the res#lts de&ided #nder this 0ill 6ere generall4 $er4 disappointing to h#man rights a&ti$ists and in terms of the prin&iples and ideas that &ame o#t.

• Cla#se 1 raises the 5#estion and made possi0le the notion that the rights prote&ted 04 the 0ill are those that eisted in

19"- <Froen rights=. hat if the la6 6as so &learl4 $iolati$e of rights H does it allo6 4o# to strie it do6n or is it 7#stfor interpretation

• Ten 4ears after the Bill of Rights 6as ena&tedA along &ame -r#)ones 6hi&h 6as the onl4 &ase 6here the !CC #sed theBill of rights to mae another federal stat#te inopera0le:

0 v. Dr5/onesA 8192-

The $ndian act at the time made it an offen&e to 0e intoi&ated off the reser$e. The NT li5#or ordinan&e made it an offen&efor an4one to 0e intoi&ated in a p#0li& pla&e. Th#sA there 6as a differen&e in the la6 H if 4o# 6ere an IndianA if 4o# 6ere ina p#0li& pla&e or not off a reser$e then 4o# 6ere arrested. (CC affirmed that the /ill could /e used to strike down other

legislation. %lsoA it impli&itl4 affirmed that 7#st 0e&a#se the 0ill 6as aro#nd in 19"- it doesn?t mean that it prote&ts pre0ill of rights stat#tes. s.9<0= of the Indian %&tA 6hi&h made it a &rime for stat#s Indians to 0e dr#n off a reser$e 6as str#& do6nas $iolating his right to e5#alit4 0efore the la6the Indian %&t 6as passed 0efore the Bill of Rights. 'is&rimination on the 0asis of ra&e. (CC also held that the $ill of 0ights was declarator58 not 9ust an interpretive aid.

*ther &ases #sing the Bill of Rightso In Canada v. /avell0 an Indian 6oman 6ho married a nonIndian 6o#ld lose her stat#s. B#t an Indian man

marr4ing a nonIndian 6o#ldn?t. E5#alit4 did not in&orporate the egalitarian ideals from the %meri&an 0ill of rights.<Rit&hie= interpreted e5#alit4 0efore the la6 as an aspe&t of 'i&e4?s $ersion of the r#le of la6. "o lon as there is a

fair application of the law to ever!one for whom it applies, then it&s o> 25. !o if all 6omen lose their stat#s andno one is treated differentl4A then that?s o. This is a pro&ed#ral &on&eption of e5#alit4. The &riti&s 6ent n#ts.

o In Bliss v. Canada0 the !ne"plo#"ent $nsurance ct pro$ided a regime of pregnan&4 0enefits. Pregnan&4

0enefits pro$ided for a longer 5#alif4ing period than reg#lar 0enefitsA and if 4o# left 6or 0e&a#se of pregnan&4 4o#&o#ld onl4 appl4 for pregnan&4 0enefits and not ordinar4 ones. Bliss arg#ed that she 6as denied e5#alit4 0efore thela6 0e&a#se she 6as not allo6ed to appl4 for reg#lar 0enefits e$en tho#gh she 5#alified. Co#rt said that the la6 6as passed for a $alid federal o07e&ti$e. 'isting#ished -r#)ones sa4ing that it dealt 6ith #ne5#al penalties and this isthe denial of 0enefits.

B4 the 19+-s it 6as de&ided that the Bill of Rights 6o#ld not 0e #sef#l for rights &ases. B#t it?s still on the 0oos.o The Bill of Rights has rele$an&e in , 6a4s: a= &ontains rights that are not in the Charterright to a fair

hearing is limited to those 6ho are &harged 6ith an offen&e in the &harter. B#t in the BillA the rights are 0roader 0= prote&ts the #se and en7o4ment of propert4 0#t the Charter doesn?t.

%' "UM

!omething to do 6ith the prote&tion of rights and the limits pla&ed on the go$?t

These limits are entren&hed in the &onstit. (a6 6ill 0e rendered no for&e and effe&t if the4 &onfli&t 6ith the &harter.

• Tra&e it 0a& in time

o $. 6ritish constit and #ule of Law. Important in this tradition it that all state a&tion m#st 0e a#thoried in

a politi&al frame6or <see Roncarelli=. In British traditionA lang#age of rights is important 0#t it is not &lear ho6 it 6ill 0e #sed in pra&ti&e

o *.a 0ederalism and #ace !&ope of Parl?s legislati$e 7#risdi&tion o$er nat#ralisation and aliens. hen

6ill Pith and !#0stan&e 0e reall4 o$er nat#ralisation of aliens. !nion Collier# to *uon +ing . !nion

Coller# has a 0road &ategor4 of things that go along 6ith nat#ralisation. Thin a0o#t the etent to 6hi&h

the lang#age of effe&t; 6as #sed H in&idental effe&ts. Is PS! 0eing applied or is e$en if in Pro$in&es 7#risdi&tionA are there still not allo6ed to 0e in&idental effe&ts <not often the &ase 0#t sometimes #sed=.

%lsoA !la$er4 in Idington?s dissent on CBp. "/3

o *.+ 0ederalism and the %mplied 6ill of #ihts. !e$eral &ases 6here la6s 6ere fo#nd to 0e ultra or intra

vires. hen a pro$in&ial la6 is str#& do6n on the gro#nds of federalismA this does still not ans6er the5#estion as to 6hether Parl 6o#ld ha$e 0een a0le to ena&t this t4pe of legislation itself. %00ott . inSwit&"an sa4s Parl 6o#ld not ha$e 0een a0le to do it themsel$es.

o . (rdinar! leislation and 6ill of #ihts: Can Parl 0ind itself thro#gh ordinar4 legislation )anner and

form re5#irements 0#t it is simpl4 ordinar4 legislation. Can 0e a$oiding 04 sa4ing the la6 6ill appl4

)a8e 4




not6ithstanding the Bill of Rights. %lsoA etent to 6hi&h it &an 0e red#&ed to a mere interpreti$e tool orA isit more

E: The Advent of the Charter

@o&a0#lar4 infringementA $iolationA limitation. %ll #sed in &onf#sing 6a4.

CF. $ CCL

1. istori&al and politi&al &ontet 6hen &harter 6as adopted. 'e0ates 6hen adopted,. *ngoing de0ate regarding legitima&4 of 7#di&ial enfor&ement. Idea of politi&isation of the 7#di&ial s4stem is

heightened 6ith the &harter.

Lorraine Weinri+, / Canada&s Charter of #ihts- Paradim LostG1

• 'is&#ssion of s.1 and its de$elopment. Initiall4 so m#&h legislati$e dis&retion that it 6o#ld ha$e originall4 meant

nothing. 'ifferen&e 0n generall4 a&&epted; and demonstra0l4 7#stified;. This p#ts a 0#rden of proof on the go$?t.• %lso added pres&ri0ed 04 la6?

• Too o#t Parliamentar4 s4stem and added free and demo&rati& so&iet4.

• !.33 ins#lates the 7#di&ial f#n&tion from illegitimate politi&al entanglement.

•

Andrew Petter, /)he Charter&s Fidden Aenda1 2$34<5 2C6p.<;75

• The Charter is a regressi$e instr#ment more liel4 to #ndermine than to ad$an&e the interests of so&iall4 and

e&onomi&all4 disad$antaged Canadians.;

• The Charter is at rootA a 19th &ent#r4 li0eral do&#ment set loose on a ,-th &ent#r4 6elfare state.;

• Charter and 19th C li0eralism H impli&it in these is a &on&eption of state and indi$id#al. Idea of limit the stateA of the

state sho#ld 0e limited so as not to do e$il. In present da4A &o#ld limit the state from doing good H perpet#ating the

stat#s 5#o. Reminis&ent of !a7o and !&hmitt 19th

C. li0eral do&.• Negati$e rights represent a s4stemi& 0ias in fa$o#r of the #pper &lasses.

• Progress has &ome thro#gh legislat#resA not &o#rts if the Charter is progressi$e it 6ill onl4 0e in #pholding legislation.

• Citiens? gro#ps 6ill 0lo6 their mone4 on Charter &hallenges. %s s#&hA in den4ing a&&ess to rights 04 p#tting them in

the hands of the &o#rtsA ser$es to shape the rights themsel$es.

• Charter &hallenges are etremel4 epensi$eA th#s limiting a&&ess to the &o#rts.

• #dges are 6ealth4 la64ers and their de&isions 6ill refle&t their &lass interests.

• !ee also '. iseman on s.2 The Charter and po$ert4;

Note &omparison 6ith )&innon and idea of false &ons&io#sness a la )ar.

Antaki

• Not all positi$e rights in the &harter are not all ne& 19 th C. li0eral tho#ght set looseDD

!ho#ld thinA to 6hat etent does &harter &hange the politi&al and legal lands&ape <rather than left $s. right=. To see more on

thisA read ogg and B#shell 0elo6Alan Futchinson, /Waitin for Coraf- A Critique of Law and #ihts1 2$3385 2C6p.<$5

• #t&hinson?s &riti5#e of the Charter &omes from 0oth left and right.

• e sa4s that Charter rights are indeterminateA and that the a&t of interpretation &an ne$er 0e o07e&ti$e.

• Charter &ases are reall4 a0o#t resol$ing so&ial and politi&al &onfli&ts.

• It is paradoi&al to 7#stif4 the Charter in terms of some ind of so&ietal &onsens#s of $al#es. If 6e reall4 had a

&onsens#sA 6e 6o#ldn?t need a CharterU %ll of the Charter litigation sin&e 19+, pro$es that 6e ha$e 6idel4 di$ergent$al#es 6ithin Canadian so&iet4.1. If 6e reall4 has a &onsens#sA 6h4 6o#ld 6e find it ne&essar4 to entren&h it in a do&#ment that is almost impossi0le

)a8e 5




to &hange and entr#st the enfor&ement of that do&#ment to a smallA #nrepresentati$e gro#p of people

Peter Fo and Alison 6ushell, /)he Charter Dialoue 6etween Courts and Leislatures1 2$33<5 2C6p.<$85

• ogg and respond to &riti&s of the Charter 04 des&ri0ing a dialog#e.; Co#rts &an p#t iss#es into p#0li& de0ate and onto

the legislati$e agenda. (egislat#res &an re$erseA modif4 or a$oid 7#di&ial de&isions.

• In most &asesA legislat#res &an respond to Charter re$ie6 04 maing minor modifi&ations that do not &ompromise the

o07e&ti$e of the legislation.• The Charter has fo#r feat#res that fa&ilitate dialog#e:

• s.33 pro$ides a 6a4 for a legislat#re to &ir&#m$ent the Charter.

• s.1 limits rights to 6hat &an 0e reasona0l4 7#stified.

• !ome rights &ontain internal limitsA e.g. s.2 and s.+.

• E5#alit4 rights gi$e legislat#res a &hoi&e 0et6een etending 0enefits to all or den4ing them to all.

• There are also 0arriers; to dialog#e. The Morgentaler &ase pro$ides an eample of an iss#e 0e&oming so di$isi$e that

legislat#res don?t 6ant to to#&h it. *pposite 6o#ld 0e Sa"e1se2

• The Charter has an infl#en&e 0e4ond 7#di&ial de&isionsA s#&h that legislat#res &onsider rights 5#estions 6hen drafting

legislation.

• This idea is deri$ed from an %meri&an 0ooA The Co""on /aw in an ge of Statutes <Cala0resi=

Antaki

• !eems to 0e re0#tting the arg#ments from the right. ere there is a fo&#s on the dialog#e 0n the Parl and s#preme&o#rt.

()! of Advent of Charter

• Petter and ogg 6as fo&#s of o#r dis&#ssion.

• Petter Raised arg that &harter is 19 th & lei0eral do& set loose on ,-th & 6elfare state.

o Re$ol$es aro#nd set of di&otomies <state and pri$ate po6er=

o 19th C. tho#gh 6as prote&tion of indi$id from intereferen&e from the state. In the ,-th CA that is no longer

the &aseo e4 terms that mae #p &harter don?t ade5#atel4 respond to the goals set o#t

o Charter &o#ld ha$e helped in redistri0#tion.

o Charter in$ol$es 7#ridifi&ation of politi&s. )ore 6ill 0e dire&ted to &o#rts instead of legislat#te. !hift from

demo&ra&ti& arena to 7#di&ial arena.o 6ac>round- (a6 as tool of so&ial &hange and progress.

• #t&hinson Criti&al legal st#dies is his thing

o Radi&al indetermina&4 of la6 Clearl4 politi&al &hara&ter of la6.

o %rg#ment might resonate too easil4 6ith lots of #s <tho#gh at the time 6ritten 6as ne6 theor4=

• ogg Charter does not pre&l#de D.

o 'ialog#e 0n &o#rts and legislat#res

o It is not ne& that an4 &harter 6ill fa&ilitate dialog#e 0#t there are feat#res in this &harter that 6ill allo6 for

dialog#e. <fo#r feat#resA see a0o$e=o Re7oinder to 0oth left and right arg#ments E5#all4 a response to lies of #t&hinson and to Petter

• Regardless of 6hether &harter is going to ad$an&e progressi$e &on&erns or notD.6hat is the legal impa&t of the

&harter. here is not red#&a0le to people?s positions <ie left or right=. This is 6hat ogg seems to 0e doing.

Loo> to enforcement.

Loo> to whether administrative tri+unals can invo>e the charter

Loo> to when charter limits ov&t H state vs. private action

F: Framewor of the Charter

)a8e 3




'. INTRPRTIN RITS

• In the :riend 2C6p.<**5 &aseA Ia&o0#&&i . pa#sed; to refle&t on the legitima&4 of the Charter. e arg#ed:

• (egislat#res freel4 &hose to ena&t the Charter.

• #dges? independen&e allo6s them to mae reasoned and prin&ipled de&isions.;

• Co#rts sho#ld not mae $al#e 7#dgments. <Prof. !heppard ass ho6 this is possi0le.=

• The limits on Charter rights imposed 04 ss.1A 33A et&. lead to a dialog#e.;

• The Charter ad$an&es a 0roader notion of demo&ra&4 than simple ma7orit4 r#le.

• This is a good s#mmar4 of the $ario#s arg#ments in the defen&e of the Charter.

• The !CC also endorsed the dialog#e theor4 in R v. Mills <1999= <CBp.2,=.

&he Purposive Approach

• ,stage pro&ess to see if there has 0een an infringement of the Charter

1. as there 0een an infringement of a right or freedom,. Is that infringement 7#stified<taes pla&e in the frame6or of s.1=

VVnoti&e ho6 this is similar to the tests in the a+oriinal &asesVV

P#rposi$e %pproa&h: Eamine the p#rpose of the &harter 6ords. To 6hat etent is the p#rposi$e approa&h atta&hed to this

&harter spe&ifi&all4 as there is !.1. !e&tion 1 en&o#rages a p#0li& dialog#e and de0ate as to 6hat is 7#stifia0le. If 6e did not#se se&tion 1 so oftenA there 6o#ld not 0e as m#&h dialog#e. -ifference with (ederalis" cases3 If one 6ere to tae a 0road approa&h to federalismA there 6o#ld liel4 0e a lot of

o$erlap. %s s#&hA narro6er approa&h is taen. ith CharterA 0roader approa&h is taen and !.1 has a lot of 6or to do.

(oo at an interest 0ased approa&h. hat 6o#ld &hange if 4o# #sed this instead p#rposi$e;. P#rposi$e approa&h isgro#nded in legislat#re. Interest approa&h 6o#ld 0e more dire&ted to6ards the &itiens. )ight #ndermine the legitima&4 ofthe parl. Impli&ations on demo&ra&4 <see notes on %d"onton 4ournal v. l)erta 0elo6 for a dis&#ssion of interests.=

1. 6as there an infringement; E<ample 4unter v. (outham.

• Co")ines $nvestigation ct : 1-<1= !#07e&t to s.3A in an4 in5#ir4 #nder this %&tA the 'ire&torDma4 enter an4 premises in

6hi&h the 'ire&tor +elieves there ma! +e e$iden&eDan4 ma4Dtae a6a4Dan4Ddo&#ment that in the opinion of the'ire&torDma! afford such evidence.

1-<3= Before eer&ising the po6er &onferred 04 ss.1D&ertifi&ate from 8RTP CommissionD a#thoriing the eer&ise ofs#&h po6er.

4unter v. (outham#risdi&tion !CC 819+

Fa&ts Jnder Com0ines In$estigation %&tA a sear&h of !o#tham?s offi&es 6as &ond#&ted and !o#tham &laimstheir s.+ right has 0een infringed

Iss#es hat &onstit#tes #nreasona0le sear&h and sei#re;

olding It depends on the p#rpose of said prote&tion

Ratio 'i&son: The s.+ g#arantee is $er4 $ag#eA and the se&tion pro$ides no spe&ifi&it4. Constit#tion &annot 0e interpreted lie a stat#teA 0e&a#se it is so f#ndamental that it m#st not 0e restri&ted 04 froeninterpretations <ref. to Persons CaseA li$ing tree?=. )#st interpret spe&ifi& pro$isions in light of thelarger o07e&ts of the do&#ment

the purpose of the CharterIto constrain overnment action and uarantee freedoms. 'oes

N*T grant an4 ne6 po6ers to go$ernment.

)#st assess reasona0leness in terms of the impa&t on the person 6hose rights are prote&ted. !oA ha$e

to delineate the nat#re of the interests it is meant to prote&t. P#rpose is to prote&t a reasona0leepe&tation of pri$a&4A therefore the rele$ant pro$isions of the %&t of in$alid.

General interpretation tied to the %meri&an &ontet. The Charter is a p#rposi$e do&#ment. Its

)a8e >




p#rpose is to g#arantee and prote&tA 6ithin the limits of reasonA the en7o4ment of the rights and freedomsit enshrines. It is intended to &onstrain go$ernmental a&tion in&onsistent 6ith those rights and freedomsit is not in itself an a#thoriation for go$ernmental a&tion.;

ereA p#rposi$e approa&h is a&t#all4 applied 04 stating that the p#rpose of the !.+ is to limit state

po6er to a reasona0le reason for sear&h and sei#re. Th#sA I' of interests that are prote&ted #nder !.+

to delineate the nat#re of the interests it <s.+= is meant to prote&t.; Note 1. % stat#te defines present rights and o0ligations. It is easil4 ena&ted and as easil4 repealed. %

Constit#tionA 04 &ontrastA is drafted 6ith an e4e to the f#t#re. Its f#n&tion is to pro$ide a &ontin#ingframe6or for the legitimate eer&ise of go$ernmental po6erA and 6hen 7oined 04 a Bill or Charter ofrightsA for the #nremitting prote&tion of indi$id#al rights and li0erties. *n&e ena&tedA its pro$isions&annot easil4 0e repealed or amended. It m#stA thereforeA 0e &apa0le of gro6th and de$elopment o$ertime to meet ne6 so&ialA politi&al and histori&al realities often #nimagined 04 its framers.; <CBp. 23+=<note li$ing tree= ,. e said that the Charter is a p#rposi$e do&#ment. Its p#rpose is to g#arantee and prote&tA 6ithin thelimits of reasonA the en7o4ment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines. It is intended to &onstraingo$ernmental a&tion in&onsistent 6ith those rights and freedoms it is not in itself an a#thoriation forgo$ernmental a&tion.; 'E?A)%JE L%6E#AL PU#P("E <s#pport of Petter?s arg#ment H do&#mentdesigned to &onstrain not to a#thorie=

3. 'i&son CC said that 0efore one &o#ld assess the reasona0leness of an imp#gned la6 or a&tionA one6o#ld ha$e to spe&if4 its p#rpose.

Antaki on 4unter

• hat elements are the same as interpretation of federalism de0ates and 6hat elements are different

Federalism de0ates loos to the past and the di$ision of po6ers. (oo to the intention of the

legislat#res. Charter interpretation (oos to impa&t on s#07e&t. )#st not loo at the legislat#re?s perspe&ti$e

0#t to the s#07e&t?s perspe&ti$e

• There 6as #ni$ersal &onsens#s that the entren&hment of the Charter 6as intended to signal to the &o#rts that the4 had to

interpret the Charter differentl4 from the Bill of Rights. The se&ond &onstraint 6as that the &o#rt 6o#ld a&t 7#di&iall4 Hdefensi0le on legal termsA not 7#st a moral de&ision of a parti&#lar 7#dge.

• It m#st 0e &apa0le of gro6th o$er timeA to adapt to #nimagined sit#ations 04 the framers of the &onstit#tionA d#e to

foreseea0le &hanges in the f#t#re. 8Re&all li$ing tree; from Persons

• Epe&tation 1: li0eral interpretation <see a0o$e=• Epe&tation ,: m#st 0e 7#di&ial. e?re not maing this #p H the Persons &aseA the li$ing treeA et&. The Charter is a

p#rposi$e do&#ment H to g#arantee and prote&t 6ithin the limits of reasonA the rights and freedoms it enshrines. It?sintended to restrain go$ernment a&tion that infringes these rights. The Charter doesn&t ive the power to Parliament toeffe&t reasona0le sear&hes and sei#res. #ather, it forces the sear&hes to 0e reasona0le <per !.+=. In order to #nderstand6hat #nreasona0le meansA 6e ha$e to #nderstand 6hat s.+ 6as designed to do. hat 6ere the interests that s.+ 6asdesigned to prote&t

Possi+le exam question Please &oin a phrase of interpretation for the &harter that is not p#rposi$e; and defend it.

Eample &o#ld 0e the interest; approa&h H no as it is s#0s#med #nder p#rpose;

#ecall the methodolo!-

P#rpose of &harter

P#rpose of the pro$ision: interests that the se&tion is designed to prote&t;

• Hunter is the first ma7or &ase #nder the Charter and it 6as a great &ase for the &o#rt 0e&a#se the4 6ere dealing 6ith

limiting administrati$e po6ers. It didn?t threaten the &o#rt?s legitima&4 0e&a#se it 6asn?t dealing 6ith h#ge p#0li& poli&4 iss#es.

• Bad part 6as that this &ase 6as 0ro#ght 04 a &orporation H #nder 6hat &ir&#mstan&es &an &orporations #se the &harter

and 6hen &an?t the40la questions-

)a8e




• In #nterA the Co#rt in arti&#lating the p#rposi$e approa&h said , things the4 treated as similar: 6e ha$e to gi$e effe&t to

the p#rpose of the right and freedomA and the p#rpose of the Charter. hat if the p#rpose of the Charter right is m#&hnarro6er than the pro$ision !ho#ld it al6a4s 0e gi$en a 0road interpretation E. free spee&h: 6hat is the p#rpose offree spee&h !ho#ld it al6a4s 0e gi$en a 0road and li0eral interpretation

• o6 helpf#l is the p#rposi$e approa&h as an o07e&ti$e tool rather than a rhetori&al tool

''. DFININ LIMITATIONS: )./

Prescri/ed /5 law

• In interpreting rights and freedomsA 4o# ha$e to 0e &onstr#&ting a morallegal theor4. Lo# ha$e to loo at the o$erall

p#rpose of the Charter.

• ,step pro&ess <s.1 anal4sis=:

5. was a right infringed6 7Southa" and Big M rules89. $f it was0 was it nonetheless a reasona)le li"it that is :ustifia)le6

WW as the limit pres&ri0ed 04 la6

(a>es )est

WW Then it t#rns to 7#stifi&ationA 6hi&h is f#rther s#0di$ided into a ,part testa= o07e&ti$e of s#ffi&ient importan&e or pressing and s#0stantial to 6arrant $iolation or infringement

<6orth &omparing to federalism &ases in the 6a4 that 7#dges e$al= 0= proportionalit4 <loo to federalism &ases &omparison H Gm $. CN(

i. rational &onne&tion ii. minimal impairment H minimiing intr#sion into prote&ted spear seems to pri$ilege

dialoue +Bn courts and leislature H ParlA draft &learerlegislation

iii. proportionate effe&t H 0alan&ing of deleterio#s effe&ts 6ith the sal#tar4 effe&ts.

Wordin of "ection $

• free and demo&rati& so&iet4; h4 0oth Co#ld one 0e p#rpose <freedom= and another 0e pro&ess <demo&ra&4=.

• 'i&son in&l#des respe&t for the inherent dignit4 of the h#man personA &ommitment to so&ial 7#sti&e and e5#alit4A

a&&ommodation of a 6ide $ariet4 of 0eliefsA respe&t for &#lt#ral and gro#p identit4A and faith in so&ial and politi&alinstit#tions 6hi&h enhan&e the parti&ipation of indi$id#als and gro#ps in so&iet4.; <CBp. 2/2=

• 'is&#ssion of the 6ords !o&ial #sti&e; in the 7#dgment 6hat does this in&l#de h4 6as it not p#t into the !.1

6ording itself.

• Tal of the p#rpose of the &harter so&ial 7#sti&e 'ignit4 There has 0een some sort of ps4&hologiation of the

&harter. !elfhelp 0oos ha$e &rept in.

• In addition to an epress r#le in a stat#te reg#lationA the &o#rts ha$e also said that the la6 &an arise 04 ne&essar4

impli&ation; from a stat#te.

• hat $al#es or interests are ser$ed 04 ha$ing the limit pres&ri0ed 04 la6

G#ards against ar0itrariness

R#le of la6 $al#es

Predi&ta0ilit4

Freedom prin&iple

Noti&e re5#irement <Citiens gi$en noti&e of their rights )aes a&&essi0le to the &itienr4

no6ledge of 6hat the4 &an and &an?t do= (imitation on 0road dis&retion <p#0li& a&&o#nta0ilit4=

0. v. akes#risdi&tion !CC 19+"

Fa&ts !. + of the Nar&oti&s %&t pla&es a re$erse on#s <re0#tta0le= on an4one &a#ght 6ith dr#gs to pro$e the4 didnot ha$e an intent to traffi&. *aes &laimed this $iolated his 11<d= rights and the &o#rt agreed.

Iss#es Can this limit on s.11<d= rights 0e #pheld #nder s.1

olding No

)a8e .




Ratio 'i&son: !.1: <a= g#arantees rights and freedoms and <0= states the e&l#si$e 7#stifi&ator4 &riterion forlimits. !oA in5#ir4 m#st pro&eed in light of <i= fa&t that prote&ted rights are 0eing $iolated and <ii= thoserights are #nderstood as &entral to o#r so&iet4?s #nderl4ing $al#es. o6 do 4o# interpret free anddemo&rati& a$e to 0e g#ided 04 the $al#es and prin&iples that are essential to s#&h a so&iet4A in&l#ding:respe&t for inherent dignit4A so&ial 7#sti&e and e5#alit4A a&&ommodation of 0eliefsA faith in so&ial and politi&al instit#tions to ens#re demo&rati& parti&ipation. !oA the eer&ise of rights that 6o#ld #ndermine

these are s#07e&t to state limitation. The on#s rests on part4 seeing to #phold the limit. The &i$ilstandard or proof: preponderan&e of pro0a0ilit4A rigoro#sl4 applied.akes &est'

, &entral &riterion: <1= *07e&t m#st 0e s#ffi&ientl4 important <Big )= <,= means m#st 0e sho6n to 0edemonstra0l4 7#stifia0leA 6hi&h in$ol$es <a= means rationall4 &onne&ted to o07e&ti$e <0= minimalimpairment <&= proportionalit4 0et6een effe&ts and the o07e&ti$e identified. The more se$ere thedeleterio#s effe&tsA the more important the o07e&ti$e m#st 0e. The means here are not rationall4&onne&ted to the o07e&ti$e 0e&a#se there is no &onne&tion 0et6een possession of a small 5#antit4 of dopeand an intent to traffi&.

Notes o Co#rt rarel4 finds a la6 fails step 1.

o Big ): no shifting p#rpose <onl4 the one the legislat#re had=.

o R $. B#tler: permissi0le shift in emphasisA 6ith respe&t to the o07e&ti$e.

o Rational &onne&tion and minimal impairment are &losel4 relatedand the &o#rts fa$o#rite means

for striing la6s 0e&a#se the4 &an appear $al#e ne#tralA 0#t often s#rreptitio#sl4 in$oe the ,<&= part of the test.o (amer in 'agenais $. CBCA added a gloss to ,<&=: m#st 0e proportionalit4 0et6een deleterio#s

effe&ts and the o07e&ti$eA and there m#st 0e proportionalit4 0et6een the deleterio#s and sal#tar4effe&ts <esp. 6hen the meas#re fails to f#ll4 a&hie$e its o07e&ti$e=. Co#rts $er4 rarel4 #se ,<&= tostrie: e&eption R $. !harpe. !tandard of Proof: mae it seem a fa&t#al iss#eA e$en tho#gh it?ss#pposed to 0e one of prin&iple

0eference re (ame=(e< !arriage

#risdi&tion !CC 8,--

Fa&ts 1.Is the anneed Proposal for an ct respecting certain aspects of legal capacit# for "arriage for civil purposes 6ithin the e&l#si$e legislati$e a#thorit4 of the Parliament of Canada If notA in 6hat parti&#laror parti&#larsA and to 6hat etent ,.If the ans6er to 5#estion 1 is 4esA is se&tion 1 of the proposalA 6hi&h etends &apa&it4 to marr4 to persons of the same seA &onsistent 6ith the Canadian Charter of Rights and (reedo"s If notA in 6hat parti&#lar or parti&#larsA and to 6hat etent 3. 'oes the freedom of religion g#aranteed 04 paragraph ,<a= of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

(reedo"s prote&t religio#s offi&ials from 0eing &ompelled to perform a marriage 0et6een t6o persons ofthe same se that is &ontrar4 to their religio#s 0eliefs .Is the oppositese re5#irement for marriage for &i$il p#rposesA as esta0lished 04 the &ommon la6and set o#t for >#e0e& in se&tion / of the (ederal /aw1Civil /aw Har"oni&ation ct0 No. 5A &onsistent6ith the Canadian Charter of Rights and (reedo"s If notA in 6hat parti&#lar or parti&#lars and to 6hatetent

Iss#es %0o$e

olding >#estion 1: !e&tion 1 intra vires Parl0 !e&tion , ultra vires Parl. >#estion ,

Ratio Changing defn of marriage is $ntra vires 0#t the prote&tion of religio#s instit#tions from 0eing o0ligedto marr4 samese &o#ples is ultra vires It is more than &onsistent 6ith the &harter H it flo6s from it. Co#ld not for&e religio#s instit#tions to marr4 samese &o#ples. There are in&idental effe&ts of the la6 on Pro$in&ial po6ersThese effe&tsA ho6e$erA are in&idental

and do not relate to the &ore of the po6ers o$er solemniation and propert4 and &i$il rights. In&identaleffe&ts of federal legislation in the pro$in&ial sphere are permissi0le so long as the4 do not relateA in pithand s#0stan&eA to a pro$in&ial head of po6er Jse of P#rposi$e; approa&h T#rning to the s#0stan&e of the pro$ision itselfA 6e note that s. 1

em0odies the go$ernmentXs poli&4 stan&e in relation to the s. 1/<1= e5#alit4 &on&erns of samese&o#ples. ThisA &om0ined 6ith the &ir&#mstan&es gi$ing rise to the Proposed ct and 6ith the pream0le

)a8e 20




theretoA points #ne5#i$o&all4 to a p#rpose 6hi&hA far from $iolating the Charter A flo6s from it.; <para 3= The mere re&ognition of the e5#alit4 rights of one gro#p &annotA in itselfA &onstit#te a $iolation of therights of another. <at para "= !.1/ anal4sis Confli&ts 6ith freedom of religion freedom of religion 6ill 0e limited and 0alan&e interests at stae

#nder the &harter. Cannot assess &onfli&t as this is still in the a0stra&t. Per the freedom of religionA state &o#ld not &ompel religio#s instit#tions to perform marriages

''': A'd) t% Inte!!etat'%n

• 'i&son maes note of some of these in Big M0 0elo6.

$. %nterpretive provisions in the Charter

WW the Charter in&l#des se$eral pro$isions that do not entren&h a parti&#lar rightA 0#t instead affirm or highlight&ertain $al#es that sho#ld 0e taen into a&&o#nt 6hen interpreting the entren&hed rights and assessing the 7#stifi&ation of limits #nder s.1. This in&l#des s.,2 and ,+. o6e$erA their impa&t on parti&#lar &ases is diffi&#lt tomeas#re.

*. Parliamentar! and Committee De+ates

WW (amer: the inherent #nrelia0ilit4 of s#&h statements and spee&hes is not altered 04 the mere fa&t that the4 pertain to the Charter rather than a stat#te. )oreo$erA the simple fa&t remains that the Charter is not the prod#&t of afe6 indi$id#al p#0li& ser$ants 0#t of a m#ltipli&it4 of indi$id#alsDo6 &an one sa4 6ith an4 &onfiden&e that6ithin this enormo#s m#ltipli&it4 of a&torsDthe &omments of a fe6 federal &i$il ser$ants &an in an4 6a4 0edeterminati$e;WW n#ff said.

. Canadian Pre@Charter :urisprudence

WW in se$eral earl4 7#dgmentsA the !CC signalled that de&isions #nder the Bill of Rights had onl4 limited rele$an&ein Charter &asesA gi$en the different &onstit#tional stat#s and str#&t#re of the Charter.

7. %nternational "ources

WW E$en tho#gh m#&h of the lang#age in the Charter?s tet 6as ne6 and made in Canada;A the drafters of theCharter had in man4 &ases dra6n on the tet of other rightsprote&ting instr#ments. It made sense then that theCanadian &o#rts 6o#ld loo to 7#dgments in other 7#risdi&tions interpreting these rights do&#ments. Per 'i&son

CC <CBp. 2/= I 0elie$e the &harter sho#ld generall4 0e pres#med to pro$ide prote&tion at least as great as thatafforded 04 similar pro$isions in international h#man rights do&#ments 6hi&h Canada has ratified.;

)he Contextual Approach

% ne6 notion has emerged H the contextual approach. It 6as initiall4 a &omment 04 ilsonA 0#t no6 it?s fo#nd fa$o#r 6iththe &o#rt as a 6hole. This 6as from %d"onton 4ournal . The &o#rt m#st interpret the Charter in a p#rposi$e 6a4 and a&ontet#al 6a4. !o 6hat does this mean

Edmonton >ournal v. Al/erta#risdi&tion <%G= 819+9 !CC

Fa&ts s. 3-<1= of the %l0erta #di&at#re %&t prohi0ited p#0li&ation of info arising o#t of matrimonial disp#tes.the 7o#rnal &hallenged it on s.,<0= gro#ndsA and %l0erta defends it on prote&tion of pri$a&4 gro#nds.

%ll mem0ers of the &o#rt agree that it 6as a $iolation of ,<0=A 0#t the &o#rt 6as split on the 7#stifi&ation iss#e. ilsonA 6ho tho#ght it 6as #n7#stifia0leA des&ri0es a &ontet sensiti$e approa&h to s.1that 6as later adopted 04 the Co#rt.

Iss#es Contet sensiti$e approa&h to s.1

olding @iolation of s.,<0=A not 7#stified 04 s.1 #sing the &ontet#al approa&h.

Ratio Wilson- Jnder 0oth approa&hesA 4o# ha$e to as&ertain the $al#e of the right s#pposedl4 prote&ts and thelegislati$e o07e&ti$eA and if the latter is in fa&t in&onsistent 6ith the formerA it m#st 0e determined if it is areasona0le limit%0stra&t %pproa&h: loo at the $al#eA in general politi&al and histori&al termsA of the right as s#&h. !ho#ld

)a8e 2




not <a= 0alan&e a $al#e at large 6ith a $al#e in &ontet or <0= 0alan&e a pri$ate interest 6ith a p#0li& one<sho#ld rather 0e 0alan&ing , p#0li& interests=Contet#al %pproa&h: re&ognie that rights ha$e different $al#es in different &ontets. !oA &o#rts sho#ldtr4 to 0ring into star relief the aspe&t of the right that is tr#l4 at stae in a gi$en &ontet and thendetermine the $al#e of that aspe&t. !oA not epression $. pri$a&4 0#t epression of &ontents of a legaldisp#te $. pri$a&4 of matrimonial disp#te.

'issentLaforest dissentin8 also takes a !onte,tual approa!h and says in this !onte,t the ri8ht to indiidual pria!y is moreimportant then the ri8ht to freedom of e,pression'

Note !in&e the -agenais modifi&ation of the ,akes test for 7#stified infringementA the &o#rts are no6 re5#iredto &ompare the a&t#al impa&t of the la6 on the right 6ith the a&t#al &ontri0#tion of the la6 to its p#rpose.)an4 mem0ers of the &o#rt ha$e #nderstood this as a &all for the &ontet#al approa&h.

• ilson said that it?s not helpf#l 6hen dis&#ssing the $al#es and p#rposes ser$ed 04 the right to tal a0o#t them in the

a0stra&t. Freedom of the press is important in the a0stra&t and so is pri$a&4. B#t that doesn?t get #s an46here in this parti&#lar &ir&#mstan&e to tell #s ho6 to deal 6ith the &ompeting rights.

• hat?s at stae is the right of litigants to pri$a&4 and the right of the p#0li& to an open pro&ess. Lo# m#st find a more

spe&ifi& 6a4 of des&ri0ing the &onfli&t H not freedom of epression in the a0stra&tA 0#t the right of the p#0li& to an open&o#rt pro&ess. Lo# m#st find that le$el of spe&ifi&it4. That?s 6hat this &ase is a0o#t it?s not an a0stra&t dissertation onfreedom. It has to 0e lo&ated some6here.

• %ndA the impli&ation isA if and 6hen 4o# do that 4o# might find that depending on the &ir&#mstan&es of the &aseA one

freedom 6ill ha$e more importan&e than another . ?reater or lesser weiht will +e iven to a particular riht, iven

the circumstances. In this &aseA freedom of the press is not as important to matrimonial disp#tes as it is to the pri$a&4 of the litigants.

,s greater deference to the legislature a good thing in the following circumstances'

o Competing rights

o hen legislation is attempting to prote&t a so&iall4 $#lnera0le gro#p

o hen legislation is attempting to 0alan&e &ompeting interests for s&ar&e reso#r&es

o hen go$ernment is 0asing its de&isions #pon &onfli&ting so&ial s&ien&e or other e$iden&e )aing

&hoi&es as to 6hi&h epert opinion to rel4 on

Y*ne $irt#e of the &ontet#al approa&hA it seems to meA is that it re&ognies that a parti&#lar right or freedom ma4 ha$e adifferent $al#e depending on the &ontetDIt seems to 0e more sensiti$e to the dilemma posed 04 the parti&#lar fa&ts andtherefore more &ond#&i$e to finding a fair and 7#st &ompromise 0et6een the t6o &ompeting $al#es #nder s.1.Y

• o6e$erA it?s de0ata0le 6hether this form of interpretation sho#ld 0e #sed o#tside of s.1.

• In this &aseA the !CC str#& do6n an %l0erta la6 prohi0iting the p#0li&ation of information from matrimonial &o#rt

&asesA &on&l#ding that the go$ernment &o#ld ha$e prote&ted pri$a&4 6itho#t s#&h a s6eeping meas#re.

• ilson emphasied that one sho#ld not &onsider it a matter of 0alan&ing a pri$ate interest against a p#0li& interestA

0#t rather a 0alan&ing of t6o p#0li& interests.

T 6o prongs; of the &ontet#al approa&h:

• The mi&ro; prong &onsiders the indi$id#al &ir&#mstan&es of parti&#lar litigants.

• e.g.A a Criminal Code selfdefen&e; pro$ision designed for 0arroom 0ra6ls doesn?t fit the &ontet

of domesti& a0#se.

• e.g. Interse&tional dis&rimination &an fall thro#gh &ategories of re&ognied dis&rimination: a

landlord 6ho 6o#ld rent to a 6hite man or a 0la& 6oman 0#t not a 0la& man.

• The ma&ro; prong loos to the so&ial &ontet.• It is important to #se an approa&h to Charter interpretation that is )oth p#rposi$e and &ontet#al.

Anta>i on Contextual Approach

Contet#al %pproa&h <less a0stra&tA $al#es in a spe&ifi& &ontet=

• ilson . @al#e of freedom of epression is greater in a politi&al &ontet is greater than freedom in matrimonial

disp#tes.

• There is no e5#al 6eight to all of these freedoms.

)a8e 22




!: "emedies and Enforcement

Jnder &onstit#tion %&tA 1+"2A 6as possi0le for indi$id#als to get remed4 seen in the pi&t#re of federal $s. pro$in&ial.

• e4 in the dialogue /?n Parl and the courts. ere the &o#rt is a&t#all4 doing something a0o#t the legislation.

Kent #oach, /Constitutional #emedies in Canada1 2$3375 2C6p.$*75

• 'e0ates a0o#t remedies refle&t de0ates a0o#t the legitima&4 of 7#di&ial re$ie6. ent Roa&h identifies t6o main

theories:1. corrective theor4 of remedies sees onl4 a limited role for &o#rts: repairing harm &a#sed 04 go$ernment?s pro$en

$iolations of rights.2. In a regulating govern"ent )ehaviour ; theor4A &o#rts &an design remedies to a&hie$e &omplian&e 6ith the

&onstit#tion in the f#t#reA not 7#st to repair past 6rongs. The4 &an #se all of their po6ers to order remedies that ma4not 0e dire&tl4 &onne&ted to pro$en $iolationsA and to 0alan&e all of the interests affe&ted 04 the remed4.

• It seems lie a parado thatA in the name of 7#di&ial restraintA &o#rts ha$e 0een so sh4 a0o#t reading in ne6 pro$isions

that the4?d rather strie do6n entire la6s instead.

&akkers on Enforcement

• !./, is onl4 pla&e that there 6ill 0e a de&laration of in$alidit4. !e&tion ,A seems to offer more options.

• !., &an deal 6ith pla&e 6here la6 is not &onstit#tional 0#t administration of the la6 has $iolated rights.

#emedies under ".*7"ection *7 H No de&laration of in$alidit4s.*7<1= allo6s indi$id#als 6hose rights ha$e 0een infringed to loo as &o#rts for an4 remed4 the4 &onsider appropriate and 7#st in the &ir&#mstan&esA; in&l#ding in7#n&tions or damages.

• Can et costs or Can et interim Costs <get &osts ahead of a 7#dgment= or Damaes <sometimes referred to

&onstit#tional torts= or in7#n&tions.

• Right has 0een $iolated #nder the &harter <0ad appli&ation= or a la6 passed $iolates the &harter and

therefore $iolates 4o#r right

• )#st ha$e a $iolation of 4o#r rights. !omething m#st ha$e $iolated rights 6hi&h is not ne&essar4 #nder

s./,

• This also has h#ge impli&ations for standing H narro6er standing than s./,.

• Jnlie s./,<1=A s.,<1= appears to gi$e the &o#rts 6ide dis&retion.

• s.,<1= is onl4 for Charter rightsA 6hile s./,<1= is for all &onstit#tional iss#es.

• s.,<1= is #sed 6hen the &o#rt is not a&t#all4 striing do6n the la6 in 5#estion <#nless gi$en a de&alarator4

7#dgment 6hi&h is rare=.

• In some &asesA s#&h as Morgentaler A the person 0ringing the &hallenge is not the one affe&ted 04 the la6A so

s.,<1= 6o#ldn?t help.

• Changing the 6a4 the go$ernment administers a la6 <e.g.A in /ittle Sisters= 6o#ld 0e a s., remed4.

#emedies under s.8*

the /supremac! clause,1 6hi&h &an 0e #sed to read do6n or strie do6n la6sA et&.

• %pplied to the &onstit#tion as a 6hole rather than 7#st the Charter . General pro$ision pro$iding for no for&e

and effe&t. Pre 19+,A this 6as still the &ase 0#t 6as not 6ritten. B#tDstill has &hange remedies.

• There are si options for s./,<1= remedies TEL ERE 'E@E(*PE' BL TE J'ICI%RL and are applied

to the etent of the in&onsisten&4:

1. striking down ? declaring the entire law invalid 2. suspension of the declaration of invalidit5 e.g. the Manito)a language ref. 6here all legislation

6as &onsidered #n&onstit#tionalD0#t s#spended the de&laration of in$alidit4.3. partial invalidit5?severance one part of the stat#te that is in$alid 6ith limits

@. reading inetension <e.g. Vriend =o Contro$ersial as the &o#rt seems to 0e a&ting as the legislat#re.

o In &ertain &asesA legislat#re might not mae de&ision 0#t might thro6 to &o#rts to mae the

de&ision <ho6e$erA the &o#rtsA smart sometimesA s#spend de&ision for the legislat#re tomae the de&ision=.

)a8e 2$




o etending rea&h of a stat#te Not amending 0#t rather interpreting.

. reading down <e.g. Butler =:o Jnlie se$eran&eA this 7#st &hanges the interpretationA not the a&t#al 6ords.

o Choosing the proper interpretation. Co#rt di&tates this.

o This has a parallel in the inter7#risdi&tional imm#nit4 do&trine in federalism &ases.

". constitutional e<emptions

o asn?t reall4 0een applied. <!ee Rodrigue& dissent of (amer 6here he 6o#ld ha$e granterher one.

o E$en if &onstit#tionalA stat#te sho#ldn?t appl4 to this one indi$id#al.

o Constit#tional eemptions allo6 e&eptions to la6s 6hile #pholding them in prini&iple.

The4 &reate 0inding pre&edents.

The4 are a 6a4 of a&&ommodating differen&e.

o It is #n&lear 6hether the4 are s.,<1= or s./,<1= remedies. The4 are indi$id#aliedA 0#t the4

also in$ol$e &hanging the la6.o Is not reall4 done as 6o#ld 0e tantamo#nt to sa4 that stat#te is $alid 0#t &o#rt is not reall4

going to appl4 them

;e# case outlining how to use s.<9

(chacter v. Canada

#risdi&tion Federal 8199, !CC

Fa&ts The federal Jnemplo4ment Ins#ran&e %&t pro$ided ne6 mothers 6ith 1/ 6ees of &o$erage for maternit4lea$e and adopti$e parents 6ith 1/ 6ees of parental lea$eA to 0e di$ided 0et6een the parents as the4 &hose.!&ha&hter arg#ed that the denial of paternit4 0enefits dis&riminated in fa$o#r of adopti$e parents and againstnat#ral fathers.

Iss#es 1. 'id the differential treatment $iolate s.1/ e5#alit4 rights,. hat ind of remed4 sho#ld the &o#rt grant

olding 1. Les.,. The &o#rt 6o#ld ha$e str#& do6n the pro$ision 0#t s#spended the in$alidit4A 0#t in this &ase there 6as noneed to do so 0e&a#se Parliament had alread4 amended the legislation.

Ratio 1. 8not important for this s#mmar4,. (amer CC #ndertoo a general dis&#ssion of remedies. %mong his $ario#s points:

• The fa&t that reading do6n is more &ommon in Charter &ases than federalism &ases maes sense: rights

$iolations are often the res#lt of parti&#lar pro$isionsA 6hereas di$ision of po6ers iss#es #s#all4 &on&ernthe legislation as a 6hole.

• The test for reading do6n sho#ld 0e 6hether the legislat#re 6o#ld still ha$e passed the legislation 6itho#t

the imp#gned pro$ision.

• The same 0asi& test sho#ld 0e #sed for reading inA 6here the sol#tion is to in&l#de something or someone

that the stat#te #n&onstit#tionall4 e&l#ded.

• In !&ha&hterA (amer C.. noted that 6hen determining 6hether the remed4 of reading in is appropriateA

&o#rts m#st ha$e regard to the Ytwin uidin principlesYA namel4:

• $respe&t for the role of the legislat#re and

• *respe&t for the p#rposes of the Charter D.

It 6o#ld 0e espe&iall4 a0s#rd not to allo6 reading in in 0enefits &ases other6ise the &o#rt 6o#ld ha$e tostrie do6n legislation designed to pro$ide 0enefits to someA rather than etending them to all.

• hen appl4ing s./,A &o#rts sho#ld:

1. define the etent of the in&onsisten&4 <in&l#ding #sing the ,akes test=,. de&ide 6hether se$eran&e or reading in is appropriateA depending on:

a. remedial pre&ision 0. interferen&e 6ith the legislati$e o07e&ti$e <This in&l#des 0#dgetar4

&onsiderationsA altho#gh 0#dgetar4 &onsiderations &annot 0e #sed to

)a8e 24




7#stif4 a la6 #nder s.1.=&. the &hange in signifi&an&e of the remaining portion <In 0enefits &asesA

this in&l#des the relati$e sie of the gro#p to 0e added $isZ$is thosealread4 in&l#ded.=

d. the signifi&an&e or longstanding nat#re of the remaining portion3. de&ide 6hether to temporaril4 s#spend the de&laration of in$alidit4

•

This is espe&iall4 appropriate if striing do6n the la6 6o#ld pose a danger to the p#0li& orto the r#le of la6.

• It ma4 also 0e appropriate in &ases of #nderin&l#si$e 0enefitsA 6here the go$ernment sho#ld

0e allo6ed to de&ide 6hether to etend the 0enefits to all or &an&el them altogether.

• (amer CC emphasies that dela4ing in$alidit4 ma4 0e more intr#si$e on legislat#resA not

lessA 0e&a#se it for&es an iss#e onto the legislati$e agendaA for&ing the legislat#re to a&t.

• %ppl4ing this logi& to the &aseA (amer CC held that in &ases of positi$e rights <s#&h as this one= reading

inreading do6n and s#spensions of in$alidit4 6ere more liel4 to appl4 than an immediate striing do6nof the legislation.

• s.1 anal4sis is important for remedies: reason it fails s.1 is often rele$ant to determining remed4

Comments • This 6as a strange &ase !&ha&ter 6on on e5#alit4 gro#nds at lo6er &o#rt le$elsA and the &ase onl4 6ent to

the !CC on the iss#e of remedies. Be&a#se Parliament amended the legislation in the meantime <allo6ing1- 6ees for e$er4one=A !&ha&ter didn?t get an4 spe&ial remed4 <lie damages= ho6e$erA he did get &osts.

• Ia&o0#&&i applied the Schacter test in the Vriend &ase <199+= <CBp.1,22=.

• Reading in 6as also #sed in Miron v. Trudel <199/=A to gi$e &ommonla6 partners the same 0enefits as spo#ses.

Vriend v. l)erta Ia&o0#&&i .

E&l#sion of se#al *rientation; in the %l0erta IRP% 6as deemed to 0e #n7#stified #nder s.1. Remed4 imposed is reading inof this gro#nd despite the legislat#res epress &hoi&e to not in&l#de the gro#nd.

1*d'"'a& Dee!en"e and R*&e % La3

• P. 1,+1 o6e$erA as I see the matterA Charter s&r#tin4 6ill al6a4s in$ol$e some interferen&e 6ith the legislati$e

6ill.;

• P.1,+1 ThereforeA the &losest a &o#rt &an &ome to repe&ting the legislati$e intention is to determine 6hat the

legislat#re 6o#ld liel4 ha$e done if it had no6n that its &hosen meas#res 6o#ld 0e fo#nd #n&onstit#tional.;'issent H )a7or

• P. 1,+ The responsi0ilit4 of ena&ting legislation that a&&ords 6ith the rights g#aranteed 04 the Charter rests 6ith

the legislat#re. E&ept in the &learest of &asesA &o#rts sho#ld not di&tate ho6 #nderin&l#si$e legislation m#st 0eamended.;

• P. 1,+ 'eferen&e and respe&t for the role of the legislat#re &ome into pla4 in determining ho6 #n&onstit#tional

legislation 6ill 0e amended 6here $ario#s means are a$aila0le.;

• o#ld ha$e ordered de&laration of in$alidit4 that 6as s#spended for one 4ear to allo6 legislat#re to effe&t &hanges.

M. v. H. Ia&o0#&&i .

'efinition of spo#se; 6as deemed #nderin&l#si$e as did not in&l#de samese &o#ples. Th#s 6as &onsidered a $iolation ofs.1/ that 6as not 7#stified. Remed4 taen 6as striing do6n legislation s#07e&t to simonth dela4ed de&laration of in$alidit4.'ialog#e theor4

• 'e&ision in this &ase 6as to de&lare the la6 of no for&e and effe&t 6ith s#spended in$alidit4 0&A the &hanging of thedefinition 6o#ld affe&t other parts of the legislation 6hi&h did not $iolate the &harter. The a#thors of the CC(<p.1,+2= stateA ithin a simonth period &ontemplated in M. v. H.0 the *ntario (egislat#rein fa&t introd#&edlegislation amending o$er "- pie&es of legislation in response to M. v. H. This legislation notA ho6e$erA define samese &o#ples as spo#ses; 0#t rather as samese partners;.

Reading do6n as interpreti$e and a remed4 in 0oth Federalism and Charter.

• CC( notes that Reading 'o6n 6as #sed in Mc;a# v. The *ueen 6ith respe&t to Federal ele&tion signs. %lso &an 0e

#sed as an interpreti$e te&hni5#e s#&h as in R. v. Butler 6here the legislation regarding o0s&enit4 6as read do6n ininterpretation there04 a$oiding a finding of a Charter $iolation.

)a8e 25




Note on Hunter v. Southa" 'i&son

#di&ial 'eferen&e

• <p. 1,++= hile the &o#rts are g#ardians of the Constit#tion and of indi$id#als? rights #nder itA it is the (egislat#re?s

responsi0ilit4 to ena&t legislation the em0odies appropriate safeg#ards to &ompl4 6ith the Constit#tion?sre5#irements. It sho#ld not fall to the &o#rts to fill in the details that 6ill render legislati$e la&#nae &onstit#tional.;

Little (isters $ook and Art Emporium v. Canada

#risdi&tion British Col#m0ia 8,--- !CC

Fa&ts (ittle !isters 6as a 5#eer 0ooshop. Canada C#stoms reg#larl4 held #p their par&els at the J! 0order. The4&hallenged the &#stoms legislation that proi0ited importing o0s&ene p#0li&ations. <*0s&enit4 here 6as s#07e&tto the definition in s.1"3<+= of the Criminal Code.=

Iss#es 1. 'id the &#stoms legislationA as applied A #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on (ittle !isters? freedom of epression,. 'id the &#stoms legislation per se #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on (ittle !isters? freedom of epression

olding 1. Les ,. No.

Ratio $. C#stoms offi&ials sho6ed a pattern of targeting (ittle !isters? shipments. C#stoms offi&ers 6ere not properl4 trained to identif4 o0s&enit4A nor 6ere there an4 formal g#idelines or pro&ed#res.

*. Binnie also re7e&ted arg#ments that the &#stoms pro&ed#re 6as too &#m0ersome to 0e &apa0le of 0eingapplied fairl4. e 7#st ordered the &#stoms offi&ials to stop 0eing dis&riminator4. 'o remed! under

s.8* +ut a remed! under s.*7Ia&o0#&&i dissented on this last point. e 6o#ld ha$e str#& do6n the legislationA altho#gh he 6o#ld ha$es#spended the in$alidit4 for 1+ months. <This 6o#ld ha$e gi$en Parliament time to remed4 the sit#ation.=o#ld ha$e remedied it #nder s./,

#: Administrative Tri$%nals and "emedies

Remem0erA admin tri0#nals mae no 0inding legal pre&edent ie onl4 for the parties at hand.

Who can offer Charter #emediesGGG

!., spe&ifies Competent #risdi&tion;. This has 0een interpreted as % &o#rt m#st ha$e 7#risdi&tionA independent of the

CharterA o$eri. the partiesAii. the s#07e&t matter andiii. the remed4 so#ght.

hat a0o#t %dmin Tri0#nals 'e0ate

o In +e)er v. ,ntario H#dro narro6 ma7orit4 said %dmin Tri0#nals C%NN*T 0e a &o#rt of &ompetent

7#risdi&tion for Charter &hallenges. It 6ill satisf4 the first t6o re5#irements <a0o$e= 0#t 6ill ha$e pro0lems6ith the 3rd.

o Co#ld a6ard damages for a $iolation of a &harter right

Jnder s./,<1=A %dmin tri0#nals C%N de&lare a la6 to 0e of no for&e or effe&t. Tri0#nal 6ith po6er to enfor&e la6 m#st 0ea0le to e$al &onstit#tionalit4 of a la6D..0#tD.limited to tri0#nals 6hi&h are &learl4 a#thoried to deal 6ith 5#estions of la6.

There is &ontin#o#s de0ate here. !ome sa4 admin tri0#nals la& the ne&essar4 epertise to 0e a0le to mae &harter 0ased

de&isions.

Note that #di&ial Re$ie6 is e&eptional. General r#le is that people 6ill go to admin tri0#nals and not to &o#rt. h4

• hen la6s are passed at ParlA Bills are s&r#tinied 04 #sti&e and the %T. ThereforeA it is e&eptional that a Bill

6o#ld go thro#gh Parl and still 6o#ld not &ompl4 6ith the Charter.

• *ften not 0& the a&t itself is against the &harter H most often it is 0& that person interpreting the a&t reads it in an

#n&onstit#tional 6a4.

"ectionin of the ad9udicature.

h4 is it not &lear as to 6h4 there are limits on federal tri0#nals

)a8e 23




• %s per s.9" H not &lear

• Per hogg. Federal tri0#nals are not limited 0#t pro$in&ial tri0#nals are therefore &omes 0a& to di$ision of

po6ers rather than the separation of po6ers. !&hool of tho#ght n#m0er one rational is federalism. Emphasises

the lesser importan&e of separation of po6ers.

• (etterman sa4s other6ise. e is part of s&hool , 6hi&h emphasies the separation of po6ers.

* Avenues for claimin a remed! s.8* and s.*7 Note that a pro0lem &an 0e seen for admin tri0#nals to e$al#ate the la6 on &harter iss#es.

• Interferes 6ith separation of po6ers. No emplo4ment standard. Not ne&essaril4 mem0ers of the 0arA terms of

emplo4ementA la& of independen&e

• *n the other hand (a6s that are #n&onstit are of no for&e or effe&t H period H not as determined 04 the 7#di&iar4;.

• %s per s., H 6hat is a &o#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion

o 'oes sa4 &o#rt? H does not sa4 6hat &ompetent is.

!./, *nl4 in$alidit4 of la6s that are &ontrar4 to the &onstit#tion and the &harter

!., *nl4 the Charter.

Administrative )ri+unals and #emedies

hen 4o# re$ie6 a de&isionA 4o# ann#l it the de&ision has no legal eisten&e after ann#lled 6hen 4o# appeal itA 4o# ann#lthe la6 and then instit#te a ne6 one. Re$ie6 Q don?t loo to see if it is a good or 0ad legislationA 7#st see if 6in 7#risdi&tion.

hat is an %dministrati$e tri0#nalCan ha$e a federal or pro$in&ial tri0#nala$e ad7#di&ators <the4 don?t ha$e same independen&e as s#perior &rt 7#dges= %d7#di&ator in these and Inferior

Co#rts ha$e more intimate rel 6 go$?t(ess g#arantees of independen&e%dmin and inferior ha$e ltd 7#risdi&tion)ore a0o#t a t#pe of eer&ise <e. one that grants li&ense=

hat is an inferior &o#rt'on?t ha$e same g#arantees as s#perior 'on?t ha$e general original 7#risdi&tion <more ltd.=F#n&tion more as a &o#rt than admin tri0#nals

Reasons for ha$ing %dmin Tri0#nals

• )ore effi&ient

• !pe&ialied: legitima&4 is often said to 0e 0ased on their epertise.

• (ess epensi$eA less formal: e&onomies o fs&ale <the4 do the same thing o$er and o$er=

• as f#n&itons of go$?t gre6A the minister &o#ldn?t loo at files all da4A &reated administrati$e 0odies.

Realie that 7#di&ial re$ie6 is e&eptional <general r#le is that disp#tes 6ill 0e resol$ed at the general le$el=. Th#sA the de0atea0o#t the leitimac! of 7#di&ial sho#ld 0e p#t in perspe&ti$e <most disp#tes don?t go to &o#rt=

'o these g#arantees affe&t onl4 pro$ admin tri0#nal #n&lear. ad7#di&ator pro$isions don?t spe&if4 an4 ind of stat#s for

federall4 appointed ones <=

T6o s&hools of tho#ght re: ho6 to interpret ad7#di&at#re pro$isions<1= ogg sa4s fed &reated tri0#nals are not ltdA and th#s the rationale is federalism not separtion of po6ers H relati$e

#nimportan&e of sep of po6ers in &da<,= <,= (ederman taes the opposite stan&e and sa4s that ad7#di&at#re pro$isions affe&ted 0oth federal and pro$in&iall4

appointed tri0#nals.

Po6ers of tri0#nals:

• There ha$e 0een , a$en#e for &laiming remedies from the &harter in front of an administrati$e tri0#nal

)a8e 2>




• This pro0lemde0ate 0egan in the earl4 9-s. the , a$en#es a$aila0le <s., and s./,=

#emedies under ".*7

!.,Q refers onl4 to the Charter. another &onse5#en&e of 0ree&h of &harterA is fo#nd in s.,: 7#dges sho#ld pro$ide a remed4 for the 6rong that has 0een

&ommitted. The pro0lem here in s., are the 6ords &o#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion; note: 6hile it doesn?t sa4 s#perior

&o#rt; it does sa4 &o#rt; 0#t pro0 Q &ompetent 7#risdi&tion is not defined.

6e/er v. ntario 45dro#risdi&tion !CC

Fa&ts Emplo4ee si& and sta4ing homeA h4dro hired people to &he& #p on him to see if he 6as reall4 si& or ifhe 6as reall4 si&. The emplo4ee dis&o$ered 6hat the4 had done and &laimed that his right to 0e free ofsear&h and sei#re <s.2 and s.+=. e 6as 0o#nd 04 &olle&ti$e agreement of that &ompan4A 6here04 an4disp#tes 06 emp?eree had to 0e ad7#di&ated 04 a pri$ate tri0#nal. e0er tried to &laim remed4 #nders., <not tr4ing to de&lare an4 la6 #n&onstit#tional <7#st tr4ing to get a remed4=.

Iss#es Can the administrati$e tri0#nal 5#alif4 as a &o#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion

olding NoA #nless it &an satisf4 the &riteria 0elo6

Ratio !CC said it &an if it 6ields 7#risdi&tion o$er <i= the indi$id#als <ii= the s#07e&t matter <iii= the remediesso#ght.

o Co#rt 0elie$es it is possi0le for adminiatrati$e tri0#nals to f#lfill first t6o 0#t might ha$e pro0lem 6ith [3.

!trong'issent of 3

Not 0& there has 0een a 0ree&h of a &harter right that the &o#rt &an gi$e a remed4 #nder the Charter

Co#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion this is not the &ore 5 for the &o#rt.

In e0er 6e see man4 other 5s:

• Is it the proper f#n&tion of the ar0itrator to a6ard damages

o The stat#te gi$ing po6er to the ad7#di&ator implied that it had po6er to ad7#di&ate emplo4eree relations.

• !CC de&ides 4es; 0& of prin&iple of eha#stion; 0f 4o# go to s#perior &rt 4o# m#st first eha#st all other

a$en#es of appeal. Lo# start &lim0ing admin ladder #ntil 4o# get to s#perior &rt.o This is not an a0sol#te r#le. !ome e&eptions: if the stat#te is 0elie$ed to 0e #n&onstit#tionalA there is no

point to go thro#gh all the lo6er r#ngs. NB to realie that this &ase 6as a &olle&ti$e agreementA and therefore not reall4 a &ontra&t <if 6as a A the Charter 6o#ldn?t

appl4=

!orin v. Canada#risdi&tion !CC

Fa&ts Tri0#nal 6as not 0o#nd to the same r#les regarding e$iden&e o0tained illegall4 a&&ording to stat#te.

Iss#es 'oes the parole 0oard 5#alif4 as a &o#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion

olding N*

Ratio ereA tri0#nal 6as &onsidered not to 0e a &o#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion and &o#ld therefore tae a&&o#ntof info gathered illegall4.

o !#pports idea that tri0#nals are not &o#rts of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion.

Notes There are some lie hogg that sa4 that Morin &onfirms the general r#le that 6as anno#n&ed in e0er <0&no 7#risdi&tion o$er appropriate remed4.=

#emedies Under s.8*

!./,Q refers to entire &onstit#tion Pro)le" of so"eone invoking a charter clai" in front of a tri)unal the ee&#ti$e &o#ld 0e seen as doing the 7o0 of the

7#di&iar4 the4 might ha$e interest in not finding la6 #n&onstit#tional <0#t if notA the plaintiffs &an appeal it to a &o#rt=

o 0#t if the4 do find it #n&onstit#tional: there is no minimal std of independen&e7o0 se&#rit4A et& so there is a definite

pro0lem 6hen mem0ers of admin tri0#nals thin a la6 is #n&onstit#tional.

)a8e 2




hat is the legal &o#nterpart of the separation of po6ers: the4 are of no for&e or effe&t. Th#s on the one hand 6e ha$e pro0lem of separation of po6ers <no independen&e= 0#t on the other hand 6e no6 #n&onstit#tional la6s are of no for&e oreffe&t

&he &rilog5 of Cases that tended to resolve pro/lem of administration.

1= 'o#glas College <199-=Colle&ti$e agreement 06 &ro6n agen&4 and a #nion mandated age of retirement.

Claim that this 6as age dis&rimination <s.1/=. ad to arg#e that the agreement 6as #n&onstit#tional. <diff than e0er as 6asa s./, &laim=

• Eas4 for !CC to sol$e ad7#di&ator 6as gi$en &lear po6er $ia stat#te to de&ide on &harter &ases.

,= C#tt4 Chasee are taling a0o#t the $alidit4 of legislation <The /a)our Relations ct = gi$ing po6er to indi$id#als to negotiate.

• People in the agri&#lt#ral se&tor 6ere not gi$en the right to negotiate &olle&ti$e agreements.

• Tri0#nal 6as gi$en a &lear delegation of po6er $ia stat#te <ar0itrator &o#ld determine all 5#estions of la6=

• Co#rt de&ided that ar0itrator &o#ld de&lare it #n&onstit#tional BJT &o#ld not iss#e a 0inding legal pre&edent; if

4o# tae iss#e to &o#rtA and 4o# are #nhapp4A 4o# &annot relitigate it. <i.e. it is 0inding on the parties 6ho litigateditA if 4o# are litigating the same set of fa&ts=

• !CC is sa4ing here then that it is possi0le for them to go to &o#rt after6ards and arg#e the iss#e there. This

doesn?t reall4 mean an4thingA sin&e 4o# &an al6a4s ha$e an ad7#di&ator?s de&ision re$ie6ed.

• /,<1= sa4s an4 #n&onstit#tional la6 is of no for&e and effe&t <not 7#st 06 the partiesA 0#t to p#0li& at large= 0#there &o#rt is sa4ing onl4 in$alid 06 the t6o parties 6hen de&ided 04 tri0#nal.

3=Tetra#lt <1991=Person 6ho 6anted to appl4 for JIA 0#t she 6as a0o$e the age stip#lated in %&tA she arg#ed a&t 6as #n&onstit#tional

• There 6as a <i= Board of RefereesA net step 6as <ii= #mpireA then <iii= !#perior Co#rt.

• %t stage <i=A Tetra#lt Gadorie sa6 that the %&t 6as #n&onstit#tionalA so sent it dire&tl4 to step <iii=.

Cooper

#risdi&tion !CC 199"

Fa&ts re: age of retirement for &ommer&ial airline pilots. These pilots 6anted to 6or longer than age set o#t in&olle&ti$e agreement

• To go to R tri0#nalA t6o steps. <1= &ommissionA <,= tri0#nal.

• Pro0lem Q &ommission did not ha$e 7#risdi&tion o$er retirement iss#es that are norms for the

ind#str4.

• B& step 1 6as re7e&tedA the4 &o#ld not go to tri0#nal.

• Co#ld ha$e gone dire&tl4 to Co#rt and arg#e that it 6as #n&onstit#tional. Instead arg#ed that the

R &ommission sho#ld reinterpret or re6rite their stat#te that prohi0ited them from hearingthe &ase. <0enefits from going dire&tl4 to tri0#nal Q &heaperA don?t ha$e to pa4 &osts if 4o# loseAet&A so 6anted to go 0f the &ommission rather than the &o#rt=

Iss#es Can an admin tri0#nal appl4 s./,.

olding N*

Ratio This 6as a di$isi$e &ase.

• Part of !CC <d#0O= said s./, applies a&ross the 0oard (amer said the opposite admin tri0#nals

are not s#p &rtsA so the most the4 &an do is interpret their stat#te in a&&ordan&e 6 the &harter.)a7orit4A la forest: tri+unal does not have the authorit! to appl! the charter:

• No po6er to appl4 the la6 <as in the other &ases=• Commission did not ha$e epertise to deal 6 &onstit#tional iss#es

• this de&ision does not disenfran&hise people 0& the4 &an go to &o#rt to find remed4

• the tri0#nal does not fn lie a &o#rt it is not ad$ersarial.

Note )an4 are &riti&al of this de&ision. ogg said it 6as sho&ing that the &ommission did not at least de$elopsome sort of dis&#ssion of the arg#ment. It maes &o#rt &ases easier to handle 6hen the4 ha$e pre$io#sl4 0een arg#eds&reened.

Bova (cotia 6orkers Compensation $oard v. !artin

)a8e 2.




#risdi&tion !CC 8,--3

Fa&ts T6o 6orers s#ffered from &hroni& 0a& pain for 6orrelated in7#ries and 6ere denied permanent&ompensate from the Board. Chroni& 0a& pain 6as not in&l#ded in t6o reg#lations that o#tlined thes&ope of the &ompensation. Chroni& 0a& pain 6as said to 0e largel4 ps4&hoso&ial and 6as impossi0le to pro$e &a#sation 6ith the in7#r4.

Iss#es 'oes the e&l#sion of &hroni& 0a& pain $iolate s.1/<1= of the Charter 'oes an %dmin tri0#nal ha$e the

7#risdi&tion to here a &harter &hallengeolding LesA Les

Ratio • Gonthier: From the prin&iple of &onstit#tional s#prema&4 also flo6sA as a pra&ti&al &orollar4A the

Idea that Canadians sho#ld 0e entitled to assert the rights and freedoms that the Constit#tiong#arantees them in the most a&&essi0le for#m a$aila0leA 6itho#t the need for parallel pro&eedings 0efore the &o#rts

• 'oes not #ndermine the role of &o#rts as s#&h a de&ision 04 an administrati$e tri0#nal is not

0inding on &o#rts or that tri0#nal.

• <39= the rele$ant 5#estion in ea&h &ase is not 6hether the terms of the epress grant of

7#risdi&tion are s#ffi&ientl4 0road to en&ompass the Charter itselfA 0#t rather 6hether the epressgrant of 7#risdi&tion &onfers #pon the tri0#nal the po6er to de&ide 5#estions of la6 arising #nder the &hallenged pro$isionA in 6hi&h &ase the tri0#nal 6ill 0e pres#med to ha$e 7#risdi&tion tode&ide the &onstit#tional $alidit4 of that pro$ision.

• o#t epress grant of 7#risdi&tionA m#st loo at 6hether there is an implied grant of po6er tode&ide 5#estions of la6.

The fa&t that the empo6ering stat#te sa4s the4 ha$e po6er to determine la6 is N*T determinate.

there is a test:1. 'oes tri0#nal ha$e epli&itepress po6er to appl4 the la6,. If 4esA there is a pres#mption that the tri0 has the po6er to appl4 the &harter <i.e. shift of 0#rden

of proof=

This means that there are some tri0#nals that &an appl4 the la6 0#t not the Charter

Notes , step test Epress or implied po6er to appl4 the la6. , Pres#mption to appl4 the &harter.

If appl4 this to the Cooper &ase then 6e see that the &ommission sho#ld ha$e 0een a0le to appl4 the&harter.

Lam/ert on !artin• Gonthier arg#ing that the Charter sho#ld 0e applied a&ross the 0oard.

ThereforeA &an infer that if an admin tri0#nal &an appl4 the &harter then it &an do all these things.

• (am0ert thins reading in and reading down is the &r# of the iss#e. If these t6o are interpretation then this seems

o. B#tD..ma40e sho#ld not 0e a0le to go so far as to determine the la6 to 0e of no for&e and effe&t.

Therefore there are Tri0#nals that

• Can appl4 the la6

• Cannot appl4 the la6

• Can appl4 the la6 and &harter

• Cannot appl4 the &harter <e.g. a federal la0o#r tri0#nal=

>#estions of legitima&4 iss#es is this dis&#ssion of legima&4 pro0lemati&. If an admin tri0#nal is reading in. 'oes it

onl4 eist 6hen &o#rts o$err#le

I: T#e t#%) % C#a!te! Inte!!etat'%n

Feart of #easona+leness : The ethos of &harter interpretation. hat is a free and 'emo&rati& !o&iet4.

)a8e $0




• hat is a free and demo&rati& so&iet4

• hat is 7#stifia0le.

• 'i&son speas of s#&h $al#es. This &ame #p 6ith so&ial 7#sti&e and popps4&holog4 and emotion. EmotionsA

a&&ording to %ntaiA &an 0e in&l#ded 0#t popps4&holog4 sho#ld not 0e in&l#ded.

• Emotions and feelings entering into the dis&#ssion as the Charter is a do&#ment the fo&#ses on the indi$id#al. 'oes

the lang#age of ho6 a 6oman feels enter into the &ases of pornograph4 Is samese marriageA in some 6a4A a0o#t

feelings.• There are dangers of a progressi$e #nderstand of the la6. !ome of these ha$e to do 6ith ps4&hologiing or

moraliing. !o&ial 7#sti&e

• !tarts 6ith so&ial re$ol#tion <ho6 to deal 6ith the poor= in Fren&h Re$ol#tionA elfare stateA l?etat pro$iden&e

<6elfare state en fran&ais=A

• Is this important in a free and demo so&ier4 %ntai lea$es this open.

• %s 6ellA looed at so&ial dignit4

Identit4 politi&s.

• Being pro$ided for is not eno#gh

• People need to 0e re&ognied as f#ll parti&ipants of the state

• Feminist legal theor4

!amese and slipper4 slopes• Pol4gam4 0ro#ght #p the slipper4 slope arg#ment

• 'id not address the 5#estion of instit#tional &ompeten&e. !ho#ld &o#rts 0e the ones to do this.

Iss#es did not address

• #di&ial 'eferen&e

• B#dgetar4 priorities as set 04 the &o#rts

• Corre&ting the past. )#st &o#rts thin thro#gh impa&t on the f#t#re.

• !#spension of de&laration of in$alidit4.

1: T#e A&'"at'%n % t#e C#a!te!: State A"t'%n

!.3, 0o#nd to ParliamentA legislat#re and go$ernment a&tion 0#t not pri$ate a&tors.

s.*2$5 of the Charter states that it applies to:<a= to the Parliament and go$ernment of CanadaD;<0= to the legislat#re and go$ernment of ea&h pro$in&eD;

The Charter protects indi$id#als:

• Citiens

• other persons in Canada

• sometimes &orporationsA depending on the tet of the Charter and 7#rispr#den&e.

Corporations are not directl# prote&ted 04 ss.,<a=A 2 <sort of= or 1/A 0#t the4 &an in$oe these se&tions 6hen someone else?sright is 0eing infringed.

The Charter does not appl! to the private sphereA onl4 to go$ernment.

• o6e$erA the Charter <espe&iall4 e5#alit4 rights= applies to the tet of federal and pro$in&ial h#man rights

legislationA 6hi&h does appl4 to the pri$ate sphereA and thus the Charter can appl! indirectl! to the private

sphere <as in Mc;inne# v. !niversit# of uelph0 or Vriend v. l)era=.

• #man rights &odes ha$e 5#asi&onstit#tional stat#s 0e&a#se the4 impli&ate rights that are &onsidered important to

so&iet4. <This is a ne6 in0et6een &ategor4 that the &o#rts ha$e &reated.=

%ntai: Application: does the &harter pres#ppose a distin&tion 0et6een state and so&it4 and hoe does it do so Isthere a re5#irement that there 0e state a&tion hat is the line 0et6een pri$ate and p#0li& P#0li&all f#ndedinstit#t#tions. Pro$ini&ial h#man rights &ode o6 is des&rimination delat 6ith in the pri$ate se&tor.

)a8e $




Charter does not appl# to 4udicar#

0etail8 6holesale and Department (tore )nion8 Local v. Dolphin Deliver5 Ltd.

#risdi&tion British Col#m0ia 819+" !CC

Fa&ts !triing emplo4ees from P#rolator pi&eted o#tside 'olphin 0e&a#se 'olphin had &ontra&ts 6ith P#rolatorand 6as 6oring for it d#ring the strie. 'olphin got an in7#n&tion to stop the se&ondar4; pi&etingA 0asedon the &ommon la6 tort of ind#&ing 0rea&h of &ontra&t.

Iss#es as the in7#n&tion against se&ondar4 pi&eting &onstit#tionalolding Les.

Ratio • The &o#rt held that pi&eting 6as a form of epressionA 0#t that limits on se&ondar4 pi&eting &o#ld 0e

7#stified.

• o6e$erA this 6as not a Charter &ase.

• )&Int4re held that the Charter was not applica/le to private litigation. %&&ording to )&Int4re A the

7#di&iar4 did not fall 6ithin the meaning of go$ernment; #nder s.3,. )&Int4re held that the Charteronl4 applies to &ommon la6 r#les insofar as ee&#ti$e or administrati$e 0odies a&t on them.

• o6e$erA the Charter does not appl4 to &ommon la6 r#les or 7#di&ial de&isions in pri$ate litigation.

<Ne$erthelessA the 7#di&iar4 o#ght to appl4 and de$elop the prin&iples of the &ommon la6 in a manner&onsistent 6ith the f#ndamental $al#es enshrined in the Constit#tion.;=

Comments The idea that the Charter sho#ld not appl4 to the 7#di&iar4 has 0een &riti&ied as in&oherent.

• T6o later &ases held that the Charter did appl4 to the &o#rtsA 0e&a#se the4 6ere enfor&ing stat#tes.

o Therefore the onl4 e&eption to the Charter?s appli&ation to &o#rts is 6hen the4 are #sing &ommon la6r#les to settle disp#tes 0et6een pri$ate parties.

11-olphin -eliver#

• E&l#sion of 7#di&iar4. ad not done thisA 6o#ld 0e maing appli&a0le to pri$ate a&tor thro#gh the 0a&door

• %pplies to ee& and legislat#res

• 'oes not appl4 to &ommon la6D..0#tDonl4 applies so far as the go$ernment a&ts on the &ommon la6 or ena0les a

go$?t a&tion.

• Claim that Charter does not appl4 to 7#dges has 0een tempered in s#0se5#ent &ases

)here are three important cateories of application-'()E" (' ?(J) AC)%(' J. %'AC)%('- 0AL"E P#E"UMP)%(' )FA) CFA#)E# ('LN APPL%E" )(

'E?A)%JE #%?F)"

CC( page 2+": It is &ommonl4 asseter that the &harter onl4 applies to go$t a&tion. This is tr#eA 0#t the go$t &an also apl4 togo$t ina&tion. The rights and freedoms set o#t in the &harter impose a mi of positi$e and negati$e o0ligations ongo$ernments. The Charter is not &on&erned p#rel4 6ith safeg#arding the negati$e li0ert4 of indi$id#al from the state. To theetent that the &harter imposes positi$e o0ligations on go$tsA it m#st also appl4 to go$t ina&tion. For eampleA the right tominorit4 lang#age ed#&ational fa&ilities in s. ,3A or the right to an interpreter in s. 1A 6o#ld 0e meaningless if the &harter didnot appl4 to go$t fail#re to tae steps in order to implement these rights. For this reason theA the tet of s. 3, does not referto go$t a&tion. Rather it sa4s the Charter %pplies to go$ts in respe&t of all matters 6ithin 8their a#thorit4.?;

%natai &omments: %s petter riht or wronG %s charter reall! a $3th centur! document. (oo at dolphin &ase. Petter

sa4s &harter is 19th

&ent#r4: arg#ment rest on distin&tion 0et6een p#0li& and pri$ate and negati$e $s positi$e rights. To 6hatetent do a&tion and ina&tions 0e&ome red#&i0le to positi$e $s negati$e rights !*A 04 s3, omitting a&tion and ina&tion doesthat go against Petter?s &laim.

(oo at ilson?s dissent Blen&oe. !he re7e&ts the minimal state approa&h. Engagement 6ith Petter arg#ment. islondire&tl4 responding to Petter. !a4ing he is 6rong and that the &harter is not 0#ilt on minimal state notion lie in the J!%.

$. overnmental actors

)a8e $2




• entities &ontrolled 04 go$ernment H orA eer&ising go$ernmental f#n&tions.

!c"inne5 v. )niversit5 of #uelph

#risdi&tion *ntario 8199- !CC

Fa&ts !e$eral *ntario #ni$ersities for&ed their emplo4ees to retire at age "/. Emplo4ees &hallenged this on the 0asis that it 6as age dis&rimination and $iolated e5#alit4 rights. The *ntario Hu"an Rights Code' s r#les onage dis&rimination in emplo4ment onl4 prote&ted people 0et6een the ages of 1+ and "/.

Iss#es 1. Co#ld the Charter appl4 to the a&tions of #ni$ersities,. as the imp#gned pro$ision *ntario Hu"an Rights Code #n&onstit#tional

olding 1. No ,. No.

Ratio 1. The Charter does not appl4 to #ni$ersities. It?s tr#e that most #ni$ersities are &reat#res of stat#teA and the4re&ei$e most of their f#nding from the go$ernment it is also tr#e that the4 perform an important p#0li&f#n&tion.

o o6e$erA the4 ha$e independent go$erning str#&t#resA and their de&isions 6ith regard to hiring and

&ontra&ts are &ompletel4 independent. hat matters is the degree of government control or

institutional agenc5.

,. This pro$ision of the *RC $iolated s.1/A 0#t 6as 7#stified #nder s.1.

ilson?sdissent

ilson re7e&ted the &on&ept of the %meri&an notion of the minimal state on 6hi&h she sa6 (a forest?sde&ision resting. !he said Canada has a different attit#de to go$ernment and its role then does the #nitedstates. !he instead opted for a 0roader $ie6 of go$t that is :sensiti$eD to the 6ide $ariet4 of role roles the

that the go$t has &ome to pla4 in o#r so&iet4 and the need to ens#re that in all these roles it a0ides 04 the&onstit#tional norms set o#t in the &harter.; ilson esta0lishes a 3 tests in order to esta0lish 6hat inds of 0odies sho#ld 0e &onstrained 04 &harter:

1. The &ontrol test: does the ee&A legA or admin 0ran&h of go$t eer&ise &ontrol o$er the entit4 in5#estion

,. The go$t f#n&tion; test: does the entit4 perform a traditional or modern go$t f#n&tion3. The stat#tor4 a#thorit4 and p#0li& interest; test: is the entit4 one that a&ts p#rs#ant to stat#tor4

a#thorit4 spe&ifi&all4 granted to it to ena0le it to f#rther an o07e&ti$e that go$t sees to promote inthe 0roader p#0li& interest

!he arg#ed that #ni$ersities satisfied all 3 tests.

Comments The idea of an important p#0li& f#n&tion; &o#ld pro0a0l4 &hange radi&all4 o$er the 4ears.

Class on !c"inne5 v. ) of #uelph

o P. 2++ The mere fa&t that an entit4 is a &reat#re of stat#te and has 0een gi$en the legal attri0#tes of a nat#ral

person is in no 6a4 s#ffi&ient to mae its a&tions s#07e&t to the Charter.;o Fate of #ni$ersit4 is in hands of go$ernment thisA per (a Forest is not eno#gh.

o ilson ?s dissent o#tlines a three step test at CBp. 291 Jns#re as to ho6 m#&h of this 6as adopted 04 the ma7orit4.

I am thining thatA not m#&h. !he also &omes to a different &on&l#sion than the ma7orit4.

• In the &ase of Douglas?"wantlen +acult5 Association v. Douglas College, 8199- !CC <CBp.29,=A the !CC

disting#ished )&inne4 and fo#nd that the Charter did appl4 to &omm#nit4 &ollegesin large part 0e&a#se &ollegesha$e a m#&h less a#tonomo#s str#&t#re than #ni$ersities.

• In the &ase of Lavigne v. P(E) , 81991 !CC <CBp.29=A the &o#rt applied the 'o#glas College de&ision to a

5#estion s#rro#nding a &olle&ti$e agreement 0et6een a &omm#nit4 &ollege and its emplo4ees? #nion. The &o#rtre7e&ted the arg#ment that the Charter applied onl4 to the &ollege?s reg#lator4 a&ti$ities and not to its &ontra&t#al

a&ti$itesA &laiming that this rested on an o#tdated #nderstanding of go$ernment.• The !CC has ne$er r#led on 6hether the Charter applies to s&hool 0oardsA altho#gh it ass#med this point 6itho#t

dis&#ssing it in 0. v. !. !.0. 0 8199+ 3 !CR 393 <CBp. 293=.

• Pri$ate &orporations are also &reat#res of stat#teA 0#t the4 are not &ontrolled 04 the go$ernment.

• Charter applies to entities eer&ising go$ernmental f#n&tions

#od/out v. Longueuil

#risdi&tion >#e0e& !CC 81992 CBp. 29/

Fa&ts The Cit4 of (ong#e#il re5#ired all ne6 permanent &it4 emplo4ees to reside in the &it4. God0o#t 6as fired

)a8e $$




from her 7o0 6hen she mo$ed to a neigh0o#ring &it4.

Iss#es 1. 'id the &it4?s resol#tion $iolate pri$a&4 rights,. Co#ld the Charter appl4 to the a&tions of a m#ni&ipalit4

olding 1. Les ,. Les.

Ratio 1. 8Not important for this s#mmar4,. %ltho#gh m#ni&ipalities ha$e an independent str#&t#reA <i.e.A not pro$in&iall4 appointed=A (a Forest

fo#nd that municipalities were governmental entities e<ercising governmental functionsA 0ased on the fa&tthat1. the4 6ere p#0li&l4 ele&ted,. the4 ha$e the po6er to ta3. the4 &an mae and enfor&e la6s. the4 deri$e their po6er from pro$in&es

The fo#rth &riterion is importantA 0e&a#se go$ernments sho#ld not 0e allo6ed to delegate the infringement of rights to entities the4 ha$e &reated.)oreo$erA (a Forest fo#nd that all of a m#ni&ipalit4?s po6ers <p#0li& and pri$ate;= are go$ernmental.

• hat a0o#t %0original go$ernments: 0and &o#n&ilsA et&

• hat a0o#t la6 so&ieties

*. overnmental acts

• Entities implementing go$ernment programs• Eldridge v. $ritish Colum/ia A.=#., $33< "C# *7 2C6p.4;$5 <see p."-=: % hospital 6as fo#nd

to 0e 0o#nd 04 the CharterA 0e&a#se it 6as implementing a spe&ifi& go$ernmental poli&4 or program.;<B#t this is &ontro$ersial.=

o (a Forest ?s &omments on CBp.+-1 are a good s#mmar4 of this &hapter.

o (a Forest 0egan 04 repeating the r#le from Slaight Co""unications $nc. v. -avidsonA 819+9

1 !CR 1-3+A that sin&e legislat#res ma4 not ena&t la6s that infringe the CharterA the4 &annota#thorie or empo6er another person or entit4 to do so.; %ltho#gh hospitals are pri$ateentitiesA the4 6or to implement a spe&ifi& go$ernment program or poli&4A; i.e.A the deli$er4of medi&al ser$i&es.

• In the Blencoe &aseA the !CC fo#nd that the B.C. #man Rights Commission 6as 0o#nd 04 the

Charter.

. overnment inaction

• In the :riend C$p. &aseA the %l0erta go$ernment arg#ed that it &o#ldn?t 0e fa#lted for failing to

prote&t ga4s S les0iansA 0e&a#se it hadn?t positivel# interfered 6ith an4one?s rights.o o6e$erA one &an see ho6 this position &o#ld 0e &hallenged on e5#alit4 gro#nds.

o The !CC de&ided that s.3,<1= does not re5#ire a positi$e a&t for the Charter to 0e in$oed. The

terms all matters 6ithin the a#thorit4 of the legislat#re; in&l#des go$ernment ina&tion.o This seems to indi&ate a shift to6ard positi$e rightsdoes it gi$e the go$ernment an o0ligation

to address s4stemi& ine5#alitieso Charter applies to government omissions.

• The &ase of Dunmore v. ntario A.#., *;;$ "CC 37 2C6p.4;<5 6as the !CC?s strongest statement in

fa$o#r of re5#iring go$ernment a&tion.o In this &aseA *ntario la0o#r legislation e&l#ded agri&#lt#ral 6orers from the right to form a

trade #nion and 0argain &olle&ti$el4.o Bastara&he . de&ided this &ase on the 0asis of freedom of asso&iationA and s#ggested that the

go$ernment did ha$e a positi$e o0ligation to fa&ilitate the freedom of asso&iation of $#lnera0legro#ps.

o o6e$erA Bastara&he disting#ished 0et6een legislati$e silen&e; and #nderin&l#si$e

legislation.;

7. Application of the Charter to Courts and Common Law

)a8e $4




Fill v. "cientolo!

#risdi&tion *ntario !CC 8199/

Fa&ts Cro6n attorne4 0rings an a&tion against the Ch#r&h of !&ientolog4 for defamation <a &ommon la6 tort H oral<slander= or 6ritten <li0el= statements &a#sing harm to rep#tation=. Ch#r&h arg#ed free spee&h. The &ommonla6 tort of defamation infringes m4 Charter rights of free spee&h.

Iss#es Is the &ommon la6 of defamation &onsistent s#07e&t &harter s&r#tin4

olding !CC #pheld the &ommon la6 tort of defamation. *f interest to #s is the reasoning:Ratio Cor4 displa4s a modern realisti& sense of the role of the &o#rts in shaping the &ommon la6. Co#rts sho#ld

0e more restrained in reinterpreting the &ommon la6 in light of the Charter than the4 6o#ld 0e in re$ie6inglegislation #nder the Charter. Farrea&hing &hanges to the &ommon la6 sho#ld 0e left to the legislat#re H&o#rts ha$e al6a4s 0een rel#&tant to mae radi&al &hanges to the &ommon la6. The 0alan&ing of interestssho#ld 0e more flei0le in the &ommon la6 than #nder s.1. e sho#ld 0e more rigoro#s in #pholdingrep#tation than #nder the Charter.

Comments 'oes this mae sense !ho#ld the &o#rts appl4 a separate standard in the &ommon la6 rather than inlegislation Jnderl4ing Cor4?s lang#age is a distin&tion 0et6een rights and d#ties

• !o Cor4 disting#ishes 0et6een &onstit#tional rights and &onstit#tional $al#es. For Cor4 A the

distin&tion 0et6een rights and $al#es ha$e impli&ations for ho6 the &o#rt approa&hes the &ommonla6 in light of the Charter.

If 'olphin arose toda4 on the same fa&tsA 6o#ld it 0e de&ided in the same 6a4 e alread4 no6 the ans6er from the Pepsi&ase. <<R'!JA (o&al //+ $. PepsiCola 8,--, !CC==. The fa&ts are $irt#all4 indisting#isha0le from 'olphin: la6f#lstrieA se&ondar4 pi&eting at retail o#tlets that sell Pepsi.

'olphin fo#nd that the &ommon la6 0ars se&ondar4 pi&eting and therefore #pheld an o07e&tion 0arring se&ondar4 pi&eting. B#t in PepsiA the &o#rt felt the need to interpret &ommon la6 in light of Charter $al#es. ereA )&(a&hlin Crefashioned the &ommon la6. !aid that the &ommon la6 needs to 0e interpreted in light of the Charter and thereforese&ondar4 pi&eting is prima fa&ie la6f#l and #nless the se&ondar4 pi&eting is harmf#l or gi$es rise to a tort or a &riminal$iolation. o6e$erA pi&eting homes amo#nted to the tort of intimidation and pri$ate n#isan&e.

o6 do 6e eplain the differen&e 0et6een Pepsi and 'olphin In , &omplementar4 6a4s:'olphin 6as an earl4 &ase H post that &ase there 6as 1" 4ears of &ase la6 so that 6hen the4 arri$ed at Pepsi there 6as arange of 7#rispr#den&e and prin&iple to #se.The other 6a4 to loo at it is the &o#rt mat#ring in its role in interpreting the Charter H it?s more se&#re in &rafting &reati$ede&isions to gi$e effe&t to Charter $al#es.

"tate of Law on Application of the Charter

• Parliamentar4 Pri$iledge is not s#07e&t to the Charter.

Go$ernment a&tion and ina&tion

• If a go$?t &hooses to a&tA then 0etter not $iolate. Not &lear that a go$?t NEE'! to a&t.

Pri$ate a&tors a&ting in a go$?tal 6a4Is there still a manner of sa4ingA 4esA it is go$?t a&tionA 0#t Charter does not appl4

• !imilar in !pending po6er &ases

• Re7e&ted mostl4

• !ee /avigne Case.

K: L'm'tat'%n) %n C#a!te! R'#t)

There are fo#r ma7or inds of limitations on Charter rights:

• limits in terms of ho6 6e define rights: 6hat 6e mean 04 freedom of &ons&ien&eA; et&.

• internal; limits 6ithin the tet of ea&h indi$id#al right:

o e.g. s.2: De&ept in a&&ordan&e 6ith the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e.;

o e.g. s.+: D#nreasona0leD;

o e.g. s.1/<,=: affirmati$e a&tion programs

• s.1: the reasona0le limits; pro$isionA 6here the 0alan&ing is epli&it

)a8e $5




o This &la#se 6as modeled on international h#man rights instr#ments and the E#ropean Con$ention on #man

Rights.o The J! &onstit#tion has no s#&h feat#reA 0#t 7#dges ha$e read in; limits.

o The !o#th %fri&an &onstit#tion has a similar arti&leA and has follo6ed the Canadian 7#rispr#den&e.

• s.33: the o$erride; pro$ision or not6ithstanding &la#se;

o This is no6 seen as politi&all4 #na&&epta0le.

"ection $ :ustified Limit

Be&a#se of s.1A the !CC has #sed a t6ostep frame6or for all Charter anal4sis. <This &an $ar4 depending on 6hether thereare internal limits to the right in 5#estion.=

1. hat is the definition of the right or freedomA and has the go$ernment $iolated it,. Is this $iolation:

o pres&ri0ed 04 la6 <formal re5#irement=

o 7#stified <s#0stanti$e re5#irement=

i5 Prescri+ed +! law1: &o#rts seem to 7#mp o$er this step $er4 5#i&l4.

• The idea here is a&&essi0ilit4 and pre&ision: If a go$ernment is planning to $iolate rightsA it sho#ld sa4 so pre&isel4

eno#gh that &itiens &an plan their 0eha$io#r aro#nd it.

• There &o#ld 0e man4 different definitions of 6hat is pres&ri0ed 04 la6.;

• Js#all4 dis&#ssed #nder minimal impairment step of ,akes test.o In the &herens case <19+/= <CBp.29=A the !CC fo#nd that poli&e dis&retion to order 0reathal4er tests

6itho#t informing a s#spe&t of his right to instr#&t and retain &o#nsel 6as not a limit pres&ri0ed 04 la6.;The poli&e 6ere a&ting p#rs#ant to stat#tor4 a#thorit4A 0#t their dis&retion 6as not &onstrained 04 an4 &learlegal r#le.

o 0. v. Bova (cotia Pharmaceutical (ociet5 dis&#sses the do&trine of $ag#eness fo#nded in the r#le of la6

% la6 6hi&h is too $ag#e <see test for $ag#eness at CBp. 2/1=R v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical

#risdi&tion =<5 part one of s53 prescri)ed )# law

Fa&ts %&&#sed &harged #nder &om0ines in$estigation %&t 6ith &onspiring to lessen &ompetition #nd#l4 in the saleof pres&ription dr#gs. The4 mo$ed to 5#ash indi&tmentA arg#ing that the pro$ision $iolated s. 2 on gro#ndsof $a5#eness.;

Iss#es Is the pro$ision not $alid on the gro#nds that it is to $ag#e and th#s not in a&&ordan&e 6ith the prin&i0les of

f#ndemental 7#sti&e; p#rs#ant to s. 2 Is the ena&tment so $ag#e as not to satisf4 the re5#irement that alimitation on &harter rights 0e pres&ri0ed 04 la6; p#rs#ant to s. 1 of the Charter

olding No. No.

Ratio Gonthier: % la6 m#st not 0e so de$oid of pre&esion in its &ontent that a &on$i&tion 6ill a#tomati&all4 flo6from the de&ision to prose&#te. !#&h is the &r# of the &on&ern for limitation of enfor&ement dis&retion <topof 2/=.; (ang#age is not the ea&t tool &ome ma4 thin it is. It &annot 0e arg#ed that an ena&tment &anand m#st pro$ide eno#gh g#idan&e to predi&t the legal &onse5#en&es of an4 gi$en &o#rse of &ond#&t in aad$an&e. %ll it &an do is en#n&iate some 0o#ndariesA 6hi&h &reate an area of risD 8% $ag#e pro$ision doesnot s#ffi&ientl4 delineate an4 area of risA and &an neither pro$ide fair noti&e to the &itien nor a limitation ofenfor&ement dis&retion.; <page 2//=

%rg#es that need to mo$e 0e4ong noninter$entionist approa&h 6hi&h s#rro#nded de$elopment of the r#le ofla6. )odern 6elfare state attempts to realie so&ial o07e&ti$es 6hi&h sometimes &onfli&t 6ith the indi$id#al.

/the modern "tate, while still actin as an enforcer, assumes more and more of an ar+itration role.12pae <885.

/(ne must +e whear! of the doctrine of vauensess to prevent or impede state action in furtherance of

valid social o+9ectives. A delicante +alance must +e maintained +etween societal interests and

individual rihts.O 2Arument aainst Petter5

Comments Gonthier?s dis&#ssion in NS Phar"aceutical is important 0e&a#se he is sa4ing that &o#rts sho#ld 0e 6ar4 of#sing tools lie $ag#eness to hinder legislators? p#rs#its. @er4 fe6 &ases t#rn on this 0ran&h of s.1 <the pres&ri0ed 04 la6 0ran&h=. To the etent that &o#rts are &on&erned 6ith $ag#enessA it t4pi&all4 arises in the

)a8e $3




se&ond area of s.1 anal4sis. Lo# 6ill t4pi&all4 find it in the minimal impairment part.

ii5 :ustified in a 0ree and..

)ost of the de0ate &entres on the s#0stanti$e aspe&ts of the limitation.o It is good that the Charter is honest a0o#t the fa&t that rights are not a0sol#te.o6e$erA someA s#&h as '6orinA ha$e

arg#ed that rights are not 0eing taen serio#sl4 if the4 &an 0e tr#mped 04 an appeal to the general 6elfare.

The ,akes test addressed this &on&ern 04 sa4ing that the 6ords free and demo&rati& so&iet4; set the standard for 7#stifi&ation.

• 0. v. akes8 $34 $ "C# $; 2C6p.<85 &entred aro#nd a pro$ision in the Narcotics Control ct 6hi&h re$ersed

the 0#rden of proof: if the defendant 6as fo#nd 6ith a small amo#nt of dr#gsA she or he 6o#nd 0e pres#med g#ilt4of dr#g traffi&ing. *aes &hallenged this #nder s.11<d=. The &o#rt agreed that this pro$ision of the Narcotics

Control ct did $iolate s.11<d=A and 6ent on to determine 6hether this $iolation 6as 7#stified #nder s.1.

• 'i&son CC glossed the 6ords free and demo&rati& so&iet4; to in&l#de:

• inherent dignit4 of the h#man person

• so&ial 7#sti&e and e5#alit4

• $ariet4 of 0eliefs

• respe&t for &#lt#ral and gro#p identit4

• respe&t for so&ial and politi&al instit#tions 6hi&h enhan&e parti&ipation

• 'i&son CC said that the on#s of s.1 is on the part4 tr4ing to 7#stif4 the infringement <i.e.A the go$ernment=

• The standard of proof for this sho#ld 0e the 0alan&e of pro0a0ilities.;

(AKE" )E") <!tandard of proof is 0alan&e of pro0a0ilities; not &riminal standard=

'i&son CC set o#t t6o &riteria for 7#stifi&ation:)#st 0e pres&ri0ed 04 la6

1. There sho#ld 0e a s#ffi&ientl4 importantA pressing and s#0stantial; o):ective.

• It ma4 0e #n&lear 6hether the &o#rt sho#ld loo at the o07e&ti$e of the legislation as a 6holeA or of the

spe&ifi& pro$ision <or omission=.

• Co#rts rarel4 #se this stage of the ,akes test to sa4 that legislation &an?t 0e #pheld <altho#gh the4 did

in Vriend A and in Big M -rug Mart =.

•

The o07e&ti$e m#st also 0e an admissi0le oneA and not shifting; <see Big M -rug Mart and Butler =.<!ee p. 9+- and p. 92=

• There is a &ontro$ers4 o$er to 6hat etent 0#dgetar4 &onsiderations &an 0e a $alid o07e&ti$e <see

N(/- v. NP% =,. The "eans m#st 0e reasona0le and demonstra0l4 7#stified; <the proportionalit4; test=:

• General: In epression &asesA tae into &onsideration the $al#e; of the epression as in Butler at

CBp. 92"a= The means m#st 0e rationall! connected; to the o07e&ti$e.

• Co#rts rarel4 #se this test to strie do6n legislationA altho#gh this is 6hat the4 #sed in the ,akes

&ase itself.

• CC( a#thors sa4 this in&l#des some sort of effe&ti$eness threshold H reasona0l4 ad$an&e the

pressing and s#0stantial p#rpose <see CBp. 2"-=

• %s in $rwin To# and Butler The &o#rt made it &lear that in &hoosing its mode of inter$entionA it is

s#ffi&ient that Parl had a reasona0le 0asisD; < Butler 922=• Ca#sal lin not needed as in ;eegstra <see Butler 922=

0= The means m#st impair the right in 5#estion as little as possi0le; <minimum impairment; test=

• This is the most fre5#ent 0asis for striing do6n legislation.

• *f &o#rseA it &an?t 0e interpreted stri&tl4 one &an almost al6a4s imagine some la6 that 6o#ld

infringe rights e$en less. In %dwards BooksA 'i&son CC said that a la6 sho#ld impair rights aslittle as reasona)l# possi0le.;

&= There m#st 0e a 0alan&e 0et6een the negati$e effe&ts and the o07e&ti$es or 0et6een the deleterio#seffe&ts and the sal#tar4 affe&ts as per -agenais.

)a8e $>




• This is a generalA resid#al &onsideration of proportionalit4A and it doesn?t ha$e m#&h effe&t on the

anal4sis.

• ogg thins that it?s red#ndant: if one has ans6ered 4es to 1A ,aA and ,0A of &o#rse one 6ill

ans6er 4es to proportionalit4.

• In -agenais v. CBC <19+= <CBp."21=A the !CC said that one m#st also &onsider the sal#tar4

effe&ts.

• In Bulter there is a loo to the $al#e of epression in this &ase as the &ontet#al approa&h. !ee p. 929.

!ome elements of the ,akes test seem to re5#ire 7#dges to assess the effe&ti$eness of poli&ies.

• 'i&son CC admitted thisA 0#t he tho#ght it 6as 0etter to ha$e a str#&t#re for this e$al#ation rather than ha$ing it

done 04 s#0terf#ge.

• %ltho#gh the *aes test appears to ha$e 0een deri$ed from a J! !#preme Co#rt &ase <see CBp.2"3=A the &o#rts ha$e

a$oided #sing &omparati$e la6 in order to find a standard for a free and demo&rati& so&iet4.;The ,akes test 6as de$eloped in a &riminal &aseA 6here one 6o#ld 6ant to ha$e a stringent test 0#tD

• It has 0een #sed in s#0se5#ent &ases a0o#t $er4 different topi&sA s#&h as freedom of epression < $rwin To#0 R4R

Macdonald =.

• The !CC has approa&hed the ,akes test differentl4 depending on the right 0eing infringedA 0#t it has not gone

as far as the J! in esta0lishing tiers; of s&r#tin4 for &lasses of rights.

• In $rwin To#A the &o#rt said that 7#di&ial deferen&e in s.1 anal4sis 6as appropriate 6here:

o the iss#e in$ol$es &omple so&ials&ien&e e$iden&e <e.g.A ma&roe&onomi&sA or the effe&ts of

ad$ertising=o the go$ernment is seeing to prote&t a $#lnera0le gro#p

o the go$ernment is 0alan&ing the interests of different gro#ps &ompeting for limited reso#r&es

P#rposi$e approa&h in Charter $s. P#sposi$e in Federalism

• Is this the 0est 6a4 to name the interpretation #nder the Charter

• Briefl4 loo at *aes tet

:udicial Deference

• In ,rwin &o5 the &o#rt said greater deferen&e sho#ld 0e gi$en to the legislat#re in &ertain &ir&#mstan&es:

1. here the go$?t has so#ght to 0alan&e &ompeting rights

,. to prote&t a so&iall4 $#lnera0le gro#p3. to 0alan&e interests of $ario#s so&ial gro#ps &ompeting for s&ar&e reso#r&es. to address &onfli&ting so&ial s&ien&e e$iden&e as to the &a#se of a so&ial pro0lem.

• %lso see 0. v. Lucas at CBp. 223 )&(a&hlin in dissent %t 3rd statge the 7#dge needs to tae into a&&o#nt the

0enefits and the detreminets of lmiting the epression in iss#e <as ilson arg#ed in %d"onton 4ournal =. The &ro6nhas alread4 0een re5#ired to esta0lish the pressing and s#0stantial nat#re of the legislati$e o07e&ti$eA the rational&onne&tion 0et6een the o07e&ti$e and the limitation of the right and the minimal impairement or appropriaterestraintA independent of an4 s#07e&ti$e per&eptions of th $al#e of the epression at iss#e. %t this final stage the tasis to determine 6hether the 0enefits of the limitation o#t6eigh its detrimimental effe&ts.

Contextual Approach and ".$

• In &homson Bewspapers Co. v. Canada the &o#rt emphasises that a &ontet#al approa&h is to 0e taen 6hen

e$al#ating s.1 anal4sis 0ased on:o @#lnera0ilit4 of a gro#p the legislat#re sees to prote&t

o That gro#p?s o6n s#07e&ti$e fears and apprehension of harm

o The ina0ilit4 to meas#re s&ientifi&all4 a parti&#lar harm in 5#estion

o Nat#re of the a&ti$it4 that is infringed

• )&(a&hlin . in 0. v. Lucas arg#ed that &ontet <$al#e of epression= sho#ld onl4 pla4 a role in final stage of

proportionalit4 test and not the 6hole test. This is a different $ie6 from (a Forest and Cor4 .

• Iss#es raised 04 a &ontet#al approa&h:

)a8e $




o E$er40od4 is in fa$o#r pa4ing attn to &ir&#mstan&es of the &ase and the %CTJ%( infringement BJT in

hands of some 7#dgesA fo&#s on &ontet leads to lo6ering std of re$ie6 and lessens demand on go$Xt to 7#stif4 infringements on rights. Is an appeal to &ontet also an appeal to gi$e lo6er 6eight to &ertain rightsand demand less of go$Xt 6rt 7#stifi&ation

o Contet#al approa&h s#ggests that a &ertain right has a different $al#e in different &ontets e.g. freedom of

epression in &ontet of politi&al ele&tions $s. freedom of epression in &ontet of littering ordinan&es that

restri&t posteringo Etent to 6hi&h &ontet does or does not 7#stif4 a less deferential approa&h to &o#rtXs appli&ation of s.1.

%nti&ontet#al and antideferen&e

0>0 !acdonald

#risdi&tion (332) G %))L*C%1*?< ?+ ?%K&S ?<LBFa&ts (egislation 0arred to0a&&o ad$ertising not onl4 lifest4le ads 0#t also informational ad$ertising. It also

re5#ired to0a&&o &ompanies to p#t #nattri0#ted health 6arnings on their pa&aging. The legislation 6as&hallenged #nder di$ision of po6ersA #nder &rimA and #nder the Charter.

Iss#es hat is the appropriate appli&ation of the *aes o6 m#&h deferen&e sho#ld &o#rts a&&ord to parliament

olding 'eferen&e m#st not 0e etended to far.

Ratio )a&la&hlin: <page 221=:To &arr4 7#di&ial deferen&e to the point of a&&epting parliaments $ie6 simpl4 on the 0asis that the pro0lem is serio#s and the sol#tion diffi&#ltA 6o#ld 0e to diminish the role the role of the &o#rts

in the &onstit#tional pro&ess and to 6eaen the str#&t#re of rights #pon 6hi&h o#r &onstit#tion and o#r a&tionis fo#nded.;

221: ContetA deferen&e and a flei0le and reasona0le standard of proof are essential aspe&ts of the s. 1anal4sisA 0#t thee &on&eptsD m#st not 0e atten#ated to the point that the4 relie$e the state of the 0#rden the&harter imposes of demonstrating that the limits imposed on o#r &onstit#tional rights and freedoms arereasona0le and 7#stifia0le in a free and demo&rati& so&iet4.;

• Too m#&h &ontet and too m#&h deferen&e 6ill allo6 #s to mo$e a6a4 from indi$id#al rights approa&h. This is a

li0eral t4pe 7#dgment

"ection H 'otwithstandin

s.33the o$erride &la#se&an onl4 0e #sed to o$erride ss., and 21/. It therefore &an?t 0e #sed to o$erride man4 important

rightsA in&l#ding mo0ilit4 rights and lang#age rights.• The &ase of +ord v. 7ue/ec 2A.?.5, $344 * "C# <$* 2C6p.<<85 esta0lished that the &o#rt &annot re$ie6 the s#0stan&e

of legislation prote&ted 04 s.33it &an onl4 re$ie6 the legislation?s form to mae s#re it fits 6ith s.33.

• % legislat#re?s #se of s.33 has a fi$e4ear limit it m#st 0e rene6ed to remain effe&ti$e.

• >#e0e& &reated an omni0#s; o$erride la6 in #ne 19+,A maing all of its la6s operate not6ithstanding ss., and 21/

ho6e$erA this o$erride 6as not rene6ed.

• (orraine einri0 notes that the o$erride pro$ision &an &o#nter &riti&ism of 7#di&ial re$ie6: it gi$es legislat#res the last

6ord.

• ogg and B#shell &ite s.33 as an opport#nit4 for dialog#e.; o6e$erA s.33 has hardl4 e$er 0een #sed.

6udetar! Constraints and the Charter

&ewfo%ndland 'Treas%r( )oard* v. &ewfo%ndland and +a$. Association of P%$lic and PrivateEmplo(ees '&.A.P.E.*

#risdi&tion !CC 8,-- H Binnie .

Fa&ts Pa4 E5#it4 legislation signed in fa$o#r of 6omen 6hi&h is then reneged on 04 P#0li& !e&tor Restraint%&t. Reasons gi$en are that pro$in&e 6as in the middle of e&onomi& &risis. Pro$in&e &#ts to hospital 0edsA la4offsA 7o0sA ed#&ation and so&ial 6elfare. Challenge of %&t #nder s.1/

Iss#es 1. @iolates s.1/ ,. #stified #nder s.1

olding 1. Les ,. Les

Ratio (oo to s. 1 anal4sis

• Co#rts 6ill &ontin#e to loo 6ith s&epti&ism at attempts to 7#stif4 Charter $iolations 04 0#dgetar4

)a8e $.




&onstraints. To do other6ise 6o#ld de$al#e the Charter 0e&a#se there are alwa#s 0#dgetar4&onstraints and there are alwa#s other pressing go$ernment priorities. Ne$erthelessA the &o#rts &annot&lose their e4es to the periodi& o&&#rren&e of finan&ial emergen&ies 6hen meas#res m#st 0e taen to 7#ggle priorities to see a go$ernment thro#gh the &risis.

• The &o#rt too 7#di&ial noti&e of the pro$in&eXs finan&ial &ondition to find that the pro$in&ial

go$ernment fa&ed a se$ere fis&al &risis in the spring of 1991.

• % finan&ial &risis Y&an attain a dimension that ele&ted go$ernments m#st 0e a&&orded signifi&ant s&opeto tae remedial meas#resA e$en if the meas#res taen ha$e an ad$erse effe&t on a Charter right.Y

• The need to address the fis&al &risis 6as a pressing and s#0stantial legislati$e o07e&ti$e in the spring

of 1991. The &risis 6as se$ere. The &ost of p#tting the pa4 e5#it4 into effe&t 6as a ma7or ependit#re.The go$ernmentXs response 6as also proportional to its o07e&ti$e. The detrimental impa&t of a dela4in a&hie$ing pa4 e5#it4 did not o#t6eigh the importan&e of preser$ing the fis&al health of the pro$in&ial go$ernment.

• The !#preme Co#rt of Canada re7e&ted the s#ggestionA made 04 one 7#dge at the Co#rt of %ppealA that

the do&trine of separation of po6ers sho#ld 0e epli&itl4 added to the se&tion 1 anal4sis. The *aestest itself pro$ided the proper frame6or to &onsider 6hat deferen&e to the legislat#re in the fa&e of aCharter infringement the do&trine of separation of po6ers re5#ired in an4 parti&#lar &ase.

o Per R. v. Sharpe 0#dgetar4 &onsiderations do &ome into pla4 6hen dealing 6ith possi0le remedies. Remed4 imposed

04 the &o#rt m#st not effe&t so s#0stantial 8a &hange 8to the nat#re of the parti&#lar legislati$e enterprises.;

L: F!eed%m % Re&''%n ).26a7

The"es3 $dentit# and utono"# > /i)eralis" vs. -e"ocrac# 7$ndividual vs. Collective8 > Purposive vs. Conte2tual > Role of s.5 > $nternal /i"its to s.97a8 > Hu"an -ignit#.

#ichard Moon, /)he "eculariation of #eliious 0reedom1 2C6p.4$<5

• Earl4 estern arg#ments for freedom of religionA from the time of the ReformationA ass#med the eisten&e of religio#s

tr#thA 0#t 6ere opposed to the #se of &oer&ion in religio#s 0elief.

• (aterA &h#r&h and state 6ere separatedA 0#t still in the &ontet of a dominant Christian &#lt#re.

• In more re&ent timesA the gro6th of agnosti&ism as 6ell as religio#s di$ersit4 ha$e led to a se&#lar notion of religio#s

freedom 0ased on indi$id#al a#tonom4 and identit4.o

%gnosti&ism leads one to as 6hether there sho#ld 0e s#&h thing as freedom fro" religion.o 'i$ersit4 raises the 5#estion of ho6 far the ma7orit4 m#st go to a&&ommodate minorities.

o No6 there is often a fo&#s on religio#s i"position rather than religio#s coercion.

• Role of la6 H 6h4 sho#ld the state not spea to the one ma7or religion. Element of &oer&ion. !tate mightA other6ise

#se its po6er to p#sh people to one tr#e path to God. This m#st 0e indi$id#al.

• !hift to freedom of &ons&ien&e. hat is a&&omplished in this shift

• %ll this maes me 6onder: is freedom of religion an o#tdated &on&eptA misapplied in &ontemporar4 estern so&ieties

It seems to me that man4 of these &ases 6o#ld 0e 0etter #nderstood in terms of a&&ommodating &#lt#ral di$ersit4.'i$ersit4 and pl#ralism are the real iss#es. The imposition of religion 6ill ne$er again 0e the p#rpose; 0ehind a pie&eof legislationA the 6a4 it 6as the p#rpose 0ehind the /ord's -a# ct . B#t Christianit4 has left Canada 6ith a set oftraditions that ma4 &ome into &onfli&t 6ith other traditions.

• 'isting#ishes 0n (oean &on&eption <state s#pport is &ompata0le 6ith freedom of religioin= and another <6hi&h is not

&ompata0le=. Religio#s tr#th is

• #stifi&ation of religio#s freedom &an no longer 0e on finding religio#s tr#th. ,dentifies individual identit5 andautonom5. 6hen we protect freedom of religion we protect a persons right to choose.

• (o&ates a transformation H no longer a p#rs#it of religio#s tr#th 0#t rather allo6ing person to &hoose <identit4 and

a#tonom4 6hi&h %ntai has pro0lems 6ithA see 0elo6=.

• There04 he maes differen&iation 0n &omp#lsion and imposition. No6 fo&#s on imposition 6hi&h imposition 6hi&h is

more se&#lar . %ppears no6 that the p#0li& sphere has to 0e emptied of religio#s pra&ti&esA et&. ThereforeA 5#estion israised H 6hat is a se&#lar so&iet4.

• Is se&#larism a n#t#ral gro#nd e sa4s that this is not ne&essaril4 tr#e.

Anta>i

)a8e 40




o Freedom of religion prote&ts indi$id#al a#tonom4 and indi$id#al identit4

o %#tonom4 H &hoi&e to pra&ti&e as 6ish

o Identit4 H self &on&eption

o >#estion of indi$id#alit4 in 0oth &ases

o The 6ord identifi&ation &ollapses these t6o &on&epts. Prote&ting &hoi&es that are &onstit#ti$e of 6ho 4o# are.

o %#tonom4 is 0ased on t6o 6ords that translate to a la6 #nto oneself. This does not totall4 e5#ate to

o Pri$ileging of &hoi&e maes sense in a se&#lar so&iet4D0#t does not mae as m#&h sense in a religio#s so&iet4.o %ntai fo&#ses on &ons&ien&e pre&eeding religion. ThereforeA &ons&ien&e almost seems more important than

religion.o 'o 6e need religion hat is it that disting#ishes this from an4 other deepl4 held $ie6 that 6o#ld fall #nder

&ons&ien&e Co#ld 6e 7#st ha$e &ons&ien&e Goes along 6ith the idea that (i0erals; seem to ha$e t6oallegian&es.

Freedom of &ons&ien&e and religion; is listed as the first f#ndamental freedom in s.,<a=. Religion is also prote&ted indire&tl4else6here in the Charter:

o s.1/: Religion is a prohi0ited gro#nd of dis&rimination.

o s.,2: m#lti&#lt#ralism

o s.,9: Eisting rights of denominational s&hools are prote&ted.

o The fa&t that the s#prema&4 of God; is mentioned in the pream0leU

• In Big M -rug Mart A 'i&son CC arti&#lated the idea that a tr#l4 free so&iet4 is one 6hi&h &an a&&ommodate a 6ide$ariet4 of 0eliefsA di$ersit4 of tastes and p#rs#itsA &#stoms and &odes of &ond#&t.;

• Li+eralism and Democrac!- Freedom of religion has 0oth indi$id#al and &olle&ti$e aspe&ts.

In Big M -rug Mart A 'i&son CC said that freedom of religion in&l#des:

• the right to entertain s#&h 0eliefs as a person &hoosesA

• the right to de&lare religio#s 0eliefs openl4 and 6itho#t fear of hindran&e or reprisalA

• and the right to manifest religio#s 0elief 04 6orship and pra&ti&e or 04 tea&hing and dissemination.;

• 'i&son CC defined freedom; in this &ontet as the a0sen&e of &oer&ion or &onstraintA and the right to manifest

0eliefs and pra&ti&es.;

• This seems to in&l#de 0oth negati$e and positi$e rights: the state ma4 0e re5#ired to #phold freedoms.

• o6e$erA there is also a &on&ern that state a&&ommodation of religion in sit#ations lie this &an lead to state

entanglement 6ith religion.• There is also the possi0ilit4 that Canadian se&#larism is tainted 04 a #deoChristian lega&4.

)wo cases show how Canada seems to have difficult! as a secular societ! dealin with its reliious Christian roots.

0. v. $ig ! Drug !art Ltd.

#risdi&tion %l0erta 819+/ !CC

Fa&ts Big ) 'r#g )art sta4ed open on a !#nda4A and 6as &harged #nder the federal /ord's -a# ct . Big )&hallenged the &onstit#tionalit4 of the /ord's -a# ct .

Iss#es 'id the /ord's -a# ct infringe on the freedom of religion If soA 6as this infringement 7#stified

olding Les it does infringe. This infringement is not 7#stified #nder s.1

Ratio s.*2a5

o 'i&son CC emphasied that 0oth the p#rpose and the effe&ts of the legislation matter. In this &aseA the

p#rpose of the /ord's -a# ct 6as fo#nd to 0e religio#sA i.e.A the o0ser$an&e of the Christian !a00ath.

<There &o#ld 0e no shifting p#rpose;: the /ord's -a# ct ?s original religio#s p#rpose from 19-" 6as notrepla&ed 04 a se&#lar one o$er time.=

o The /ord's -a# ct $iolated freedom of religion 0e&a#se it &oer&ed minorities into o0ser$ing the Christian

sa00ath. !in&e the la6?s p#rpose $iolated freedom of religionA it 6as #nne&essar4 to loo at its effe&ts.o A purposive approach to freedom of conscience and religion is centred around the centralit5 of human

dignit5 and individual conscience. A minimum standard of this would /e that the government cannot

compel individuals to o/serve a specific religious practice.

s.$

o Be&a#se the p#rpose of the legislation &o#ld not 0e 7#stifiedA 'i&son CC did not #ndertae a f#ll s.1

)a8e 4




anal4sis. <This &ase &ame 0efore ,akes.=o The &laim that the /ord's -a# ct 6as se&#lar also &ontradi&ted the federalism arg#ments. If the la6 6as

arg#ed to ha$e a se&#lar p#rposeA it 6o#ld lose its federal &riminal la6 moralit4; 7#stifi&ationA and it6o#ld fall #nder the pro$in&ial head of propert4 and &i$il rights.

Comments o The !CC has said that strong parties sho#ldn?t 0e allo6ed to #se the Charter to roll 0a& prote&ti$e

legislation. hat a0o#t the rights of retail 6orers #nder press#re from their emplo4ers to 6or on

!#nda4s• Emphasis on imposition rather than &omp#lsion. Not &ompelling 4o# to do something lie re&iting the

lord?s pra4er. It isA ratherA an imposition. o6e$erA a&&ording to %ntaiA this is not &lear. Fo&#s here on the6ords C(MPEL and %MP("E.

Edwards $ooks and Art Ltd. v. &he 7ueen

#risdi&tion *ntario 819+" !CC

Fa&ts Ed6ards Boos and three other stores <a fr#it maretA a f#r shopA and a osher gro&er4 store= 6ere &on$i&ted#nder the ,ntario Retail Business Holida#s ct for ha$ing their stores open on !#nda4.

Iss#es 'id the *RB% infringe on freedom of religion If soA is the limit 7#stified

olding No.

Ratio s.*2a5

o 'i&son CC fo#nd that #nlie the federal /ord's -a# ct A the *RB% had a $alid p#rposeA that of

pro$iding #niform holida4s to retail 6orers <6ho happened to 0e predominantl4 6omen=. o6e$erA ithad the effect of $iolating the freedom of religion of !at#rda4 !a00ath o0ser$ers. (oos to e&onomi&disad$antage in e$al of effe&ts.

s.$

o 'i&son CC then did a s.1 anal4sis. e fo#nd that the p#rpose 6as pro$iding a da4 of rest 6as self

eplanator4. %s for the rational &onne&tionA the %&t 6as 7#stified in singling o#t the retail ind#str4<0e&a#se of &ompetiti$e press#re on it=A and in esta0lishing eemptions for some inds of 0#sinesses. Interms of minimal impairmentA 'i&son CC noted the fa&t that e&eptions 6ere made for small 0#sinesses<6ith se$en emplo4ees or less= 6hi&h &losed on !at#rda4 or !#nda4. e fo#nd this prefera0le to se$eralalternati$e arrangements he &o#ld thin of. e #pheld the *RB% 0e&a#se the means 6ere 6elldesignedto meet the o07e&ti$e.

$eet > agreed 6ith 'i&son CC in his res#ltA 0#t arg#ed that the *RB% did not $iolate freedom of

religionA so the s.1 anal4sis 6as #nne&essar4. Competiti$e disad$antage 6as more of a s.1/ a&tion ilson disagreed 6ith 'i&son CC?s #pholding of the *RB%?s eemptions for small 0#sinesses. !he

didn?t lie this pat&h6or approa&h to the pro0lemA prote&ting the religio#s freedom of some 0#t not others.!he 6o#ld ha$e preferred a s&heme gi$ing an4one the right to open on !#nda4 rather than !at#rda4 forreligio#s reasons. Compromised s&heme of 7#sti&e 6ith no prin&iple and therefore &annot pass s.1.

Comments The *ntario legislat#re later amended the la6s to mat&h ilson ?s dissent.

Antaki on $oth of these cases

• Ba&gro#nd of these &ases is that it loos lie imposition.

• o6e$erA in the %dwards )ooks &aseA 6as not &olo#ra0le and therefore &o#rt loos to the effe&ts rather than the

p#rpose as in Big M.

$.0. v. Childrens Aid (ociet5 of !etropolitan &oronto#risdi&tion *ntario 8199/ !CC

Fa&ts The parentsA eho$ah?s itnessesA did not 6ant their ne60orn 0a04 <named !heena= to #ndergo a 0loodtransf#sion. The Children?s %id !o&iet4 o0tained a temporar4 6ardship order so that !heena &o#ld get atransf#sion.

Iss#es 'id the *ntario Child elfare %&t #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on freedom of religion

olding No.

Ratio o (aforest A for the ma7orit4A held that the parents? freedom of religion had 0een $iolatedA 0#t that this

$iolation 6as 7#stified #nder s.1 04 the o07e&ti$e of prote&ting &hildren at ris.

)a8e 42




o (ea$es 0road s&ope for freedom of religion and allo6s se&tion 1 to do the 6or. !hifts the 0#rden

to the state to 7#stif4 the restri&tion. )rend to encourae the shift of the +urden onto the state

reardless of the riht. It is a form of &reating a &#lt#re of 7#stifi&ationo Ia&o0#&&i and )a7or 6rote a &on&#rring opinion in 6hi&h the4 said that the parents? freedom of religion

had not in fa&t 0een $iolated. The4 held that s.,<a= 6as internall4 limitedit did not etend to a parent?sright to impose religio#s pra&ti&es 6hi&h threaten the safet4A health or life of the &hild.; The4 tho#ght it

6as therefore #nne&essar4 to loo at s.1.o !hift of lang#age to 6ell0eing on the se&ond page of 7#dgment. This seems to go to6ards

infringing rights of freedom of religion for slightl4 diff#se topi&s.

Antaki on Childrens Aid (ociet5 case

o e thins the initial threshold of sho6ing a $iolation is PRETTL E%!L; and it is s.1 that for&es 7#stifi&ation 04 the

state.o (a Forest H 0ig de&ision sho#ld therefore go to s.1.

o Ia&o0#&&i H de&ision to stop lifesa$ign treatement for &hild does not fall in s., at all.

• Pits freedom of &ons&ien&e of the &hild to freedom of religion of the parents. Child 6o#ld ne$er get to

gro6 #p to en7o4 an4 &harter right.o >#estion in the 0a&gro#nd: Idea of life as a primar4 $al#e. (oo later to &ases dealing 6ith a0ortionA e#thasiaA

ith rise of se&#lariationA do 6e ha$e a drop in an idea of the good life; 6ith the rise idea of life itself. @al#e politi&s.

• T6o themes in freedom of religion:

1. The nat#re of the right

• The &o#rt taes a 0road and genero#s approa&hA in&l#ding 0eliefA de&laration and pra&ti&e.

• This tends to 0e arti&#lated in indi$id#alisti& termsA 0#t the &olle&ti$e dimension is #nders&ored in 0oth

antidis&rimination and parental &onsent &ases.,. The nat#re of the $iolation

• In Big M -rug Mart A there 6as a p#rpose0ased $iolation: The go$ernment &learl4 intended to interfere

6ith religio#s freedom. The legislation 6as str#& do6n.

• In %dwardsA and Children's id Societ#A there 6ere merel4 effect1)ased $iolations: !e&#lar p#rposes

interfered 6ith religio#s freedom. In these &ases the legislation 6as #pheld.

%NT%I 'I!CJ!!I*N N*TE! on religion:

IN BIG ) F*CJ! I! PJRP*!I@E: IF L*J %@E %N IN@%(I' PJRP*!E TEN IT '*E!N?T )%TTER %B*JT EFFECT. IN E'%R'! C%!EATE EL (%NGJ%GE I! TE (%NGJ%GE *F EFFECT!A PJRP*!E I! * BJT %T %RE IT! EFFECT!

IN E'%R'! TE >JE!TI*N *F B%(%NCING C*)E! JP: TE (%NGJ%GE *F PRINCIP(E I! IN@*E'. ilson sa4s an4 limitation #nder s16o#ld need to 0e prin&ipled. Can?t prote&t one gro#p if 4o#r not 0enefiting anotherA she?s fa#lting the legislation 04 the 6a4 it disting#ishes on the 0asis ofn#m0er of emplo4ees.

P#rpose $s effe&t <this &omes in later &asesA espe&iall4 ir6in to4 and eegstra=1. In Big M -rug Mart A there 6as a p#rposi$e $iolation: The go$ernment &learl4 intended to interfere 6ith religio#s freedom. The legislation 6as

str#& do6n.,. In %dwardsA and Ba)# SheenaA there 6ere merel4 effective $iolations: !e&#lar p#rposes interfered 6ith religio#s freedom. In these &ases the

legislation 6as #pheld.

Imposition $s &omp#lsion:

1. %n imposition is more negati$e <4o# are denied from doing something= Imposition in )oon?s des&ription is that is a se&#lar realit4 that 4o# m#stdeal 6ith the p#0li& sphere 6hi&h happens to 0e permeated 04

,. Christian &#lt#re and lang#age. a &omp#lsion is more positi$e <I am for&ing 4o# to do this=.

Big M

)oon?s distin&tion 0et6een &omp#lsion and imposition is e4 in 0ig ). Point 6here Big ) emphasied &omp#lsion o$er imposition: (ords da4 a&t&ompelled Canadians to o0ser$e the !a0ath. Lo# &annot 6or on !#nda4 0e&a#se it is the da4 of rest.

%dwards

In Ed6ards no iss#e of &olora0ilit4 so the &o#rt t#rns to lang#age of effe&ts. o6 does la6 effe&t emplo4ees. Beet sa4s theres no $iolation of se&tion ,. !*he goes 0a& to lang#age of co"pulsion and sa4s more of s1/ iss#e.

)a8e 4$




M: F!eed%m % +!e))'%n ).26,7

Anta>i&s three questions-

1. 6hat is the 9ustification for freedom of e<pression;

)&(a&hlin ?s dissent in the ;eegstra &ase pro$ides a good s#mmar4 of the three main 7#stifi&ation for freedom ofepression:

1. poli&al pro&essdemo&ra&4

,. sear&h for tr#thmaretpla&e of ideas <(i0eral notion=3. inherent $al#eselfa&t#aliation

2. 6hat is freedom of e<pression;

Jnderl4ing 5#estion of the 7#stifi&ation of freedom of religion. Is it the same mindset that #nderlines religion andepression There are &ases that p#sh the 0o#ndar4 0n epression and &ons&ien&e. Parti&ipation in religion or epression of 0eliefs

• Ba&gro#nd is meaning; and sense;. )eaning 0eing s#07e&ti$e and sense 0eing more o07e&ti$e. ereA 6e &are

a0o#t meaning.

3. 6hat are the limits of freedom of e<pression;

Limits' Con&ei$ed of in terms of nat#re of epression or religion Ie. Cannot in&l#de den4ing lifesa$ing treatment or notin&l#de $iolent a&ts. *r are the4 done thro#gh s.1. '%NGER IN T%ING % N*R)%TI@E P*!ITI*N. (oo at 6hat the

7#dges are taing.

"hift to s.$ @ Li+eralism

• There is something li0eral in this shift. !tate limitations. Comes from the so&ial &ontra&t tradition. (i0eralism goes

to6ards prote&ting indi$id#al freedom.

• )atter of p#0li& 7#stifi&ation H demo&ra&ti& and li0eral.

Co""ercial e2pression falls under 97)8 as per (ord v. *uec)ec

,rwin &o5 Ltd. v. 7ue/ec A#, $343 $ "C# 3*<. 2C6p.3;<5#risdi&tion >#e0e&

Fa&ts The >#e0e& Consu"er Protection ct 0anned ad$ertising aimed at ids #nder age 13. The *ffi&e de la prote&tion d# &onsommate#r said that Ir6in To4 had $iolated these pro$isionsA and Ir6in To4 0ro#ght ana&tion &laiming that the pro$isions 6ere ultra vires the pro$in&e and in&onsistent 6ith the >#e0e& Charter.

*n&e the Charter &ame into for&eA Ir6in To4 6as allo6ed to amend its a&tions to tae the Charter intoa&&o#nt.

Iss#es 'id the imp#gned pro$isions of the CP% #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on freedom of epression

olding No.

Ratio Purpose of ".*2+5- to ens#re that e$er4one &an manifest their tho#ghtsA opinionsA 0eliefsA indeed allepressions of the heart and mindA ho6e$er #npop#larA distastef#l or &ontrar4 to the mainstream. <CBp. 9-+='i&son CCA (amer and ilson set o#t a do&trinal str#&t#re for freedom of epression &ases:1. 'id the a&ti$it4 &o#nt as epression;

o This test is $er4 0road: Dif the a&ti$it4 &on$e4s or attempts to &on$e4 a meaningA it has

epressi$e &ontent and prima fa&ie falls 6ithin the s&ope of the g#arantee.; Cannot e&l#de on

0asis of &ontent 0eing &on$e4edo Epression has 0oth &ontent and formA and the t6o &an 0e inetri&a0l4 &onne&ted.

,a. 'id the go$ernment?s a&tion ha$e the purpose of restri&ting freedom of epression

ere the 7#dges mae a distin&tion 0et6een restri&tions on forms of epression <e.g.A anti pamphleting la6s= and restri&tions on the ph4si&al &onse5#en&es of forms of epresssion <e.g. antilittering la6s 6hi&h affe&t pamphleting=.

,a. 'id the go$ernment?s a&tion ha$e the effect of restri&ting freedom of epressionThe plaintiff m#st state <0#rden= her &laims 6ith regard to one of the three prin&iples #nderl4ingfreedom of epressionA demonstrating that her aim 6as to &on$e4 a meaning refle&ti$e of the prin&iples #nderl4ing freedom of epression.;

• In the &ase 6here there is an effe&t and not a p#rpose of limitation of freedomA then the

0#rden shifts a6a4 from the state. )#st sho6 ho6 $al#a0le 4o#r epression 6as.

)a8e 44




The 7#dges fo#nd that the ad$ertising &o#nted as epressionA and that it 6as restri&ted 04 the CP%. !o the realtest 6as #nder s.1. The 7#dges fo#nd that the legislation had a $alid o07e&ti$eA i.e.A prote&ting &hildren frommanip#lation. %ltho#gh the so&ial s&ien&e e$iden&e of harm 6as #n&ertainA the 7#dges saidA This Co#rt 6illnotA in the name of minimal impairmentA tae a restri&ti$e approa&h to so&ial s&ien&e e$iden&e and re5#irelegislat#res to &hoose the least am0itio#s means to prote&t $#lnera0le gro#ps.;

'issent )&Int4reA Beet .: Freedom of epression is too important to 0e limited e&ept in #rgent times. E$en thensho#ld onl4 0e done 6here &ompelling reasons eist

• ere there is a 0it of re$ersal. If the state 6asn?t tr4ing to limit 4o# epressionA 4o# m#st sho6 ho6

$al#a0le 4o#r epression 6as.

!ets o#t 0asi& do&trinal approa&h:1= as the a&ti$it4 6ithin the sphere of &ond#&t prote&ted 04 freedom of epression

eas4: dire&t epressionhard: epressi$e &ond#&t <m#st 0e an attempt to &on$e4 meaning=looing at &ontent and form here

,= Is the go$ernment restri&ting that freedomeither in p#rpose or effe&tanalogo#s to PS! anal4sisP#rposi$e: might 0e dire&ted either at &ontent or at the form of the spee&hha$e to &onsider &olo#ra0ilit4&an also &onsider nonp#rposi$e effe&tsA 6hi&h are more liel4 to 0e #pheld #nder s.1

Eemption 6o#ld 0e $iolen&e <see CBp. 9 in ;eegstra=3= !.1 %nal4sis: ,akes

&o#rt has defined s. 1 $er4 0roadl4 and addresses limitations #nder s. 1Ir6in retreats from ,akes a 0it in adopting a more contextual approach granting more deferen&e 0ases on thet#pe of freedom 0eing infringed and 0ased on the interest it is designed to prote&tparti&#larl4 6hen the latter is for$#lnera0le gro#ps <p.913= i.e. it&s easier to survive s.$ where the overnment is tr!in to +alance competin

rihtsBinterests as opposed to cases of criminal sort where we 9ust have expresser v. the state.

Fate "peech

0. v. "eegstra

#risdi&tion %l0erta 8199- !CCFa&ts eegstra 6as a high s&hool tea&her 6ho ta#ght his st#dents an anti!emiti&A e6ish&onspira&4theor4

6orld$ie6. e 6as prose&#ted #nder s.319<,= of the Criminal Code.

Iss#es 'id the imp#gned Criminal Code pro$isions #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on freedom of epression

olding No. <3 split=

Ratio Jsing the test set o#t in $rwin To#A 'i&son CC 5#i&l4 fo#nd that s.319<,= of the Criminal Code did $iolatefreedom of epression. e added that the &ontent of a statement &annot depri$e it of the prote&tion a&&orded 04 s.,<0=A no matter ho6 offensi$e it ma4 0e.;s.$

e fo#nd that the Criminal Code pro$isions did ha$e a pressing and s#0stantial; o07e&ti$e:

• prote&ting mem0ers of target gro#ps from harm <mainl4 emotionalps4&hologi&al harm=.

• pre$enting harm to so&iet4 at large red#&ing ra&ialA ethni& and religio#s tension.

In finding thisA 'i&son &onsidered international h#man rights la6s as 6ell as other Charter pro$isions

<nota0l4 ss.1/ and ,2=.• The rational &onne&tion re5#irement 6as some6hat pro0lemati&A 0e&a#se of all the arg#ments against

&riminaliation of hate spee&h <see )&(a#&hlin?s dissent. o6e$erA 'i&son CC fo#nd that thesearg#ments 6ere not strong eno#gh to #ndermine a rational &onne&tion.

• The minimal impairment re5#irement 6as also pro0lemati&A 0e&a#se of the possi0ilit4 of o$er0road

legislation andor a &hilling effe&t.; o6e$erA 'i&son CC held that s.319<,= 6as pre&ise eno#gh. e&onsidered alternati$e poli&4 instr#ments for red#&ing ra&ism and hate spee&hA and he praised theseA 0#theld that there 6as still a limited role for s.319<,=.

)a8e 45




'issent )&(a&hlin dissented: !he disagreed 6ith 'i&son CC on the rational &onne&tion; re5#irementA arg#ingthat &riminaliation ga$e a media platform to hatemongers.!he also disagreed as to minimal impairmentA; &iting the &hilling effe&t; and the possi0ilit4 of alternati$eremedies.)&(a&hlin made an important &omment in her rational &onne&tion; se&tion: Prose&#tions of indi$id#alsfor offensi$e material dire&ted at a parti&#lar gro#p ma4 0olster its mem0ers? 0eliefs that the4 are $al#ed and

respe&ted in their &omm#nit4A and that the $ie6s of a mali&io#s fe6 do not refle&t those of the pop#lation asa 6hole.; I thin this &omm#nitarian 7#stifi&ation for hate spee&h restri&tions has 0een too often o$erlooed.

!ee Chart for Ir6in to4A eegstraA B#tler

%rwin )o! Keestra

%d$ertising aimed at &hildren Tea&her spo#t anti semeti& ideas

%s it expression Epressi$e &ontent Eas4 to passs

Leislation H was the purpose or

effect to restrictG

Eas4 to pass

".$ %&tion in these t6o &ases all happens in s.1

#ichard Moon, /)he Constitutional Protection of 0reedom of Expression1 2*;;;5 2C6p.435

• )oon lists the same three $al#es as )&(a&hlin : demo&ra&4A tr#thA and indi$id#al a#tonom4.

• The first t6o of these ha$e an instr#mental a&&o#nt of freedom of epression the third has an intrinsi& a&&o#nt.• o6e$erA all three rest on a premise that h#man agen&4 flo#rishes in &omm#ni&ati$e intera&tion.; %ll three &an 0e

re6ritten in terms of so&ial and &omm#nit4 lifeA and this trans&ends the instr#mentalintrinsi&; di&hotom4.1. It also trans&ends the false speaer&entredlistener&entred; di&hotom4.

0etail8 6holesale and Department (tore )nion8 Local v. Dolphin Deliver5 Ltd.

#risdi&tion !CC 819+"

Fa&ts Pi&eting at a store

Iss#es Is pi&eting &onsidered epression and therefore prote&ted 04 s.,<0=

olding LesD0#tD..sa$ed 04 s.1 as a reasona0le limit.

Ratio Pi&eters 6o#ld 0e &on$e4ing a message. Freedom 6o#ld not etend to prote&t threats of $iolen&e 0#t does prote&t message 0eing sent 04 pi&eters as press#re. !e&ondar4 pi&eting is a reasona0le limit #nder the &harter. Can 0e reg#lated so that it does not es&alate

0e4ond the a&t#al parties. !ho#ld not 0e a0le to &a#se harm to the pi&eted 0#siness and larger &omm#nit4.o (imitation of la0o#r pi&eting seems odd. Both pi&eting 0& of the nat#re of the goods in the store <eg if the4 &ome

from B#rma= or la0o#r pi&eting 6ill &a#se harm to the 0#siness 4et one 6as 0anned and the other 6o#ld not ha$e 0een

o In BC%! v. B.C. 718 819++ 'i&son C r#led that limits on la0o#r pi&eting 6ere 7#stified o#tside &o#rts so as

to 0alan&e indi$id#al $al#es 6ith p#0li& or so&ial $al#es. e felt there m#st 0e #nimpeded a&&ess to the &o#rts.

"exuall! Explicit Material

Catherine Mac;innon0 ?Not a Moral $ssue@ <19+= <CBp.9"3=

• )a&innon distan&es restri&tions on pornograph4 from ideas of moralit4A; espe&iall4 male&onstr#&ted moralit4.

1. )a&innon sa4s that pornograph4 is reall4 a politi&al iss#eA a0o#t po6er and po6erlessness. Pornograph4 is aform of for&ed se; it instit#tionalies the se#alit4 of male s#prema&4.; )en treat 6omen as 6ho the4 see6omen as 0eing. Pornograph4 &onstr#&ts 6ho that is.;

• )a&innon dra6s on spee&ha&t theor4 to arg#e that it is not ne&essar4 to pro$e that pornograph4 leads to ph4si&al

harm. !he sa4s that pornograph4 h#rts all 6omenA not 7#st as indi$id#alsA and not 7#st in a positi$isti&; sense.

ntaki asks to what e<tent is this an essa5 of false consciousness like a !ar< discussion. &o what e<tent is this a

statement that 6omen who em/race pornograph5 are mistaken as the effects of it are so pervasive.

= )nlike 6est8 this must /e univocal

Ro)in +est0 ?The (e"inist1Conservative nti1Pornograph# llianceA@ <19+2= <CBp.9"=

• est s#mmaries the traditional approa&h to pornograph4 6ith fi$e disting#ishing attri0#tes:

1. It is se#alit appeals to the pr#rient interest.;

)a8e 43




,. It is &ommer&ialied.3. It is a ind of spee&h or epressionA not an o07e&t.. It is offensi$eA of lo6 $al#e.;/. It is $i&timless.;

• The standard li0eral approa&h has seen pornograph4 as a matter of indi$id#al preferen&es.

• The standard &onser$ati$e approa&h has seen pornograph4 as an assa#lt on $irt#e.;

• Neither of these approa&hes too 6omen?s eperien&es into a&&o#nt.• % 6oman&entred; approa&h to pornograph4 sho#ld not onl4 in&l#de stories of $i&timiationA 0#t also stories of

li0eration:1. Pornogaph4 &an 0e a &ele0ration of female se#alit4A li0erated from traditional patriar&hal moralit4. Pornograph4

does not onl4 satiate se#al preferen&es it &an also help transform them. It is possi0le that most pornograph4 is 0adA 0#t some pornograph4 is good.

• The feminist&onser$ati$e allian&e has lined &on&ern for 6omen?s ph4si&al se&#rit4 6ith traditional famil4$al#es;

moralit4. This is not feminism.

0. v. $utler

#risdi&tion )anito0aA !CC 8199, !opina

Fa&ts B#tler ran a hard&ore porn shop. e 6as prose&#ted #nder s.1"3 of the Criminal CodeA for possession ofo0s&ene material for the p#rposes of sale. s.1"3<+= of the Criminal Code defined o0s&enit4 as an4

p#0li&ation a dominant &hara&teristi& of 6hi&h is the #nd#e eploitation of seA or of se and an4 one or moreof the follo6ing s#07e&tsA namel4A &rimeA horrorA &r#elt4 and $iolen&e.;

Iss#es 'id the imp#gned Criminal Code pro$isions #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on freedom of epression

olding No.

Ratio Commer&ial spee&h less important to prote&t than other inds of spee&h.

• Follo6ing the $rwin To# frame6orA !opina ?s first step 6as to interpret the Criminal Code in order to

define o0s&enit4.; e looed at 7#rispr#den&e: &o#rts ha$e #sed $ario#s testsA in&l#ding the&omm#nit4 standards; test <from R. v. Brodie <19",==. e said that in re&ent 4earsA communit!

standards <)est. C6p. 3<;= ha$e t#rned against <1= portra4als of epli&it se 6ith $iolen&e and <,=degrading or deh#maniing; portra4als of 6omen. e #sed the Charter to gi$e o0s&enit4; this narro6definition. e a&no6ledged the artisti& defen&e; <or internal ne&essities;=s#&h portra4als &o#ld 0etolerated if the4 6ere internall4 ne&essar4 to a serio#s 6or of art.

• !opina 5#i&l4 fo#nd that s.1"3 $iolated freedom of epression. %s per ;eegstra0 meaning so#ght to

0e epressed need not 0e redeeming; in the e4es of the &o#rt to merit the prote&tion of ,<0=.".$:

• !opina a&no6ledged that the tests for o0s&enit4 6ere $ag#eA 0#t that the4 6ere still an intelligi0le

standard; <espe&iall4 after his interpretation of them= and the4 therefore 5#alified as a limit pres&ri0ed 04 la6.; <this is reiteration of standard set in $rwin To#=

• !opina fo#nd that the o07e&ti$e of s.1"3 6as a$oiding harmA and that this 6as pressing and

s#0stantial. <The fo&#s on $iolen&e and degradation s#pports this &on&l#sion.= e distan&ed the pro$ision from an4 notion of moral $irt#e. %ltho#gh the se&tion 6as ena&ted in 19/9A !opina sa4sthat there 6as no shifting p#rpose; here <as re7e&ted in Big M -rug Mart =A 0e&a#se the p#rpose of thelegislation 6as indeed to &omm#nit4 standards.

• %t the o#tset of the proportionalit4 testA !opina noted that the ind of epression in 5#estion 6as not

at the &ore; of freedom of epression $al#es. It 6as of 0ase $al#e; <see p. 92"=

• %s for a rational &onne&tionA altho#gh the lin 0et6een o0s&enit4 and harm to 6omen is #n&ertainA

!opina fo#nd that it 6as eno#gh for Parliament to ha$e had a rational 0asis; for 0elie$ing in s#&h alin <he dre6 on $rwin To#=.

• %s for minimal impairmentA !opina reiterated all of the limitations on s.1"3 that he had mentioned at

the 0eginning of the 7#dgment.

Comments Comment on p.9+1 of the &ase0ooit?s not onl4 images of naed 6omen that are degrading anddeh#maniing: mo$iesA T@A fashion magainesA et&. also reinfor&e the s#0ordinate role of 6omen. h4 aren?tthese 0anned too

Antaki

• %ntai ass ho6 important &omm#nit4 standards. hat role does it pla4

)a8e 4>




• In the &o#rt?s fo&#s on effe&tsA is it reall4 taling a0o#t effe&ts or is it maing e$al#ation of 6hat is $al#a0le spee&h

and 6hat is not. Effe&ts is a dis&#ssion of &a#sation 6hereas the fo&#sA in the li0eral traditionA on harm 6o#ld allo6for the prote&tion of freedom of epression no matter 6hat.

• hat does it mean to sa4 that porn is not at the &ore of freedom of epression o6 is this e$al#ation made

• o6 important is the 7#dge?s idea of 6hat is epression is 0ased on &riteria of tr#thA et&D.. o6 &an the4 sa4 that

limitation on porn is o as it is s#&h a 0ase; form of epression. 'oes it &ross the line in sa4ing 6hat is o and

6hat isn?t Espe&iall4 6hen selff#lfillment. here does $al#e of the epression &ome #p CC( speas ofdo#0le&o#nting; as it is looed at on se$eral o&&asions.

• hen looing at effe&tsA there is no s#&h thing as in&idental effe&ts. %ntai speas of displa&ement of the

importan&e of the p#rpose in the interpretation

Little (isters $ook and Art Emporium v. Canada

#risdi&tion British Col#m0iaA !CC 8,---

Fa&ts (ittle !isters 6as a 5#eer 0ooshop. Canada C#stoms reg#larl4 held #p their par&els at the J! 0order. The4&hallenged the &#stoms legislation that proi0ited importing o0s&ene p#0li&ations. <*0s&enit4 here 6ass#07e&t to the definition in s.1"3<+= of the Criminal Code.=

Iss#es 1. 'id the &#stoms legislationA as applied A #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on (ittle !isters? freedom of epression,. 'id the &#stoms legislation per se #n7#stifia0l4 infringe on (ittle !isters? freedom of epression


Ratio 1. C#stoms offi&ials sho6ed a pattern of targeting (ittle !isters? shipments. C#stoms offi&ers 6ere not properl4 trained to identif4 o0s&enit4A nor 6ere there an4 formal g#idelines or pro&ed#res.,. Binnie re7e&ted arg#ments that Butler 6as in&orre&tA or that the de&ision in B#tler did not appl4 to samese eroti&a. @iolen&e and degradation 6ere 7#st as m#&h of an iss#e in samese eroti&aA a&&ording to Binnie. e did not a&&ept that eroti&a pla4ed a spe&ial role in the ga4 and les0ian &omm#nit4A or that the&omm#nit4 standards; test might not 0e ade5#ate for a minorit4 &omm#nit4. e said that the o0s&enit4standards 6ere genderne#tral.Binnie also re7e&ted arg#ments that the &#stoms pro&ed#re 6as too &#m0ersome to 0e &apa0le of 0eingapplied fairl4. e 7#st ordered the &#stoms offi&ials to stop 0eing dis&riminator4.Ia&o0#&&i dissented on this last point. e 6o#ld ha$e str#& do6n the legislationA altho#gh he 6o#ld ha$es#spended the in$alidit4 for 1+ months. <This 6o#ld ha$e gi$en Parliament time to remed4 the sit#ation.=

• R. v. Sharpe, *;;$ $ "C# 78 <CBp9+"= dealt 6ith the iss#e of &hild pornograph4. The !CC #pheld the la6A 0#t

)&(a&hlin CC read in t6o e&eptions:

• 6ritten materials or $is#al representationsA &reated and held 04 the a&&#sed aloneA e&l#si$el4 for personal #se;• $is#al re&ordingsA &reated 04 or depi&ting the a&&#sedA that do not depi&t #nla6f#l se#al a&ti$it4 and held 04

the a&&#sed e&l#si$el4 for pri$ate #se.;

• E&ept for these &asesA the 0an on &hild pornograph4 6as 7#stified #nder s.1 0e&a#se of the ris of harm to

&hildren.

Anta>i (utstandin Questions

• $rwin H here does Parl dra6 the line 0n ages of 2 and 13. !ome6here in there ids 6ill 0e a0le not 0e infl#en&ed.

'ra6 the line to the n#m0er of emplo4ees that &an 6or in a store on !#nda4 <2=. Is this reall4 a good analog4

• #ovt as a mediator and as a singular antagonist as dis&#ssed in $rwin. In s.21 there is the idea of go$?t as

antagonist $s. in other pla&es it is mediator 0n gro#ps. 'oes this 6or

• Is it possi0le that these t6o $isions that ha$e different &on&eptions of the prin&iple of the Charter. Follo6 Petter?s

arg#ment a0o#t li0eralism 6hi&h 6o#ld seem to go along 6ith Go$?t as mediator 6ith a fo&#s on e5#alit4. Is therean ad$antage in &asting go$?t in one or the other. (i0ert4 $s. E5#alit4.

o Co#ld 0e that s.1 impli&itl4 relati$ies rights and maes go$?t a mediator. This 6o#ld lead to6ards e5#alit4

pre$ailing o$er a0sol#te li0ert4.

• armf#l effe&ts of porn and hate spee&h

o hat &on&eption of harm #nderlies the &o#rt?s anal4sis. hat does it mean to sa4 that so&iet4 at large is

0eing harmed Resonates 6ith 6hat Catherine )&innon sa4s.o If hate spee&h or porn affe&t self &on&eption or selfesteemDis this harm

o Ca#sation: Free to do 6hate$er 6e 6hatA #nless it h#rts someone <.!. )ill=. B#t 6here is the &a#sation H

dire&t $s. indire&t.

)a8e 4




• Butler line dra6 0n parti&#lar &on&eption of moralit4 and f#ndamental &on&eption of moralit4. The latter is

&onsidered o as a 0asis for eamination.

• Criminalisation leading to s#ppression &riminalie itA it 6ill go a6a4. This is a dis&#ssion of )&(a#&hlin . in

;eegstra

)hematic Anal!sis of 0reedom of Expression CasesTe2tual References

Purposive approach ne& identif4ing the p#rpose #nderl4ing the Charter right.

Co#nter position s.1 to the spe&ifi& rights or freedoms. %nal4ti& separation &arried o#t in s.1.

• !ee. CBp. 21 Note no. regarding frame6or of the Charter as a 6hole. here do &ompeting interests enter

the anal4sis. !eems that the4 onl4 enter in se&tion 1 anal4sis. o6 rigoro#s is a s.1 anal4sis CBp. +99 In most &ases of freedom of epression the &o#rt 5#i&l4 finds a $iolation of

freedom of epression and then mo$es onto a s.1 anal4sis

• CBp. 919 Note + 'istin&tion 0n core and marginal forms of e<pression. hen the &o#rt de&ides that some

epression is marginal to $al#es #nderl4ing freedom of epressionA the4 appl4 s.1 in a less rigoro#s and moreflei0le 6a4. <Possi0le 6hen the4 sa4 rigoro#s the4 might mean prin&ipled=

• Rigor of s.1 anal4sis CBp. 9/9 Note 1 eegstra &omment ate spee&h is of lo6 $al#e. This arg#ment

seems to rest on its harmf#l &hara&ter. Is the C do#0le &o#nting it Iss#e of do#0le &o#nting. If there issomething 6rong 6ithA egA hate spee&hA ho6 man4 times do 6e loo at the $al#e of the spee&h <harmf#lA lo6$al#eD..=

(i0eralism To 6hat etent it #nderlies the &harter

• CBp. +99 e&ept from *6en Fis Tension 0n li0ert4 and e5#alit4DD0#t ma40e also 0n &ompeting

#nderstandings of freedom or li0ert4.

• CBp. 9-- >#estion 04 CC( hen sho#ld 6e regard the a#dien&e as something that epression impa&tsDD

find it.

• CBp. 93+ Note / &ons#lt itD..&riti5#e that there is a free maret of ideas and the4 sho#ld 0e a0le to mae #p their

o6n mind. P#0li& sphere of ideas is &ontrolled 04 &ertain &on&eptions. e sho#ldn?t allo6 people to mae #p theiro6n mind. Raises the 5#estion of so&ial engineering. here do 4o# dra6 the line

F(W D( :UD?E" )F%'K A'D APP#(ACF )FE"E QUE")%('"- WFA) W(#D" D( )FEN U"EGG FA#M, JALUE, CAU"A)%(',

L%6E#AL%"M, EQUAL%)N.

*JT!T%N'ING >JE!TI*N!:1. IRIN: ERE '*E! P%R(I)INET 'R% TE (INE B %GE! *F 2 %N' 13 %t some point 0et6een these adges ids are going to 0e

a0le to dra6 the line and not 0e infl#en&ed. %nalog4 6ith ho6 man4 emplo4ees &an 0e in a store on !#nda4sA In edwrds the4 dra6 a similar line.)a40e 7#dges sho#ldn?t dra6 this line. #dges sho#ld ha$e deferen&eA this is 6hat the4 sa4 in Ir6in.

(&A&E A( AB&#,B,(& :( (&A&E A( !ED,A&0' ,06,B CA(E E7)AL,& :( L,$E0&.

,. Lo# ha$e idea as the state as the sing#lar antagonist against the indi$id#al or the idea of the go$t as a mediator 0et6een different gro#ps. I! this proper to pit the go$t as either or. In Ir6inA the moment 4o# p#sh to6ards the notion of go$t as mediatorA 4o#?re relati$ising rights and sa4ing thatgo$t has the po6er to &hoose 6hi&h right sho#ld stand. In Ir6in 4o# need to see ho6 $isions are pitted against ea&h other. If &o#rt #ses lang#ageof mediation it &an sa4 its proper for #s to 0e deferential. The state as a sing#lar antagonist means that &o#rt &ant 0e deferential and has to morero0#stl4 defend nonrelati$e rights. Con&eptions of e5#alit4 or li0ert4 as more relati$e are seen

Those 6ho 6ant to p#sh anal4sis as go$t as mediator see e5#alit4 as preeminent &harter $al#eA those 6ho see go$t as antagonist 6ant to see li0ert4as the preemininent &harter $al#e. !ome fa&t#al s&enarios 6ill mae 4o# thing of go$t as antagonist are &ases in$ol$ing &riminal la6:

1. 'oes this distin&tion 6hole

,. Is there a rhetori&al ad$antage in &asting the go$t in either term: ar0itrator or antagonists'o6 need to see the &harter as either or. 'oes &harter ha$e to 0e a #nified 6holeA or &an 6e a&&ept that there are &ompeting traditions 6ithin the &harteritself Can there 0e a third &on&eption that a&&epts 0oth

FA#M J" CAU"A)%(' %' KEE?")#A-

&on&eption of harm $s &on&eption of &a#sation: EEG!TR% C%!:E in the &ase of hate spee&hA indi$id#al is 0eing harmed and so&iet4 at large is 0eingharmedA need <this resonates 6ith )&inons arg#mentA )&innon 6o#ld not go se&tion ,A she 6ants to 0rea do6n distin&tion 0et6een spee&h and a&tionand sa4 6e sho#ld mo$e anal4sis a6a4 from se&tion one andd loo at 6hat &onstit#tes $iolen&e #nder se&tion ,A Canadian la6 is infl#en&ed 04 )&innons

position 0#t it loos at thingA at s1 rather then s,=.

hat does harm; mean: ! )ill: traditional li0eral anal4sis: 6e &an do 6hat 6e 6ant as long as 6e don?t h#rt someone. here do 6e dra6 the line hatis the &o#rt 6illing to prote&t. Idea of &a#sation is e4. hat are the &a#ses of the a&t

)a8e 4.




FA#M J" JALUE %' 6U)LE# 2A'D KEE?")#A5-

6h4 is hate spee&h or pornograph4 pro0lemati&: 0e&a#se it &a#ses harmA 0e&a#se its lo6 moral $al#e. It &a#ses harmf#l effe&ts on one handA on the other handits lo6 $al#e on the moral spe&tr#m. I! the #nderl4ing $al#e selff#lfillmentA does the &o#rt ha$e a higher notion of self. Co#rt in B#tler sa4s: ad$an&ing a

parti&#lar &on&eption of moralit4 is no longer permissi0le: this means the &o#rt ahd to emphasie harm o$er moralA 0#t 4et the &o#rt goes onto sa4 that the&o#rt &an still dra6 the line 0et6een a f#ndamental &on&eption of moralit4 and a f#ndamental &on&eption of moralit4.

L '* E NEE' T* %@E % %R) %N%(L!I! %N' % (* @%(JE %N%L(I! %T TE !%)E TI)E

)a40e this &onf#sion is raised 04 the nat#re of the *as 6hi&h for&es 4o# to atta& the pro0lem form &ompeting anal4sis: is the harm anal4sis reall4 doingthe same 6or as the lo6 $al#e anal4sis: if so then that?s a &ase of do#0le &o#nting.

6here harm and value come in the aks &est'

(AK"-

1. %T I! PJRP*!E *F %NTIP*RN (% *R %NTI%TE !PEEC (%,. I! IT % PRE!!ING %N' !JB!T%NTI%( *BECTI@E3. PR*P*RTI%N(ITL: rtational o07e&ti$eA min impairmentA 0alan&e of effe&ts

here does $al#e and harm fit into this anal4sis:

)e&ahni&al reading: )inimal impairement test is ha$e 4o# designed the la6 the 0est 4o# &o#ld. )inimal impairement is designed 6ith operation of la6. Nonme&ani&al reading: #di&ial deferen&e: ho6 &losel4 6ill 7#dges s&r#tinie parliament or legislat#res &hoi&esA if there is going to 0e dis&o#rse of 7#di&ialdefferen&eA then ma40e the4 6ill a&&ept 0l#nt instr#ment of &rim la6 0e&a#se it is lo6 $al#e. !* ma40e thate4 are impli&itl4 #sing $al#e at this stateA e$entho#gh it doesn?t epli&itl4 &ome #p in th last step. Ba&gro#nd 5#estion: if its ed#&ation then 4o# are not telling spe&ifi& indidi$#als 6hat the4 &an and&annot doA in &rim its more 0l#ntA more a#thoratitai$e.

Blan&e of effe&ts test is asing *A the la6 is 6ell &raftedA 0#t is the impairement 6orth it Go$t did its 0est 0#t it still impaires the rightA 0#t 6ither its no 0ig deal 0e&a#se 6hat it impairs is lo6 $al#eA or it is a 0ig deal and sho#ld 0e str#& do6n 0e&a#se it?s a &ore $al#e. ell ma40e the $al#e 6as alread4di&ided in an earlier stage and 6hat 4o#r de&iding is ho6 do 6e s#ppress hate spee&h and 7#stif4 this s#ppression.

e4 5#estion is: is a notion of $al#e there in the 0a&gro#nd of all the &ases: 4o#r &on&eption of 6hat is politi&s is going do di&tate 4o#r approa&h. FroeampleA if 4o# tae )innon?s logi&A then BL distin5#ishing moralit4 and polti&s 4o# are sa4ing there are no forms of pornograph4 that sho#ld 0e prote&tedA

0#t then 4o# 0ring in 6est 4o# are sa4ing that?s to strong. !* a &riminal response 6o#ld 0e too strong.

* '*E! %R) %N' @%(JE INTER%CTA '*E! *NE TRJ)P TE *TER

C(')ER)UAL APP#(ACF L(?%C-

!eems lie the &o#rts impli&it #nderstanding of moralit4 is this :Tr#th or selff#llmentQ higher $al#e

E&onomi& gainQ lo6er $al#e

N: L'e8 L',e!t(8 and Se"*!'t( % t#e Pe!)%n ).9• Note dis&#ssion of $ag#eness in s.1 is similar to dis&#ssion of $ag#eness in s.2 If la6 is too $ag#e $iolates this

se&tion. <see CBp. 2/,=

• s.2 appears at the o#tset of the se&tion on legal rights;: ss.21 deal 6ith &riminal pro&ed#re iss#es.

• It is interesting to &ompare to the J! d#e pro&ess &la#seA; 6hi&h prote&ts lifeA li0ert4 and propert4.;

• There is also the idea of nat#ral 7#sti&eA; 6hi&h sa4s that if someone is affe&ted 04 state a&tion in a distin&t and

parti&#lar 6a4A the4 sho#ld 0e entitled to a hearing. The4 sho#ld also 0e entitled to ha$e the &ase de&ided 04independentA impartial offi&ials.

• In CanadaA li0ert4 generall4 means freedom from ph4si&al restraint or from 0eing &ompelled to s#0mit to fingerprintingA

to prod#&e do&#mentsA et&.

• The !CC re7e&ted the idea that li0ert4; in&l#des e&onomi& li0ert4 or freedom of &ontra&t.

• Politi&al li0erties are prote&ted else6here in the Charter the4 are not &o$ered 04 s.2.

• The right to propert4 6as deli0eratel4 omitted from s.2 <and from the Charter as a 6hole=A altho#gh propert4 is still

prote&ted <$isZ$is the federal go$ernment= 04 the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Procedural vs. "u+stantive due process and the rule of law

• !#0stanti$e $s. Pro&ed#ral d#epro&ess 'egree to 6hi&h &on&eption of the r#le of la6 goes along 6ith a parti&#lar

&on&eption of 6hat is good life.

• )o$e to6ards s#0stanti$e d#epro&ess is a mo$e to6ards a more ro0#st &on&eption of the r#le of la6.

)a8e 50




• Pro&ed#ral refers to ideas of nat#ral 7#sti&e and ho6; the state &an depri$e 4o# of 4o#r f#ndamental 7#sti&e.

<%0#se of dis&retionA ar0itrarinessA or offi&ial has no po6er=

• !#0stanti$e d#epro&ess refers to 6hether; the state &an do this. <li0ert4 interestA no matter ho6 it is applied

still 6on?t 6or.Ro0#st &on&eption of R#le of (a6

• Content of the r#le of la6 is not 7#st that offi&ials &an onl4 a&t 04 la6 0#t there are things that the4 &annot do.

Refers more to the s#0stanti$e.• )&Int4re?s 'issent in Morgentaler 6o#ld 0e more pro&ed#ral <it is not in the Charter=

• *ther 7#dges ha$e a more thi& or ro0#st &on&eption of the r#le of la6 <more s#0stanti$e &on&ept of d#e pro&ess=

sa4 it &annot 0e 0e&a#se of li0ert4 interest.

• The idea of the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e; e$ol$ed from nat#ral 7#sti&eA; 6hi&h is p#rel4 pro&ed#ral. It 6as

#n&lear 6hether f#ndamental 7#sti&e; 6as p#rel4 pro&ed#ralA or s#0stanti$e tooA #ntil the Motor Vehicles Reference: 'e0ates translate into de0ates a0o#t 7#di&ial a&ti$ism. Thi&er the &on&eption of r#le of la6A

Relationship of s.2 and s.+1.

• %re spe&ifi& instantiations of the idea of f#ndamental 7#sti&e.

0eference re (ection F@2 of the !otor :ehicle Act $C

#risdi&tion British Col#m0ia !CC 819+/

Fa&ts The BC )otor @ehi&les %&t imposed a fine and imprisonment on an4one 6ho dro$e 6hile their li&en&e 6ass#spendedA regardless of 6hether the4 ne6 a0o#t the s#spension. No defen&es 6ere allo6ed.

Iss#es 'id the imp#gned pro$ision depri$e persons of their li0ert4 in a 6a4 not in a&&ordan&e 6ith the prin&iples off#ndamental 7#sti&e

olding Les.

Ratio (amer held that lifeA li0ert4 and se&#rit4 of the person; 6as a threshold in5#ir4. Prin&iples off#ndamental 7#sti&e; 6as meant to 0e a s#0stanti$e test. <s.2 6as &ertainl4 not 7#st meant to 0e an #m0rella tointrod#&e ss.+1. ss.+1 6ere spe&ifi& ill#strations of the general prin&iple in s.2.= o6e$erA (amer shieda6a4 from defining the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&eA e&ept to sa4 that the4 are to 0e fo#nd in the 0asi&tenets of the legal s4stem.;e held that prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e; had t6o prongs:1. Is the la6 s#0stanti$el4 fair <!ho#ld 6e ha$e a la6 at all=and

1. Is the pro&ed#re fair- ss. +1 are spe&ifi& iterations of s.2 ill#strate the parameters of s.2.

- f#ndamental 7#sti&e is not in the realm of general p#0li& poli&4 0#t in the inherent domain of the 7#di&iar4 as g#ardian of the 7#sti&e s4stem

- ords f#ndamental 7#sti&e &annot 0e repla&ed 6ith 6ords nat#ral 7#sti&e as this 6o#ld 0e toorestri&ti$e.

Comments ogg reall4 doesn?t lie (amer?s idea that s.2 is a ind of general resid#al &la#se for all of the legal rights;se&tion.ogg points o#t that the distin&tion 0et6een pro&ed#re and s#0stan&e is indeterminateA and this de&ision atleast spares #s from ha$ing to read a 6hole 0#n&h of &ases on that iss#e.

• The #osselin &ase dealt 6ith a 6oman 6ho re&ei$ed a $er4 small so&ial assistan&e &he5#e. %r0o#r A dissentingA fo#nd

that &itiens had a positi$e right to 0asi& 6elfare entitlements.

• %&&ording to %r0o#r dissentingA s.2 sho#ld 0e interpreted to in&l#de t6o sets of rights:

• lifeA li0ert4 and se&#rit4 of the person and the right not to 0e depri$ed thereof e&ept in a&&ordan&e 6ith

the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e;

• lifeA li0ert4 and se&#rit4 of the person; per seA 6itho#t refere&e to f#ndamental 7#sti&e.

• This reading is s#pported 04 the Fren&h $ersion of the tetA 6hi&h #ses a semi&olon rather than the 6ord and.;

• o6e$erA the mainstream interpretation of s.2 is as one single set of rightsA 6ith a 5#alifi&ation.

0. v. !orgentaler

#risdi&tion *ntario !CC 819++

)a8e 5




Fa&ts )orgentaler 6as prose&#ted #nder s.,/1 of the Criminal CodeA 6hi&h prohi0ited an4one from performinga0ortions. <s.,/1<= &reated an e&eption for a0ortions performed in a&&redited hospitals and appro$ed 04 atherape#ti& a0ortion &ommittee; of three do&tors other than the do&tor 6ho 6o#ld perform the a0ortion.=

Iss#es ere the imp#gned Criminal Code pro$isions &onstit#tional

olding No.

Ratio 'i&son CCA for the ma7orit4A too the least &ontro$ersial ro#teA o$ert#rning the la6 for pro&ed#ral reasons.

- e fo#nd that the therape#ti& a0ortion &ommittee re5#irement inpinged on se&#rit4 of the person 04interfering 6ith a 6oman?s 0odil4 integrit4 in 0oth a ph4si&al and emotional sense.; For&ing a 6omanto &arr4 a foet#s to term #nless she meets &ertain &riteria #nrelated to her o6n priorities and aspirationsAis a profo#nd interferen&e 6ith a 6oman?s 0od4 and th#s a $iolation of se&#rit4 of the person.

- 'i&son CC held that this inpingement 6as not in a&&ordan&e 6ith the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&eA 0e&a#se the Criminal Code pro$isions made legal a0ortions ina&&essi0le to man4 6omen in pra&ti&e. If the Criminal Code pro$ides a defen&e to a &riminal &hargeA it m#st 0e a real one. The pro$isions 6ere manifestl4 #nfair.;

Beet 6rote a &on&#rring 7#dgement in 6hi&h he held that the la6 did &onform to the prin&iples off#ndamental 7#sti&eA 0#t 6as not 7#stified #nder s.1.- e did not tal a0o#t a#tonom4 and de&isionmaingA onl4 the ris of some 6omen 0eing denied a&&ess

to a0ortion 0e&a#se of &ir&#mstan&es.

ilson <the first 6oman appointed to the !CCA and the onl4 one at this point= 6rote a &on&#rring 7#dgementA fo&#sed on s#0stanti$e iss#es. !he held that s.,/1 $iolated 6omen?s li0ert4 as 6ell as theirse&#rit4 of the person. er 7#dgment had a strong feminist toneA in&l#ding an assertion that it 6as pro0a0l4impossi0le for a man to respond to s#&h a dilemma.- Fo&#s on the pro&ed#ral iss#es is a moot point if the right to a&&ess a0ortion is not looed at head on.- !he fo&#ses on (i0ert4 more than on se&#rit4 of person. Right to &hoose.- ilson ?s 7#dgment &ontained 0oth li0eral and &omm#nitarian elements. *n one handA she 6rote a0o#t

an in$isi0le fen&e o$er 6hi&h the state 6ill not 0e allo6ed to trespass.; *n the otherA she 6rote a0o#tthe 6a4 the 6oman thins a0o#t herself and her relationship to others and to so&iet4 at large.;

%ll of the ma7orit4 7#dges agreed that the la6 &o#ld not 0e sa$ed 04 s.1. ilson 6rote that the state?s interestin prote&ting the fet#s 6o#ld gro6 stronger as the pregnan&4 progressed.

)a&Int4re and (a Forest dissented.

• No indi&ation of general p#0li& a&&eptan&e histori&all4.• Charter does not epli&itl4 address the point of 6hether s.2 in&l#des a right of a 6oman to ha$e an

a0ortion.

• Rights of #n0orn and san&tit4 of life. There are &onfli&ting rights.

Comments The arg#ments a0o#t dela4s seem to 0eg the 5#estion. If it 6as onl4 a pro&ess iss#eA 6h4 strie do6n thela6 <&f. (ittle !isters= This is 6h4 ilson 0elie$ed it ne&essar4 to &onfront the pro0lem head on.!ome arg#e that a0ortion sho#ld ha$e 0een dealt 6ith #nder e5#alit4 rights.ogg sa4s that the s.1 anal4sis 6as s#perfl#o#s to this &ase it 7#st repeated arg#ments that had 0een made inthe s.2 anal4sis.

Wilson&s conception of the Charter and the individual in !orgentaler <CBp. 1-+/=- The &harter is predi&ated #pon a parti&#lar &on&eption of the pla&e of the indi$id#al in so&iet4. Not totall4

independent and not totall4 a &og in the 6heel. Bit of 0oth. The &harter ere&ts aro#nd ea&h indi$id#al a fen&e o$er6hi&h the state 6ill not 0e allo6ed to trespass.

- Charter and s.2 relate to #man 'ignit4

0odrigue v. $ritish Colum/ia A.#.

#risdi&tion British Col#m0ia 81993 !CC

Fa&ts Rodrig#e s#ffered from (o# Gehrig?s disease. !he so#ght a de&laration that she 6as entitled to help&ommitting s#i&ide 6hen her &ondition 0e&ame #n0eara0le and if she 6as #na0le to &ommit s#i&ide on hero6n. s.,1<0= made it a &riminal offen&e to help someone &ommit s#i&ide.

Iss#es 'id s.,1<0= of the Criminal Code infringe s.2

)a8e 52




olding No.

Ratio !opina held that li0ert4 and se&#rit4 of the person had to 0e 0alan&ed against other prin&iples. These hadto 0e legal prin&iplesA not 7#st a $ag#e moral ideals. <This 6as part of the definition of f#ndamental 7#sti&e.;=

• In this &aseA he fo#nd that the p#rpose of s.,1<0= 6as preser$ing the san&tit4 of life and prote&ting the

$#lnera0le6hi&h 6ere 0oth legal principles.

• e a&no6ledged that s.,1<0= impinged on Rodrig#e?s se&#rit4 of the person: This &ase &onfirmedthat 5#estions of 0odil4 integrit4 6ere go$erned 04 se&#rit4 of the person.;

• o6e$erA !opina fo#nd that the la6 6as not &ontrar4 to the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e. e

held that there 6as a meaningf#l distin&tion 0et6een assisted s#i&ide and o$erdoses of painillers in theg#ise of palliati$e &are; or nat#ral death thro#gh ref#sal of treatment.

• !e&#rit4 of the person is intrinsi&all4 tied to preser$ing the life itself.

)&(a&hlin A dissentingA arg#ed parallel to the Morgentaler &aseA that s.,1<0= depri$ed Rodrig#e ofse&#rit4 of the personA 0e&a#se it denied her the right to mae de&isions s#rro#nding her o6n 0od4.- !he held that this 6as not in a&&ordan&e 6ith the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e. % la6 that is

ar0itrar4; or #nfair; &annot 0e in a&&ordan&e 6ith the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e. In this &aseA ph4si&all4 disa0led people 6ere denied a &hoi&e that 6as a$aila0le to others. <s#i&ide is not illegal=

- )&(a&hlin held that &o#nter$ailing prin&iples 6ere not rele$ant to a s.2 anal4sisthe4 sho#ld 0e

sa$ed for s.1. In s.2A the 0#rden of proof 6as still on the &laimant.- B#t 6hat $al#e is there in life 6itho#t the &hoi&e to do 6hat one 6ants 6ith one?s lifeA one might

&o#nterA one?s life in&l#des one?s death.; (i0eralA progressi$eA antireligio#s.- eart of her 7#dgment is the principle that s#i&ide itself is not illegal 0#t assisted s#i&ide is. This is

&o#nterint#iti$e.

(amer CC also dissentedA arg#ing that s.,1<0= dis&riminated on the 0asis of ph4si&al disa0ilit4he 6o#ldha$e o$ert#rned it for $iolating e5#alit4 rights. e 6o#ld ha$e s#spended the in$alidit4 for one 4earAgranting Rodrig#e a constitutional e<emption in the meantime.

Comments - The &o#rt hasn?t resol$ed the iss#e of 6hether to 0alan&e &o#nter$ailing prin&iples #nder s.2 or onl4#nder s.1.

- ogg #ses this as an eample of the 0roader; approa&h to the prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&eA;&onsidering so&ietal $al#esA not 7#st the prin&iples of the legal s4stem.

Pat note((I think Sopinka’s approach is similar to the distinction between purposes and effects we saw in 2b cases.On an abstract level first you cast your net wide and give a generous reading (Big !. In this firstinterpritation" yes" rodrige# right to choose whether or not to end her l ife was protected under security ofthe person. But he says the law is not contrary to other princibles of fundemental $ustice so it can be saved.

%he only difference here is that the narrowing is done by fundemental $ustice test instead of s& test.'owever I fail to see how Sopinka’s logic is diff from rational connection.!!

%ntait ntaki)11--: )&la&hlin 6rites: 0#t 6hat $al#e is there in life 6itho#t the &hoi&e to do 6hat one 6ants 6ith one life.; This is

profo#ndl4 li0eral: striing pri$ilidging of &hoi&e. hat is the &r# of )&la&hlin?s dissent Is it an arg#ment 0ased on prin&iple o#ld that 0e a proper 6a4 to &hara&terie it. !#i&ide is not &riminal offense 0#t assisted s#i&ide is.

There is a dis&#ssion a0o#t 7#di&ial deferen&e: has the &o#rt in pre$io#s de&ision demand that parliament 0e prin&ipled inthe manner it dra6 line 6ith regards to disad$antaged gro#ps Ir6in to4A minorit4 religions in !#nda4 &losingD ere)&la&hlin is ma40e taing a different toneA she is not deferring to the go$ernments de&ision. (oo at dissent in Ir6in to4<&o#ld de&ent 0e re0#tted 04 &ontet#al approa&h=A )a&hlin is sa4ingA 4es I agree 6ith 4o# a0o#t the $al#e of life 0#t itsnot a0o#t m4 $ie6A its a0o#t the pro&ed#ral safeg#ards. )%C(IN I! %(( B*JT PR*CE'JRE. !a4s need to 6at&ho#t for too m#&h &ontet or deferen&e.

e4 page: 1-92: !opina sa4s prin&i0les of f#ndemental are no6a0le 0e&a#se 6e ha$e general a&&eptan&e amongreasona0le persons.

*n page 1-99: ma&la&hlin arg#es f#ndemental 7#sti&e re5#ire that ea&h personA &onsiderd indi$id#all4A 0e treated fairl4 04 la6.; )a&hlins sa4s s2 onl4 to do 6ith indi$id#alA not &omm#nit4 interestsA &omm#nit4 interest onl4 &omes in at s1.

)a&hlin 6ill sa4 if it $iolates se&tin 2A then it &ant 0e sa$ed 04 se&tion 1. !ome people 6ill sa4 that there is alread4 0#iltinto se&tion 2 a standard to 6hi&h 4o# &an sa$e or stri&e do6n the legislation.

Antaki

)a8e 5$




- !opina sa4s prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e are no6a0le 0e&a#se 6e ha$e general a&&eptan&e among reasona0le persons. <!ee CBp. 1-92=

• arens 0a&A some6hatA to Beet?s ma7orit4 de&ision in Morgentaler 6here there might 0e a state interest

in life- In )&(a#&hlin?s 'issent she sa4s there is no a0sol#te r#le that &a#sing the death of another is an a0sol#te la6. !he

has a different &on&eption of the &entralit4 of the right to life.

• (ie ilson?s dissent in Morgentaler A there is a fo&#s on rights of li0ert4

(uresh v. Canada !inister of Citienship and ,mmigration

#risdi&tion 8,--, !CC H The Co#rt

Fa&ts 'eportation to tort#re

Iss#es Is deportation to tort#re &ontrar4 to s.2

olding LesA 0#t the legislation is still &onstit#tional. )inister m#st eer&ise dis&retion in a &onstit#tional manner.

Ratio - Prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e are the 0asi& tenets of o#r legal s4stem.- Re5#ires a 0alan&e of Canada?s interest in &om0ating terrorism and the &on$ention ref#gee?s interest in

not 0eing deported to tort#re. perform proportionalit4 test IN!I'E s.2 asing if proposed response is

reasona0le in relation to the threat.- @iolations of s.2 are &ond#&t that 6o#ld sho& the Canadian &ons&ien&e.;- Tort#re is seen as f#ndamentall4 #n7#st.

- 8/3 From Burns &o#rt held that the ne#s 0n the etradition order and the mere possi0ilit4 of &apital p#nishment 6as too remote to engage s.1, 0#t that s.2 dealt 6ith the postential &onse5#en&es of the a&tof etradition.

- )#st 0e a s#ffi&ient &onne&tion 0n Canada?s a&tion and the depri$ation of lifeA li0ert4A or se&#rit4.- @iolation of s.2 6ill onl4 0e 7#stified #nder s.1 in e&eptional &onditionsA s#&h as nat#ral disastersA the

o#t0rea of 6arA epidemi&s and the lie.

• The !CC here seemed to minimie the role of s.1 in s.2 &asesit said that s.1 sho#ld onl4 0e #sed in e&eptional

&ir&#mstan&es <lie 6ar=.

• Generall4A the &o#rt has held that s.1 &an not 0e #sed to 7#stif4 a 0rea&h of s.2. If a la6 is not in a&&ordan&e 6ith the

prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&eA it &annot 0e 7#stified. The !CC has #sed s.1 anal4sis in s.2 &asesA 0#t a&&ording tooggA it has ne$er 0een #sed 04 a ma7orit4 to 7#stif4 a 0rea&h of s.2.=

Sercurit# of person is )oth ps#chological and ph#sical integrit#.

Bew $runswick !inister of 4ealth and Communit5 (ervices v. #. >.#risdi&tion 81999 !CC H (amer CC.

Fa&ts Three ids taen a6a4 from the appellant and no legal &o#nsel 6as pro$ided for her. (egal does not &o$erthe representation of indigent parents in &#stod4 hearings.

Iss#es 'oes a parent ha$e a right to state f#nded &o#nsel 6hen &hild is 0eing taen a6a4

olding Les

Ratio !e&#rit4 of the person in&l#des 0oth ph4si&al and ps4&hologi&al integrit4. Is this threat to ps4&hologi&alharm s#&h that there is a $iolation of se&#rit4 of the person.

• *rdinar4 stress and aniet4 is not eno#gh <lie )&Int4re in Morgentaler =. ereA m#st ha$e a serio#s

and profo#nd effe&t on a person?s ps4&hologi&al integrit4. %ssessed o07e&ti$el4 6ith respe&t to the person of reasona0le sensi0ilit4.

• Not eno#gh to 7#st 6a4 or assess damage to a person?s ps4&he.

• In this &aseA remo$al of a &hild is a gross intr#sion into a pri$ate or intimate sphere. There is a stigma

that &omes 6ith 0eing de&lared an #nfit parent 6hi&h is a serio#s &onse5#en&e.• 'oes not etent to 6here &hild is sent to 7ail or &ons&ripted for the arm4. ereA the state is not maing

a prono#n&ement as to the parent?s fitness nor #s#rping the parental role.

• !.2 not limited to &riminal matters.

• E$en if $iolates personal se&#rit4A still ma4 0e in a&&ordan&e 6ith prin&iples of f#ndamental 7#sti&e.

In this &aseA 6as N*T. Right to a fair hearing re5#ired &o#nsel 6hi&h sho#ld 0e pro$ided if it &annot 0e afforded. These hearings are effe&ti$el4 ad$ersarial hearings.

• Right to a fair hearing 6ill not al6a4s re5#ire &o#nsel <see para +"= depends on serio#sness and

&ompleit4 of the pro&eedings and &apa&ities of the parent.

)a8e 54




• Fails s.1 on 0alan&e of effe&ts sal#tar4 effe&ts of &ontrolling legal aid ependit#res do not

o#t6eigh deleterio#s effe&ts.

Con&#rring • (?e#re# '#0O?s 7#dgement 0rings in s.1/ into the e$al#ation of s.2

• Feminiation of po$ert4 is an entren&hed so&ial phenomenon.

%ntai

• Role of so&ial s&ientifi& 6a4s of taling a0o#t things. ereA para /9A an inea&t s&ien&e.; h4 adopt lang#age of

ps4&hologi&al integrit4 if 4o# aren?t going to 0e taling a0o#t• Co#ld one go thro#gh the anal4sis 6itho#t #sing the lang#age of ps4&hologi&al integrit4.

• hat is reall4 doing all the 6or Ps4&hologi&al integrit4 or 7#st the fa&t that a &hild is 0eing taen a6a4 from a

parent. h4 are 6e #sing that lang#age to 0egin 6ith. Is it a fo&#s on effe&t.Ba&gro#nd iss#e: Re&hara&teriation needed for &harter &laim might 0e &a#se of ps5chological evaluation due to the focus

on individual right.

O: Se"t'%n 9 and t#e L't'at'%n % P%e!t(

D. 6iseman8 %&he Charter and Povert5' $e5ond ,n9usticia/ilit5*

• 'etrimental effe&ts of po$ert4 #pon the e5#alit4A h#man dignit4A and personal s&r#tin4 of $#lnera0le and

disad$antaged gro#ps are 5#ite apparent 4et lo6er &o#rts ha$e pre&l#ded and meaningf#l s&r#tin4 of po$ert4related

&laims H espe&iall4 those made #nder s.2.• B& #n7#sti&ia0leA arg#ments 6ill 0e marginalised and &ategoried as se&ond&lass arg#ments

• In&onsisten&4 6ith #man Rights o0ligations to 6hi&h Canada has &ommitted itself.

• JN &ommittee has &riti&ied the in7#sti&ia0ilit4 of po$ert4related &laims 6rt the Charter 04 the &o#rts.

• These rights ha$e 0een the s#07e&t of &onstit#tional ad7#di&ation in man4 other &o#ntries and are epli&itl4

7#sti&ia0le in !o#th %fri&a as per their &onstit#tion.

• %rg#ments against 7s#ti&ia0ilit4 are:

o Tet#al anal4sis of s.2 and s.1/

o Positi$e and negati$e o0ligations

o Co#rt?s la& of instit#tional &apa&it4 and legitima&4 to ad7#di&ate on s#&h po$ert4related &laims.

• Possi0le responses #nder the &harter are man4 in&l#ded s.1 or remedial deferen&e.

Antaki

o

Jnder international &o$enantsA there is no a&t#al o0ligation to positi$el4 do something. %&t#al lang#age in ICCPRis not as for&ef#l as he maes it o#t to 0e.

P: *a&'t( R'#t) ). /5

- E5#alit4 is a &omple and highl4 &ontested iss#e no &ommon terminolog4 has emerged to &apt#re the man4 ideas iten&aps#lates at either the domesti& or intl le$el.

- %&&ording to )&Int4re . in the %ndre6s $. the (a6 !o& of BCA the &on&ept of e5#alit4A more than an4 of the other rights and freedoms g#aranteed in the CharterA la&s pre&ise defn.

• PreCharter 7#rispr#den&e had a $er4 limited notion of e5#alit4A 0asi&all4 emphasiing e5#al administration of the la6.

• The original legal response to o$ert dis&rimination <in the 19/-s and 19"-s= 6as antidis&rimination la6sA 6ith an

emphasis on e5#al treatment. <This is still the first fo&#s of the la6.=

• The se&ond 6a$e of reform 6ent f#rtherA re7e&ting the sameness; paradigm.o )artha )ino6 6rote on the differen&e; dilemma: the stigma asso&iated 6ith asserting and arti&#lating a

differen&e $ers#s the harm asso&iated 6ith not asserting a differen&e.o The same; la6s &an affe&t different people differentl4A e$en 6itho#t an4 intention of dis&rimination:

ad$erse effe&t dis&rimination.;

M. "chwartschild, /Constitutional Law and Equalit!1

• !&h6arts&hild tals a0o#t the different inds of e5#alit4: e5#alit4 of opport#nit4A e5#al rightsA e5#alit4 of res#lts or

possessionsA e5#alit4 of 6elfare or happinessD some of these are m#t#all4 e&l#si$eA d#e to the fa&t that people are

)a8e 55




different.

• Enlightenment e5#alit4 thining is gro#nded in respe&t for the s#preme 6orth of the indi$id#al.

W. 6lac> and L. "mith, /)he Equalit! #ihts1

• Bla& and !mith point o#t that e5#alit4 rights are &omparati$e: one m#st ha$e a referen&e point.

1. It?s not al6a4s o0$io#s 6ho this referen&e point sho#ld 0e.

2. Nor is it o0$io#s 6hether the referen&e point sho#ld 0e another indi$id#alA or a gro#p as a 6hole.• The #se of an indi$id#al as a referen&e point &an hide statisti&al trends.

• It is &lear that #niform appli&ation of a r#le doesn?t al6a4s prod#&e e5#alit4.

1. *ne alternati$e 6o#ld 0e to tae a p#rposi$e approa&h: %s 6hat the p#rpose of the pro&ess isA and 6hether it has 0een a&hie$ed e5#all4 for all.

2. Bla& and !mith list se$eral options:%: remo$al of &onditions of s#0ordination or disad$antage: This is the idea that the la6 sho#ld aim to deal 6ith theso#r&es of ine5#alit4A not 7#st the tangi0le &onse5#en&es. <Catharine )a&innon?s feminism is one eample of thisapproa&h.=B: &reation of &onditions for selff#lfilmentC: e5#al &on&ern and respe&t: This is Ronald '6orin?s idea of fo&#sing not on the tangi0le &onse5#en&es ofde&isionsA 0#t 6hether people are respe&ted in the de&isionmaing pro&ess: treatment as an e5#al rather thane5#al treatment.;

W.".)arnopols>!, /)he Equalit! #ihts1

• 'i&e4 proposed e5#alit4 0efore la6 as one of the three main prin&iples of the &onstit prin&iple of r#le of la6?. e

defined it as the e5#al s#07e&tion of all &lasses to the ordinar4 la6 of the land. .

• % more modern $ersion has 0een proposed 04 )arshall e5#alit4 of state and indi$ 0efore la6.

• *ne of the most famo#s appli&ations in Can of this $ie6 6as in Roncarelli. Fran !&ottA &o#nsel for Ron&arelliA said

that e5#alit4 0efore la6 &o#ld 0e stated in t6o 0asi& r#les #nderl4ing o#r &onstit str#&t#re that entitle #s to sa4 that 6eli$e in a free so&:

o FirstA the indi$ ma4 do an4thing he pleases #nless there is a pro$ision of la6 prohi0iting him.

o The se&ond defines the a#thorit4 of the state and pla&es the p#0li& offi&ial in ea&tl4 the opposite sit#ation

from the pri$ate indi$ he &an do nothing in his p#0li& &apa&it4 #nless the la6 permits it.

)odern e5#al prote&tion 7#risdi&tion <espe&iall4 in the J!= is &hara&teried 04 a threetiered approa&h:o strict scrutin# an4 legislati$e &lassifi&ation that is not ne&essar4 to a&hie$e a &ompelling go$ o07e&ti$e 6ill

0e str#& do6n. <Ra&e=o inter"ediate scrutin# applied to &lassifi&ations on the 0asis of gender. (egis str#& do6n if go$ &ant sho6

that it is s#0stantiall4 related to so&ietal interest. <gender=o "ini"al scrutin# &o#rts 6ill #phold a la6 as long as its reasona0l4 lined to a legitimate go$ interest.

#ole of s.$ in equalit! cases

o 'is&#ssed 04 )&Int4re <in dissent on this point= in ndrews 6ith a desire to lo6er the re5#irements for a la6 to 0e

7#stified #nder s.1Purposive and textual Approach and equalit! cases

o 'oes this mo$e #s a6a4 from sit#ations 6here there are tests

o In /aw goes to h#man dignit4 6hi&h 0e&omes pro0lemti& as m#st fo&#s on things lie feeling. !ee dis&#ssion of

reasona0le person and h#man dignit4 0elo6=.

Andrews v. Law (ociet5 of $ritish Colum/ia

#risdi&tion British Col#m0ia H !CC 819+9

Fa&ts %ndre6s 6as a British s#07e&tA permanentl4 residing in Canada. e 5#alified for the British Col#m0ia 0are&ept for the fa&t that he 6as not a Canadian &itien. e 0ro#ght an a&tion &laiming that the &itienshipre5#irement $iolated s.1/.

Iss#es as the &itienship re5#irement #n&onstit#tional

olding Les.

Ratio The ma7orit4 held that the re5#irement $iolated s.1/ and that it &o#ld not 0e 7#stified #nder s.1. )&Int4re A

)a8e 53




dissentingA disagreed a0o#t s.1. B#t his opinion on s.1/ 6as the ma7orit4 opinion.

• )&Int4re said that the p#rpose of s.1/ 6as not to eliminate all #nfairness &ompletel4A 0#t to prohi0it

dis&rimination 0ased on imm#ta0le personal &hara&teristi&s.

• It is a &omparati$e &on&eptA the &ondition of 6hi&h ma4 onl4 0e attained or dis&erned 04 &omparison

6ith the &ondition of others in the so&ial and politi&al setting in 6hi&h the 5#estion arises <p. 11/-=

• Note impli&it referen&e to h#man dignit4 0ottom p.11/1.

• the admittedl4 #nattaina0le ideal sho#ld 0e that a la6 epressed to 0ind all sho#ld not 0& of irrele$ant personal differen&es ha$e a more 0#rdensome or less 0enefi&ial impa&t on one than another.; <11/1=

)&Int4re set o#t a threepart test for e5#alit4 &laims: NB Intent does not matter.1. the person is not 0eing treated e5#all4 <distin&tion in treatment=:,. the distin&tion is 0ased on one of the en#merated gro#nds or an analogo#s gro#nd: s.1/ 6as

definitel4 &onfined to en#merated or analogo#s gro#ndsA not 7#st an4 distin&tion 6hatsoe$er.o6e$erA )&Int4re a&&epted that the gro#nds in s.1/ 6ere not e&l#si$e he allo6ed the possi0ilit4 of analogo#s;gro#nds.

3. the la6 has a dis&riminator4 impa&t: )&Int4re also a&no6ledged the possi0ilit4 of ad$erseeffe&ts; dis&rimination.;

• )&Int4re 6ent on to find that &itienship 6as an analogo#s gro#nd of dis&riminationA and that the la6

had a dis&riminator4 impa&t 04 re5#iring permanent residents to 6ait to o0tain &itienship 0efore pra&ti&ing la6.

• (ang#age of imm#ta0ilit4 is #sed 04 (a Forest Citienship is imm#ta0le and 0e4ond &ontrol of theindi$id <note that these are not the same thing=.

'issentRT s.1

• )&Int4re: !.1/ g#arantee is the 0roadest g#arantee pro$ided 04 the Charter and it sho#ld therefore not

hinder go$?t from maing the inn#mera0le legislati$e distin&tions and &ategoriations that are#na$oida0le 6he go$erning <11/=. %s s#&hA the *aes test sho#ld 0e relaed for s.1/ so that not alldifferentiation is &a#ght rela it from pressing and s#0stantial o07e&ti$e; to p#rs#ing so#ndo07e&ti$es in a reasona0le manner.;

• *pposite to dissent in /avoie v. Canada see p. 11/+

Comments • Definition of discrimination: % distin&tionA 6hether intentional or not 0#t 0ased on gro#nds relating to

personal &hara&teristi&s of the indi$id#al or gro#pA 6hi&h has the effe&t of imposing 0#rdensA o0ligationsor disad$antages on s#&h indi$id#al or gro#p not imposed on othersA or 6hi&h 6ithholds or limits a&&essto opport#nitiesA 0enefitsA and ad$antages a$aila0le to other mem0ers of so&iet4.;

• )wo re9ected approaches to interpretin s.$8 which are at opposite ends of the spectrum-

• Fo- E$er4 distin&tion made 04 la6 is dis&riminator4 and m#st 0e 7#stified #nder s.1. Re7e&ted 0e&a#se this tri$ialies dis&rimination and denies an4 role to s.1/. <o#ld 0e analogo#s toepression=

• "econd approach- 'is&rimination is unfair or unreasona+le differen&e in treatment. Re7e&ted 0e&a#se it lea$es no role to s.1. <%nalogo#s to s.2=

"ummar!- the three@part Andrews )est-

1= a distin&tion in treatment,= that res#lts in the imposition of a 0#rden or denial of a 0enefit3= on the 0asis of an epressl4 prohi0ited gro#nd or one analogo#s thereto. In /awA Ia&&o0#&&iA . &larifies this is

dis&rimination in a s#0stanti$e sense in$ol$ing fa&tors s#&h as pre7#di&eA stereot4ping and disad$antage.; <f#rtherela0orated on in /aw at CBp. 11"/=

Possi0le that %ndre6s stands for more than this

• %ntai thins that it is all too eas4 to sa4 that this &ase stands for a test and is no6 not la6 0e&a#se of /aw. )a40e

this is not the &ase. (ie the P*GG &asesA it is possi0le that this &ase stands for more than this test <possi0leresponseA see note on CBp. 11/"=

Antaki

• To 6hat etent is this test attempting to na$igate 0n se&tion 1 and se&tion 1/. <see CBp. 11/2=

Analoous ?roundsGG

o )#st ha$e a &larifi&ation from ndrews test for 6hat is analogo#s. !ho6&ases &o#rt?s str#ggle 0n indi$id#al

and gro#ps. Charter for&es #s to loo at indi$id#als

)a8e 5>




o %mmuta+ilit! <ie. something that &annot 0e &hanged= is a possi0le arg#ment0#t this is pro0lemati& 6hen it

&omes to religion. To 6hat etent sho#ld 4o#r a0ilit4 to &hange 0e part of the dis&rimination dis&#ssion

CC( s6it&hes to 0e4ond personal &ontrol; 6hi&h is not the same thing. Brings in agen&4

and po6er to &hange. Fits in a li0eralA indi$id#al model. %lmost gi$es 6a4 to the lang#age of &osts H too high &osts for the indi$id#al to &hange

hat else is &r#&ial in the testo Formal $s. s#0stanti$e la6 that might on its fa&e 0e oA might not 0e o.

o )#st p#t the indi$id#al in the &ontet of gro#p.

The E5#alit4 Trilog4 of 199/In &ases 0et6een 19+9 and 199/A the &o#rts had 0een #sing a test determined in ndrews H 0#t in a trilog4 of r#lings in 199/Athe &o#rt separated into three dif &amps on the interpretation of s.1/<1=.

• Miron v. Trudel the denial of a#to a&&ident 0enefits to an #nmarried &o#ple 6as seen to 0e dis&rimination on the

0asis of marital stat#s.

• %gan v. Canada the denial of old age spo#sal allo6an&e to samese &o#ples did not $iolate the Charter. hile

fi$e 7#dges held it to 0e dis&rimination on the 0asis of se#al orientationA !opina &losed the de&ision at the s.1stage of the anal4sis.

• Thi)audeau v. Canada the &o#rt dismissed the &hallenge that the in&l#sionded#&tion? r#les in the In&ome Ta

%&t regarding &hild s#pport pa4ments had a dis&riminator4 impa&t #pon 6omen 0e&a#se &#stodial parents <the$ast ma7orit4 89+K of 6hom 6ere 6omen= had to &laim mone4 re&ei$ed on their taa0le in&ome 6hile the parent pa4ing &o#ld &laim it as a ta ded#&tion. Ia&o0#&&i said that the real dis&rimination 6as against inta&t$erses di$or&ed familiesA 6ith di$or&ed families getting a fa$or 0e&a#se the one pa4ing got a ta ded#&tionU Needless to sa4 the 6omen on the 0en&h dissented on that one.

Personal &hara&teristi& at iss#e m#st 0e irrele$ant to the f#n&tional $al#es #nderl4ing the &hallenged la6 %ntai thins this

&omes 0a& to intent in some 6a4

The /aw de&ision has &hanged the middle gro#nd approa&h of %ndre6s. It?s rare that m#&h of the anal4sis 6ill 0e done in s.1 H s.1/ is 6here all the a&tion is.

Law v. Canada !inister of Emplo5ment and ,mmigration

#risdi&tion !CC 81999

Fa&ts Nan&4 (a6 6as 3- 4ears old 6hen her h#s0and died she 6as denied 0enefits #nder the Canada Pension Plan

0e&a#se she 6as #nder 3/ at the time of her h#s0and?s death. <(a6 had no disa0ilit4A and no dependent&hildren.= CPP s#r$i$or?s pension denied to spo#ses #nder 3/ 6ith no disa0ilities and no dependents #ntil theage of "/.

Iss#es as the minim#m age re5#irement for CPP 0enefits #n&onstit#tional

olding No <#nanimo#s de&ision=.

Ratio Ia&o0#&&i for the Co#rt: <for s#m of test see CBp. 1123=General %pproa&h

(a6 Test#uidelines for anal5sis8 not a rigid testG must /e purposive and conte<tual.

Three Central Iss#es in Interpreting s. 1/<1=. %ll three m#st 0e satisfied:!tage 1: Differential )reatment in p#rpose or effe&ts

• 'oes the la6 <i= dra6 formal distinctions 0et6een &laimant and others on the 0asis of personal

&hara&teristi&s or <ii= fail to ta>e account of the claimant&s alread! disadvantaed position

!tage ,: the &laimant su+9ect to differential treatment on one or more enumerated or analoousrounds!tage 3: 'oes the differential treatment dis&riminate 04 imposing a 0#rden or 6ithholding a 0enefit in amanner that reflects stereot!pes or other6ise promotes the $ie6 that this person is less &apa0le or 6orth4of h#manit4. <p#rpose and effe&t=

P#rpose <see p.11"/=The p#rpose of s.1/.1 is to pre$ent $iolation of human dignit5 and freedom <and to prote&t and remed4disad$antage of dis&rete and ins#lar minorities=. The eisten&e of &onfli&t 0et6een the p#rpose or effe&tof imp#gned la6 and that of s. 1/<1= is ne&essar4 to fo#nd a dis&rimination &laim.

)a8e 5




Comparati$e %pproa&hThe &laimant generall4 &hooses gro#p of &omparisonA 0#t &o#rt ma4 refine the &omparison

Contethether legislation demeans the &laimant?s dignit4 m#st 0e eamined from the perspe&ti$e of the &laimantA

and sho#ld 0e assessed #sing s#07e&ti$e and o07e&ti$e &riteria <reasona0le person=. There are a $ariet4 offa&tors a &laimant &an refer to&o#rt to 0e g#ided 04 prior 7#rispr#den&e. <not eha#sti$e=:A5 Pre@existin disadvantae, stereot!pe, pre9udice

⇒ dis&rete and ins#lar minorities

⇒ fa$o#rs a finding that s. 1/ has 0een infringed

istori&all4 dis&riminated against gro#p is not determinati$e <as is an indi$id#al rights do&= 0#t 6ill 0e

&onsidered.65 Correspondence or lac> thereof +etween the round on which the claim is +ased and the actual

needs and circumstance of the claimant or others 2i.e. is the differential treatment helpful 5

⇒ more diffi&#lt to esta0lish dis&rimination to the etent the la6 taes the &laimant?s sit#ation into

a&&o#ntA less diffi&#lt 6here the la6 fails to do soC5 )he ameliorative purpose or effect of the law

⇒ if the p#rpose is to help a disad$antaged gro#p then the &o#rt is more liel4 to allo6 an infringement

for ad$antaged peopleD5 'ature and scope of the interest affected +! the law

the more serio#s and lo&alied to the gro#pA the more liel4 the differential treatment is dis&riminator4%ltho#gh on#s is on &laimantA need not add#&e evidence to sho6 a $iolation of dignit4 or freedom&an rel4 on logi&al reasoning and 7#di&ial noti&e

%ppli&ation to the Case at Bar It is a form of <%= differential treatment on the 0asis of <B= an en#merated gro#nd. <C= 'is&rimination:Claimant: it does so in p#rpose and effe&t. The ass#med &orrelation 0et6een 4o#th and ease of reha0ilitationis fa#lt4. Iss#e is 6hether it $iolates dignit4 and freedom. Pl has not demonstrated a p#rpose or effe&t$iolation of freedom or dignit4 <ie fo&#s on p#rpose of s.1/=. #di&ial noti&e of in&reased diffi&#lt4 of reentering 7o0 maret at older age. The pro$ision treats 4o#ng people differentl4A 0#t does not promote thenotion that the4?re less &apa0le or stereot4pe or degrade them. There is a &lear ameliorati$e p#rpose. Itdoesn?t refle&t a $ie6 of that she is less deser$ingA i.e. there?s not real harm here.

Note (a6 r#ling 6as a shift 0a& to single approa&hA 0#t it modified the test 04 adding the re5#irement that h#mandignit4 0e impli&ated. 'id not refer to the irrele$ant personal &hara&teristi&s test applied in 199/ trilog4.CCL: “commentators have criticized the dignity standard for shifting to the s15 analysis abalancing of individual rights and social objectives that ought to take place pursuant to s1, herethe govt rather then the plaintiff has the burden of proof! "pag 11#$%&

Antaki

o o#ld this &ase ha$e gone the other 6a4 if had #sed ndrews Les 6o#ld ha$e 0een de&ided differentl4. This

&omes 0a& to the relati$ising of tests.o Epansion on ndrews test 6here denial of a 0enefit is f#rther defined. %lmost sa4ing that dignit4 6as pres#pposed

in ndrews.o )a7or &hange from ndrews is #se of Dinit! <seems to 0e a &ir&#lar arg#ment of sorts=.

o a4 o#t of this for the &o#rts is #se of the Reasona0le Person;.

o arens 0a& to p#rposi$e approa&h

o Tr4ing to mae &laim more o07e&ti$e <04 adding reasona0le person=.

o Co#rt e$en #ses the 6ord dispassionate;.

o CBp. 119 /aw &hanged the ndrews test in&orporating &on&ept of $iolating h#man dignit4. No6 &o#rts follo6

the /aw test.o hen does a differential impa&t 0e&ome a dis&riminator4 impa&t This seems to 0e the str#ggle.

o Is the la6 sol#tion 0ased on dignit4A 6as it present in ndrews and do 6e need to resort to dignit4 to set

do6n this &riteria

Use of the Lanuae of #easona+le Person

)a8e 5.




&he use of the reasona/le person could /e considered to go against the whole idea of the Charter which focuses on each

specific individual.

o6 &o#ld the &o#rt ha$e gotten to the same pla&e 6itho#t reasona0le person; LesA thro#gh s.1 and minimal impairmenttest. Instead p#t internal test into s.1/ and therefore are for&ed into the lang#age.

o B4 taling of selfrespe&t and selfesteem the &o#rt then gets st#& tr4ing to mo$e to6ards something more

o07e&ti$e.o

Co#ld 0e &onsidered to go 0a& to the J! distin&tion of strict scrutin#0 inter"ediate scrutin#0 "ini"al scrutin#.o #man dignit4 and Reasona0le Person are &om0ined to perform to limit s.1/. If 6ere st#& 6ith 7#st h#man dignit4A

it is diffi&#lt as 6o#ld ha$e to rest &ase on ho6 some0od4 feelsDD..or &o#ld 7#st get rid of lang#age of 0oth andrest it 7#st on &ontet#al fa&tors.

dverse effects discri"ination: a fa&iall4 ne#tral; la6 res#lting in differential treatment.o ndrews epli&it re5#irement of 0eing a &itien H dire&t dis&rimination

o %ldridge ne#tral fa&iall4 6ith differential impa&t ad$erse effe&ts dis&rimination.

Eldridge v. $ritish Colum/ia A.=#.

#risdi&tion British Col#m0ia 81992 !CC

Fa&ts Three deaf people 6ere not pro$ided 6ith free sign lang#age interpretation in hospitalA and the4 &laimed thatthis $iolated their e5#alit4 rights. BC?s health legislation ga$e the )edi&al !er$i&es Commission the dis&retionto de&ide 6hi&h ser$i&es to ins#reA and it ga$e hospitals the dis&retion to de&ide 6hi&h ser$i&es 6o#ld 0e free.

Iss#es 1. ere the hospitals 0o#nd 04 the Charter,. 'id the a0sen&e of free sign lang#age #n&onstit#tionall4 $iolate e5#alit4 rights

olding 1. Les ,. Les. <#nanimo#s de&ision=

Ratio P#rpose: (a Forest des&ri0ed t6o p#rposes of s.1/. Besides the idea of h#man dignit4 emphasied 04Ia&o0#&&i in the /aw &aseA he added the goal of re&tif4ing and pre$enting dis&rimination againstdisad$antaged gro#ps.

(a Forest follo6ed the statements in ndrews that a fa&iall4 ne#tral la6 ma4 0e dis&riminator4A and that it isnot ne&essar4 for a la6 to ha$e had a dis&riminator4 intent.

(a Forest dre6 on %aton v. Brandt Count# Board of %ducation <1992=A 6hi&h dealt 6ith the appli&ation ofe5#alt4 rights to disa0ilit4 &asesit &on&l#ded strongl4 that e5#alit4 meant the a&&ommodation ofdifferen&e.

(a Forest disagreed 6ith the lo6er &o#rtsA 6hi&h had said that sign lang#age interpretation did not ha$e to 0e pro$ided 0e&a#se it 6as an an&illar4 ser$i&e.; e said that &omm#ni&ation 6as integral to medi&al &are

therefore deaf people 6ere 0eing denied a 0enefit a$aila0le to others.The respondents arg#ed that 0enefit programs sho#ld onl4 0e s&r#tinied for ad$erse effe&ts dis&rimination6hen the ad$erse effe&ts might ea&er0ate the disparities 0et6een the gro#p and the rest of the pop#lation.The &o#rt re7e&ted thisA sa4ing that the go$ernment had an o0ligation to mae s#re disad$antagedmem0ers of so&iet4 &o#ld tae ad$antage of the 0enefits 0eing gi$en on&e the state de&ides to gi$e a 0enefit.

Co#rt states that the &ost iss#e regarding the ser$i&es that m#st 0e pro$ided sho#ld 0e taen &are of in s.1.

Comments (a Forest?s &omments on p.+-1 are a good s#mmar4 of the &hapter on appli&a0ilit4

%lso note that he sa4s s.1/A lie all &harter rightsA is to 0e genero#sl4 and p#rposi$el4 interpreted. <CBp. 11+1=. This goes

in line 6ith )&Int4re . in ndrews and Ia&o0#&&i in /aw.

• Idea that on&e state pro$ides 0enefit it is o0liged to do so in a nondis&riminator4 6a4. %d$erse effe&ts m#st 0e

taen into effe&t. (ang#age of go$?tal responsi0 sho#ld 0e taen #p in s.1.

• Vriend as ad$erse effe&ts dis&rimination.

• !eems opposite to $ie6 p#t for6ard 04 !heppard in essa4 0elo6. Antaki

• Proposes t6o different 6a4s of thining a0o#t e5#alit4 iss#es that arise

o Lo# tae one trait and mae 4o#r 7#dgments regarding the &laim 0ased on that trait

o Ignore the person?s differen&e

• (a Forest sa4s 'eafness is irrele$ant to the health &are s4stem H $al#es #ndergirding the legislation in ndrews. To

6hat etent is it important to find $al#es #nder the la6 H is that tr4ing to 0ring 0a& intent into this test

• %ntai ass if this is an eas4 or hard &ase of ad$erse effe&t dis&rimination

o Eas4 as the4 all s#ffer the same dis&rimination H negati$e impa&t is the same a&ross the 0oard.

)a8e 30




o as harder as an ad$erse effe&t &ase in Cor)iere 0elo6.

Colleen "heppard, /(f 0orest 0ires and "!stemic Discrimination1 2*;;$5 2C6p.$$3;5

• There is a 0a&gro#nd #nderstanding that dis&rimination needs intent. 6e 6ill find hints of that in &ases e$en tho#gh

#dges 6ill sa4 the opposite. This &annot 0e.

• In ad$erse effe&t dis&riminationA ine5#alit4 res#lts from e5#al treatment H note there is not intent to dis&riminate.

• Religion and emplo4mentA s#&h as the !#nda4 &losing &ases <and espe&iall4 ,'Malle# the &ase of the !e$enth 'a4%d$entist 6hose emplo4er re5#ired her to 6or on !at#rda4=A ha$e pro$ided o#r paradigm for thining a0o#t ad$erseeffe&ts.1. This ma4 not al6a4s 0e appropriate. In s#&h &asesA all of the mem0ers of the gro#p 6ere e5#all4 affe&ted. o6e$erA

in &ases in$ol$ing ra&e or genderA the effe&ts ma4 not e&l#de e$er4oneA 0#t there is often a statistical correlation.

• The Meiorin &ase < British Colu")ia 7Pu)lic Service %"plo#ee Relations Co""ission8 v. BCS%! <1999== in$ol$ed an

aero0i&s test for firefighters. %0o#t t6othirds of male firefighters passed this test on their first tr4 onl4 a0o#t onethird of 6omen did. )&(a&hlin held that this esta0lished a pri"a facie &ase of dis&riminationA 0#t she did not ela0orate an4&riteria for this.

• In S#"es v. Canada <1993=A Ia&o0#&&i introd#&ed a &a#sation re5#irement: the ad$erse effe&ts had to 0e &a#sed 04 or

related to the imp#gned pro$ision. <Per %ntai &o#ld 0e doing some of the 6or for intent here. *ther pla&esA &a#sationmight pla4 the role of moralit4= Criti&ism of need for statisti&s the degree to 6hi&h &a#sation m#st 0e sho6n 04 ad$o&ate.

• !heppard thins it 6o#ld 0e helpf#l if the &o#rts disting#ished 0et6een:

1. fa&iall4 ne#tral poli&iesA pra&ti&es and standards2. fa&iall4 ne#tral distin&tions or &ategoriations <e.g. domesti& 6orersA immigrant spo#ses=

o !heppard 'oes the e&l#sion of &ertain gro#nds from s.1/ mae one ha$e to mae arg#ments a0o#t

ad$erse effe&ts 6ith a traditional gro#nd %d$o&ates for the need for a 0etter a&&o#nt of ad$erse effe&tsdis&rimination <6hi&hA she sa4sA is s4stemi&=.

Calls for 0etter #nderstanding of 6hen and ho6 ad$erse effe&ts &a#se dis&rimination.

Paradigm &ase is la0o#r relations and minorit4 religio#s gro#ps.

arder &ases are seism and ra&ism &ases as the4 are so ingrained in so&iet4.

It 6o#ld seem that her $ie6 is opposite to (a Forest <see %ldridge and CC( in 0n ndrews and

/aw= she sa4s sho#ld not loo to the p#rpose of the la6 and onl4 loo to the effe&ts.

Fave we otten awa! from the lanuae of /%ntent1 as important in definin discriminationG

• The irrele$ant; &riteria might 0e sa4ing 4o# are epe&ting the legislat#re to dis&riminate epli&itl4. B4 impli&ation

this test re5#ires an epli&it finding of dis&riminator4 intent or p#rpose to find dis&rim.

Diane Pothier, /Connectin ?rounds of Discrimination to #eal People&s Experiences1 2*;;$5 2C6p.$$375

• Pothier responds to those 6ho &riti&ie en#merated gro#nds of dis&riminationA 04 pointing o#t 6hat happened in the

J!A 6here there 6ere no gro#nds of dis&rimination.

• %&&ording to PothierA en#merated gro#nds ser$e as a reminder of 6h4 dis&rimination is prohi0ited. The4 lin the la6 to

histor4 and &ontetA and fo&#s attention on the real so#r&es of dis&rimination.

• Gro#nds of dis&riminationA as a legal &onstr#&tA are marers of the d4nami&s of po6er. The eer&ise of identif4ing ne6

analogo#s gro#nds for&es an in5#ir4 into the &ompleities of the d4nami&s of po6er.;

Cor/iHre v. Canada !inister of ,ndian and Borthern Affairs

#risdi&tion Federal !CC 81999

Fa&ts !.22<1= of the Indian %&t re5#ired Indians to li$e on reser$e in order to $ote in 0and ele&tions. Nonresident 0and mem0ers &hallenged this #nder s.1/ sa4ing residen&e 6as an irrele$ant personal &hara&teristi&.

Iss#es 'id the e&l#sion of offreser$e mem0ers #n&onstit#tionall4 $iolate e5#alit4 rights

olding Les.

Ratio )&(a&hlin and Bastara&he <for the ma7orit4 of fi$e= held that offreser$e stat#s 6as an analogo#s gro#ndof dis&rimination.

The4 added that distin&tions 0ased on en#merated or analogo#s gro#nds are not al6a4s dis&riminator4A 0#tthe4 are &onstant marers of s#spe&t de&ision maing or potential dis&rimination.; <119+= The4 mae it&lear that on&e an analogo#s gro#nd is re&ogniedA it holds tr#e in an4 &aseA and doesn?t depend on

)a8e 3




&ontet.'is&#ssing ho6 analogo#s gro#nds might 0e identifiedA the4 emphasied imm#ta0ilit4A and said that other

fa&tors 6o#ld ha$e to flo6 from; imm#ta0ilit4.The4 disting#ished reser$e stat#s from mere residen&e.

'issent of (?e#re#'#0O &on&#rred in the de&isionA 0#t had different &riteria for analogo#s gro#nds. %&hara&teristi& might 0e analogo#s if:

•

It is imm#ta0leA diffi&#lt to &hangeA or &an onl4 0e &hanged at an #na&&epta0le &ost.• The gro#p is la&ing in politi&al po6erA disad$antagedA or $#lnera0le.

• If the gro#nd is re&ognied in h#man rights stat#tes <e.g.A so&ial &ondition=

(?e#re#'#0O 6as 5#i& to point o#t that none of these are re5#irementsA and that other &riteria might 0eadded.(?e#re#'#0O seemed to sa4 that analogo#s gro#nds &o#ld $ar4 in their appli&a0ilit4 0et6een &ontets. Note the ma7orit4 de&ision taes iss#e 6ith this 04 stating that analogo#s gro#nds sho#ld not 0e &ontetspe&ifi&.

Comments Prof. !heppard stressed that this &ase &o#ld ha$e 0een looed at as an ad$erse effe&ts &ase rather than ananalogo#s gro#nds &ase.

Antaki

• Not a straightfor6ard /aw test as the4 ha$e a long dis&#ssion of analogo#s gro#nds. Tension in &o#rt 6hen

(?e#re#'#0O thins there sho#ld not 0e as m#&h fo&#s on analogo#s gro#nds.

o Three more analogo#s H maritalA se#al orientationA offreser$e stat#s of a0original. Re7e&ted pro$in&ialresiden&eA emplo4ment stat#sD.

o hat a0o#t lang#age or po$ert4 or so&ial &ondition CC( ass

o !eems to deal 6ith imm#ta0ilit4

• 'e0ate 0n )&(a#&hlin and (?e#re# '#0O. To 6hat etent &riteria of gro#nd is important and to 6hat etent it

&ollapses into h#man dignit4 of re5#irement?

• (?e#re# '#0e <minorit4= tr4ing to &ollapse the last t6o steps of the /aw test. )a7orit4 disagrees <#nder

)&(a#&hlin= sa4ing that there is a list of en#merated or analogo#s gro#nds.

• )&(a#&hlin goes 0a& to immuta+ilit! <or &hangea0le to a &ost of h#man identit4=

(?e#re# '#0e disagrees on &entralit4 of imm#ta0ilit4.

Lovelace v. ntario

#risdi&tion *ntario !CC 8,---

Fa&ts *ntario operated Casino RamaA 6hose profits 6ent into a First Nations F#nd and 6ere then distri0#ted toregistered Indian 0ands in order to impro$e the poor so&ioe&onomi& &onditions of 0and mem0ers. Nonstat#s<i.e.A nonregistered= Indians and )Otis s#ed to &laim a share of the re$en#e.

Iss#es 'id the e&l#sion of nonstat#s Indians and )Otis #n7#stifia0l4 $iolate s.1/

olding No.

Ratio 8reasoning not important for this s#mmar4The ma7orit4 agreed 6ith (o$ela&e?s point that s.1/<,= sho#ldn?t 0e #sed to defend a spe&ial program 6hen

#sed 6hen a gro#p is &hallenging the program for #nderin&l#si$eness.Ia&o0#&&i taled a0o#t the relationship 0et6een s.1/<1= and s.1/<,=.

• e said s.1/<,= 6as an interpreti$e aid to s.1/<1=A indi&ating that it is normal for s.1 to in&l#de this

ind of program.

• <s.1/<,= sho#ld not 0e seen as 7#st an eemption or a defen&e against a s.1/<1= anal4sis.=

•

ThereforeA affirmati$e a&tion programs &an 0e s#07e&t to the same s.1/<1= anal4sis that 6o#ld 0eapplied to an4 other program.

Antaki

• !o it seems that s.1/<,= is more or less in&orporated into s.1/<1=.

1. ogg sa4s that s.1/<,= pro$ides an e&eption to the general prohi0ition of dis&rimination #nder s.1/<1=Amaing it #nne&essar4 to #se s.1 to 7#stif4 s#&h a program.

,. Prof. !heppard sa4s that s.1/<,= 6as p#t into the &onstit#tion 0e&a#se the affirmati$e a&tion de0ate 6asraging at that time.

3. Prof. !heppard sa4s the 0est affirmati$e a&tion programs are those that &hange instit#tional norms ratherthan eeping the same norms and maing e&eptions.

)a8e 32




Is s.1/<,= merel4 an interpreti$e aid pro$iding &on&ept#al dept to e5#alit4 Les. %rg#ments on dignit4 eist on either side.o !.1/<,= as interpreti$e aid &on&eption of e5#alit4 is that it is an important part of maintaining tr#e

e5#alit4. !#0stanti$e e5#alit4 rather than formal.o !.1/<,= &o#ld 0e &onsidered as an eemption a&no6ledges the affirmati$e a&tion are against the idea of

e5#alit4. <formal e5#alit4 fo&#s=. Not #sed 04 the &o#rt in this &ase. ere it to 0e #seA a&&ording toIa&o0#&&iA s.1 6o#ld 0e red#ndant.

%ntai 5#estion if it 6as not an e&eption and is int#iti$el4 o0$io#s to 7#dgesA then 6h4 6as it in&l#ded at all.

• %rg#ment that the in&l#sion of e5#al 0enefit; and s.1/<,= tempers Pedder?s &laims.

!ometimes the 0est approa&h is to tae a step 0a&; and as: 'oes this &reate some s#0stanti$e #n7#sti&e or #nfairnessA inlight of the gro#p?s sit#ation in so&iet4

o e.g. in Vriend and %ldridge as opposed to /aw and /ovelace.

Post = Law

&he (CC has recognied four %analogous grounds* of discrimination:

• &itienship < ndrews=

o the &o#rt emphasied la& of politi&al po6er.

• se#al orientation < %gan=

o (a Forest <and three others= emphasied imm#ta0ilit4.o Cor4 <and three others= fo&#sed on histori&al disad$antageA stereot4ping and pre7#di&e.

• marital stat#s < Miron v. Trudel =

o )&(a&hlin emphasied indi$id#al dignit4 and freedomA histori&al disad$antage and pre7#di&eA and near

imm#ta0ilit4.

• offreser$e %0original stat#s <Cor)ire=

<: Lan*ae R'#t) )./=-2>

A. 6raSn, /Lanuae #ihts1 2$34<5 2C6p.$***5

• The British go$ernment?s 1+th&ent#r4 treatiesA a&tsA pro&lamationsA et&. did not address lang#ageA 0#t f#n&tional

0iling#alism 0egan almost immediatel4 after the &on5#est of >#e0e&.

• The %&t of JnionA 1+- made English the single offi&ial lang#ageA 0#t offi&ial 0iling#alism 6as restored 04 the JnitedParliament in 1++.

• Inspired 04 the (a#rendea#'#nton reportA Ne6 Br#ns6i& adopted offi&ial 0iling#alism in 19"+A and the Canadian

Parliament adopted the *ffi&ial (ang#ages %&t in 19"9.

• In 1922A >#e0e& introd#&ed the Fren&h (ang#age CharterA maing Fren&h the onl4 offi&ial lang#age of legislationA of

the administration of 7#sti&e and of p#0li& administrationA 0#t &o#rt &hallenges ha$e some6hat red#&ed the s&ope of thisla6.

P.A. Coulom+e, /Lanuae #ihts in 0rench Canada1 2$34<5 2C6p.$***5

• Comm#nit4 rights s#&h as >#e0e&?s Bill 1-1 are often per&ei$ed of as illi0eral atta&s on #ni$ersal moral rights that

prote&t a#tonom4

• <p. 1,,/= The rationale for state inter$ention in ling#isti& matters is no different from the rationale for inter$ening in

matters s#&h as so&ial 6elfareA ed#&ationA the en$ironment and se&#rit4: maret for&es 0enefit the po6erf#l and arein&apa0le of s#staining ling#isti& minorities and of fostering proper relations 0n the $ario#s lang#age gro#ps of a gi$en polit4.; This seems to 0e an antili0eral statement as it goes against $al#es of indi$id#al freedom.

• Criti5#e: !trong lang#age rights pose a danger to indi$id#al freedoms.

• % minim#m &on&ept of lang#age rights &an 0e &alled negati$e lang#age rights;: not interfering 6ith people?s right to

#se the lang#age of their &hoi&eA and not dis&riminating on the 0asis of lang#age.

• Co#lom0e is arg#ing instead for a positi$e form of state lang#age planning in >#e0e&. e points to the fa&t that English

has histori&all4 0een seen as the lang#age of prestigeA to the demographi& de&line of Fren&h >#e0e&ersA the high rateof emigration from >#e0e&A and the tenden&ies of immigrants to learn English rather than Fren&h <altho#gh hea&no6ledges that this is &hanging=.

)a8e 3$




s.$

• ss.1",3 of the Charter deal 6ith lang#age rights.

• s.1" maes English and Fren&h official lang#agesA e5#al in stat#s and #se in Canadian go$ernment

instit#tions.

• s.1".1A added ena&ted in 1993A &onsitit#tionalied 0iling#alism in Ne6 Br#ns6i&A in&l#ding ed#&ational

and &#lt#ral instit#tions• The s4mmetr4; of ss.1",3 is pro0lemati&:

• %nglophones in >#e0e& are not a $#lnera0le minorit4A threatened 6ith assimilationA as are fran&ophones

in other pro$in&es.

• In >#e0e&A lang#age di$isions also ha$e &lass dimensions.

• The ma7orit4 in >#e0e& is a minorit4 in the &o#ntr4A on the &ontinentA and in all nine of the other

pro$in&es.

• %lso s.,<0= and freedom of epression.

Anta>i

o Tensions eist 0n these different pro$isions o6 &an the4 0e read together or 6or together

o !ee CBp. 1,, and Co#lom0e arti&le rational for state inter$ention in ling#isti& matters it is the same as the

rational for matters s#&h as so&ial 6elfareA ed#&ationA the en$ironment D.et&.

In >ones v. A# Bew $runswick the &o#rt made it &lear that s.133 set do6n minim#m &onstit#tional prote&tion of lang#agerights 0#t the parl and legislat#res 6ere free to add additional o0ligations. <limitation RJ(E *F (%=

o CBp. 1,,+ CC( a#thors mention 4ones that s.133 la4s do6n minim#m re5#irements 0#t that parl &an go f#rther

In Devine v. A# 7ue/ec the &o#rt held that the Charter of the Fren&h 6as $alid as 6as #nder the 7#risdi&tion of the pro$in&e in&idental effe&ts on TSC

In !anito/a Language 0eference $348 the &o#rt held that the )anito0a %&t <entren&hed in )anito0a= and its pro$isionson lang#age too pre&eden&e o$er pro$in&ial legislation. %ll legislation in the pro$in&e 6o#ld ha$e to 0e deemed in$alid asgo$?t had steadil4 ignored &o#rt r#lings that it m#st 0e in Fren&h and English. Co#rt dela4ed 7#dgement for translation. <NBRJ(E *F (% as there 6as a limitation imposed 04 &onstit#tion lie a&t=.

Se"t'%n 2>

!ahe v. Al/erta

#risdi&tion 8199- !CC H 'i&son CC

Fa&ts Parents &omplain that there is not a separate Fran&ophone s&hool 0oard s#&h that the4 do not ha$emanagement and &ontrol o$er Fran&ophone ed#&ation. There are fran&ophone s&hools 0#t the4 are not#nder a separate 0oard. (a& of management and &ontrolA it is &laimedA is a $iolation of s.,3.

Iss#es Jnder Charter s.,3A sho#ld parents ha$e a meas#re of management and &ontrol of the fran&ophones&hools in Edmonton.

olding Les

Ratio 1. This 6as the !CC?s first ma7or interpretaton of s.,3. Chara&teristi&all4A 'i&son CC set o#t a testin&l#ding &onsiderations of p#rpose and &ontet.

• P#rpose: to promote and preser$e the t6o offi&ial lang#ages and their respe&ti$e &#lt#res. <'i&son

CC emphasies the lin 0et6een lang#age and &#lt#re.=. )ore than a mere means of&omm#ni&ation.

• % se&ondA remedial p#rpose: remed4ing the histori&al pro0lem of the erosion of minorit4 lang#age

rights.

• 'i&son CC &asts do#0t on earlierA narro6er interpretations of lang#age rights 04 Beet .

Contet: 'i&son CC said that s.,3 sho#ld 0e interpreted as a general right to minorit4 lang#ageinstr#&tionA 5#alified 04 minim#m n#m0ers re5#irements. e s#pports a sliding s&ale; approa&h.'epending on n#m0ersA s.,3 6o#ld 7#stif4 separate &lassesA separate s&hoolsA representation on a s&hool

)a8e 34




0oardA or a 6hole separate s&hool 0oard.

• The right to re&ei$e minorit4 lang#age instr#&tion depends on 4o# 0eing in a &omm#nit4 6ith

other people 6ith the same right.

• 'i&son CC refrained from atta&hing n#m0ers to the slidin scaleA 0#t he des&ri0ed in detail

sit#ations 6here minorities sho#ld ha$e spe&ial representation on ma7orit4lang#age s&hool 0oards.

• Iss#es of #di&ial deferen&e and !a7o and !&hmitt perpet#ation of a people <see st#d4 gro#pnotes=

Notes Prof. !heppard finds this &ase fas&inating to &ompare to e5#alit4 rights &ases on ad$erse effe&tsdis&rimination.This &ase is signifi&ant in terms of ho6 to operationalie remedies: the &o#rt emphasied the need toempo6ering $#lnera0le gro#psA pro$iding them not onl4 6ith ed#&ationA 0#t 6ith representation and&ontrol. This is inno$ati$e and &omple.

• It?s interesting to &ompare the 6a4 lang#age rights ha$e affe&ted Canadian s&hools to the J! &ontetA 6here ra&e 6as the

iss#e. In the J!A separateness 6as dis&riminator4 in CanadaA separateness of s&hools and other instit#tions is #sed to promote e5#alit4.

• (ang#age and indi$id#al rights and o$erall 19 th &. sense of the do&#ment

o %re these rights distin&ti$e.

o The4 are &olle&ti$e rights person?s 0eing part of a &olle&ti$it4 that 6arrant the right.

o In$ol$e positi$e o0ligations 04 the go$?t.o (i0eralism is in opposition as it deals 6ith the a0stra&t rights of indi$id#als 6hereas there is a &lear

response here that shapes the pop#lation H prod#&tion of Fran&o &hildrenA p#0li& #se of Fren&h H shaping isanti li0eral 0& it does not deal simpl4 indi$id#al rights. It is a0sent the lang#age of &hoi&e 6hi&h is &entralto li0eralism.

%&&ording to !&hmittA e4 6ord is people; in demo&ra&4

e4 6ord for li0eralism is indi$id#al;

!o there is a p#sh and p#ll here at stae in the dis&#ssion

%t stae is $er4 s#r$i$al of a people

o Tension H Con&eption of lang#age as a means is &ompati0le 6ith li0eral H right to epress one?s self

Co#rt seems to 0e taing a stan&e against the li0eral interpretation of the &harter lang#age is not 7#st mere means of

&omm#ni&ation <CBp. 1,1= 6hi&hA 6ere it 0e this mere meansA 6o#ld 0e an indi$id#al right. C#lt#ral rights are &olle&ti$eand therefore antili0eral.

+ord v. 7ue/ec A#

#risdi&tion >#e0e& H 819++ !CC

Fa&ts Ford &hallenged the se&tions of >#e0e&?s lang#age la6s dealing 6ith 0#siness signsA on the 0asis of s.,<0=:freedom of epression.

Iss#es 1. 'oes freedom of epression in&l#de the right to epress oneself in the lang#age of one?s &hoi&e,. If soA 6o#ld s#&h a $iolation 0e 7#stified #nder s.1


Ratio 1. (ang#age is so intimatel4 related to the form and &ontent of epression that there &annot 0e tr#efreedom of epression 04 means of lang#age if one is prohi0ited from #sing the lang#age of one?s &hoi&e.;

o *ne &an?t separate the message from the medi#m. This fa&t is s#pported 04 the >#e0e& (ang#age

Charter itself.o The &o#rt made a distin&tion 0et6een lang#age rights <in ss.1",3= and lang#age freedoms <6hi&h

are not reall4 &o$ered in the Constit#tion=A pointing o#t that the iss#e in this &ase 6as a lang#agefreedom. (ang#age rights deal 6ith intera&tion 6ith go$ernment and the rights to #se eitherlang#age in an4 sit#ation.

,. In its s.1 anal4sisA the &o#rt re&ognied that the Fren&h lang#age is $#lnera0le and that preser$ation is a pressing and s#0stantial o07e&ti$e.

o The &o#rt also re&ognied the importan&e of lang#age in the p#0li& domain.

o o6e$erA it fo#nd that the e&l#si$e #se of Fren&h 6as not ne&essar4 a simple predominan&e of

Fren&h 6o#ld 0e a more proportionate meas#re.

Comments >#e0e& prote&ted its legislation #sing s.33 laterA it amended the legislation to permit English as long as

)a8e 35




Fren&h is predominant <an eample of dialog#e=.>#e0e& anglophones &hallenged the la6 to the JN #man Rights CommitteeA and s#&&eeded in part.

Antaki

o Tho#ghts on arg#ment that medi#m &an 0e disting#ished from the message.

o ere is another di&hotom4 <form $s. s#0stan&e and no6 medi#m $s. message=

o Response of !CC is that lang#age &olo#rs the &ontent.

o %rg#ment &o#ld 0e that depth or $al#e of message in &ommer&ial settings might 0e lo6er than in othersettings.

o (ess &ontet#al approa&h &o#ld sa4 that there is nothing politi&al in &ommer&ial intera&tions.

o To 6hat etent is the &o#rt going to a0stra&t from the spe&ifi& of the &ases at hand and loo f#rther to the 0igger

pi&t#re.

Doucet

#risdi&tion

Fa&ts %ppeal 04 Fran&ophone parents for an order dire&ting the pro$ision of Fren&hlang#age se&ondar4s&hools in No$a !&otia. The4 presented e$iden&e that assimilation 6as rea&hing &riti&al le$elsA and ofdela4 04 the go$ernment in pro$iding s#&h s&hools. The 7#dge fo#nd that the Go$ernment had failed to

prioritie the parentsX minorit4 lang#age ed#&ation rights #nder se&tion ,3 of the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms. e ordered the Pro$in&e to pro$ide s&hool fa&ilities 04 spe&ified dates.

Iss#es hat is the po6er of the &o#rts to remed4 $iolation of s.,3

olding Co#rts &an pro$ide no$el remedies for $iolation of s.,3 other than 7#st &ontempt of &o#rt.

Ratio o Jnder se&tion ,<1=A the &o#rt 6as permitted to &raft an4 remed4 it &onsidered appropriate and 7#st.

The meaningf#l prote&tion of Charter rightsA parti&#larl4 the enfor&ement of se&tion ,3 lang#agerightsA permitted the introd#&tion of no$el remedies.

o e sele&ted an effe&ti$e remed4 that meaningf#ll4 $indi&ated the appellantsX se&tion ,3 rightsA 0earing

in mind the serio#s rates of assimilation and the histor4 of dela4 in the pro$ision of Fren&hlang#ageed#&ation.

Antaki

• orr4 6as pro$in&e in 0ad faith &o#ld let n#m0ers d6indle H attempting to for&e pro$in&es to deal 6ith them

forth6ith.• *pposition n li0eralism and demo&ra&4 lang#age rights might pro$ide a threat to a li0eral model H &ontending

so$erengties or polities. This does not go along 6ith li0eralism

• 'istin&tion 0n H$e and \$e rights do 4o# ha$e a right to 0e left alone or to 0e gi$en something. %rg#ment &an

0e #sed in fa$o#r of ]]]]]]]

R: A,%!''na& Pe%&e) and T#e C%n)t't*t'%n

Constitutional )hemes that Fave entered the ad9udication

o P#rpose and p#rposi$e ad7#di&ation:

o !.3/

o

#stifi&ation <e4 6ord from 0oth *aes and s.3/= Test that is $er4 similar to *aes test.o istor4 and relation to the past to 6hat etent does right histori&all4 6ill inform right toda4. (ang#age of

eisting rights.o Froen rights approa&h $s. approa&h to rights that &an &hange.

o (e$els of generalit4. Can &ast a right at different le$els of generalit4. E.g. Rights to fishA to s#stain peopleA

&ommer&ialD..o Right to fish Right to fish for sale Right to fish for s#stenan&e

o hat is a &onstit#tion 'oes it etend to &on$entions andA hereA to pra&ti&es 6ith relations to %0original peoples

o ritten $s. #n6ritten.

)a8e 33




o Intera&tion 0n federal and pro$in&ial la6s inter7#risdi&tional imm#nit4A in&idental effe&tsA PS!. Case 0oo does

not p#sh that side of things.o Indi$id#al $s. Colle&ti$e <demo& $s. li0eralism=.

o %nalogies 0n lang#age and a0original )ight not fit into li0eral &on&ept as the4 ha$e to do 6ith

preser$ation of a people.o Threat of &ompeting so$ereignties. Challenged in 0oth lang#age and a0original title &ases.

o Politi&s of re&ognition.o Comparison 6ith Ga4 marriage 6here 0oth are a re&ognition of rights

o %lso 6ith >#e0e& and distin&t so&iet4

>#estion: hat is the go#nd of a0original rightstitle 6hi&h is the same 5#estion 6e ased 6ith SP%N-$N P,+%R.>#estion: hat is the legal &hara&ter of rightstitle

o Idea of s#i generi&

o St. Catherines Milling Js#fr#&t#ar4. (ater &ases is sui generic not #sfr#&t#rar4 or personal.

o Fid#&iar4 d#t4 of the &ro6n to6ards a0original people. %(!* 'IFFICJ(T T* C%R%CTERI!E

Perpet#ation of stereot4peso %0original peoples o#tside of histor4 and o#tside of time

o No0le sa$age.These go to &o#rt and &ro6n maing s#re that there is proper #se on the land for f#t#re generations <so#nds paternalisti&=.

With Cases in Mind What are A+oriinal #ihts

o 'istin&t from %0original title

o %ssertion that Ro#al Procla"ation is so#r&e of %0original rights 'is&#ss

(amer seems to sa4 that rights do not find so#r&e in #nilateral a&t of the &ro6n. !o#r&e of these

rights is that %0original peoples 6ere here 0efore E#ropeans. Not ne&essarili4 so#r&e of rights 0#t so#r&e of Cro6n?s o0ligation H fid#&iar4 o0ligation. )aes

the &ro6n the pri$ileged a&tor. Pla&es the Cro6n in 0n pri$ate indi$id#als and %0originals.

%nother e4 element is that there m#st 0e some p#0li& meeting or assem0l4 0efore alienation.

o 'iffi&#lt4 in this area of la6 is 6a4 re&ognition and paternalism are &om0ined in some 6a4. Cro6n meantA in some

6a4A from themsel$es <thro#gh #se of land=.o Paternalism from le$els of &i$ilisation &on&ept and these leading to different &on&eptions of 6hat empo6erment for

%0original peoples might 0e.

With Cases in Mind What is A+oriinal )itle

o 'istin&t from %0original rights !ometimes tho#ght to 0e s#0set of %0original rightsD..0#t &o#rts re&gonise

#ni5#e atta&hment to the land. This 6o#ld mae one thin that title is primar4.o (and 0rings #p e4 0a&gro#nd iss#e that is hard to 6or thro#gh Is there a m4th or stereot4pe a0o#t 0eing an

%0original person that is perpet#ated in the &ases. Con&ept of temporalit4 and the histori&it4; of the h#man 0eing.Being 0ro#ght into the &#rrent era. To 6hat etend is there a tendan&4 to lo&ate a0original peoples in the past.

o Con&ept of the No0le !a$age in the 7#dgments

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] E&erpt from Canada8 0o5al Commission on A/original Peoples I %0estructuring the 0elationship* J1FFK

• CBp. /,, The la6s of Canada spring from a $ariet4 of so#r&es 0oth 6ritten and #n6rittenA stat#tor4 and

&#stomar4D.. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

uerin &ase 0#ilds on Calder v. B.C. that dealt 6ith the Nisga?a o$er$ie6 pre s.3/ of Constit %&t 19+,

• The Calder case is the sinle most important event to chane the idea of what a+oriinal rihts were. %fter the

Ro4al Pro&lamationA the Cro6n had entered into a series of treaties 6ith FN. In generalA FN ga$e #p rights to land inret#rn for reser$e lands and other &on&essions. o6e$erA large parts of Canada 6ere ne$er s#07e&t to treaties <espe&iall4

)a8e 3>




in BC and northern >C=. %0original people &laimed that the4 had ne$er gi$en #p their rights to the landA and so it still 0elonged to them in spite of 6hite settlement.

• This &ase &ame o#t of BC H a0originals &laimed that a0original rights 6ere ne$er eting#ished and therefore the land 6as

o6ned 04 them. The arg#ment against them 6as that the Cro6n had asserted so$ereignt4 o$er the land and affirmed itthro#gh legislation. The a0original rights 6ere in&onsistent 6ith the assertion of so$ereignt4.

• WW 3 7#dges !CC fo#nd that the a+oriinal rihts were part of common lawA &o#ld 0e ad7#di&ated 04 the Canadian

&o#rtsA that the Nisg?as had a0original rights 0#t that the4 had 0een eting#ished. 3 7#dges said that the rights 6erene$er eting#ished. There 6as no &lear intent to eting#ish rights in the legislation asserting so$ereignt4.

• Pigeon said that there 6as a pro&ed#ral fla6 in the &aseA and the !CC &o#ld not ad7#di&ate the &laim d#e to the fla6

<&opo#t=.

#uerin v. &he 7ueen

#risdi&tion 819+ !CC H 'i&son

Fa&ts (ease of reser$e land to a golf &l#0 in @an&o#$er <!ha#ghness4 eights=. )#s5#eam Band $oted tos#rrender the land to the Cro6n 0#t &laims that ma7or terms of the lease 6ere different than those presented tothe Band 0efore the s#rrender $ote. Band &laims damages and 0rea&h of fid#&iar4 d#t4 of the &ro6n.

Iss#es Is the 0and a0le to re&o$er damages for 0rea&h of fid#&iar4 d#t4

olding Les

Ratio Right in the land is a sui generic right. It is not o6nership. It &an 0e des&ri0ed as a 0enefi&ial interest 0#t isnot reall4 a #s#fr#&t or a personal right.

• Nat#re of Indian title pla&es the &ro6n #nder an e5#ita0le o0ligation to deal 6ith the land for the 0enefit of the Indianspla&es them in a fid#&iar4 relationship. ⇒not 5#ite a tr#stA 0#t lia0ilit4 arises

in the same 6a4. Rooted in <a= a0original title and <0= inaliena0ilit4 e&ept to the &ro6n

• Inaliena0ilit4 and o0ligation of the Cro6n to deal 6ith land on %0originals? 0ehalf 6hen

s#rrendered.

• P#rpose of re5#irement of s#rrender and fid#&iar4 relationship is to pre$ent Indians from 0eing

eploited.

• &ro6n 0rea&hed this 04 pro&eeding 6ith ne6A #nfa$o#ra0le terms that the 0and &o#nsel did not

appro$eBrea&h of fid#&iar4 d#t4 6hi&h isA in itA paternalisti&.

• 'etrimental relian&eA #n&ons&iona0ilit4A estopped from going 0a&. *ral terms are not in&orporated

into the s#rrender do&. The4 form the 0a&drop.

• *nl4 deal 6ith pri$ate la6 iss#e and not the oral representation as part of a &#lt#re that relies more

on oral tradition than 6ritten. Perhaps 0& it is not a treat4 0#t rather a ne6 agreement.

Co#rt sa4ing that it is not a pri$ate nor a p#0li& la6 d#t4. 'iffi&#lt4 of Canada re&ogniing so$ereignt46ithin its o6n 0orders. 'efined in J! as 'omesti& dependa0le nations 6ithin its o6n 0orders.; !imilar pro0lemati& iss#e.

Note 'oes the fid#&iar4 d#t4 <a= impede selfs#ffi&ien&4 and <0= repli&ate dependen&4

Antaki

o Nat#re of fid#&iar4 d#t4

o E$iden&e in light of this fid#&iar4 d#t4 to 6hat etent it &hara&terises into a pri$ate la6 lang#age.

• s.3/ rights are not part of the &harter. !.3/.1 : eisting a0original and treat4 rights of the a0original peoples of Canada

are here04 re&ognied and affirmed.

• 3/.1 6as a last min#te addition to the Charter. No0od4 ne6 6hat it meant 0e&a#se a0original rightstitle had not reall4

0een defined. !o it fell to the &o#rts. First ma7or &ase on a0original rightsA and th#s the first opport#nit4 to delineate

rightsA 6as Sparrow.

S: C%n)t't*t'%na& nt!en"#ment % A,%!''na& R'#t)

0. v. (parrow

#risdi&tion !CC 8199-

Fa&ts !A a mem0er of the )#s5#eam BandA 6as &harged #nder the Fisheries %&t for #sing too long a drift net. e&laims he 6as eer&ising an a0original right to fish.

Iss#es hat is the s&ope of s.3/<1=

)a8e 3




olding It pla&es the 0#rden on the go$ernment to 7#stif4 the infringement of an4 a0original rightsA 6hi&h arethemsel$es rooted in the preeisten&e of a0original peoples.

Ratio 'i&son and (aForestEisting;: premised on the idea thatA despite re&ognition in RP 12"3A Crown has alwa5s had the power to

e<tinguish a/original rights8 if it chooses to do so. o Eting#ished rights are not re$i$edA 0#t it does not s#0s#me the pre&ise manner in 6hi&h a right 6as

reg#lated. ⇒ re7e&tion of froen rights?. Taing of salmon 6as an integral part of the li$es of the)#s5#eamA and remains soA therefore it is their a0original right to do so.

o It 6as not eting#ished 04 the Fisheries %&tA reg#lation ^ etin&tion so$ereign?s intention m#st 0e

clear and plain if it is to eting#ish an a0original right.o Note pre19+, there 6as no &onsent needed for etin&tion of right.

!&ope of the Right: s#0sisten&eA so&ial and &eremonial a&ti$ities. Cro6n poli&4 &annot delineate the &ontentof the rightA it &anA ho6e$erA limit its eer&iseA 0#t that limit m#st 0e &onsistent 6ith s.3/<1=.

Re&ognied and %ffirmed;: s.3/<1= m#st 0e &onstr#ed p#rposi$el4: No6egi7i& $. the >#een 819+3 ⇒

li0erall4 &onstr#edA and am0ig#it4 resol$ed in fa$o#r of Indians. G#erin and R. $. Ta4lor <19+1=: fid#&iar4relation.

o E$en tho#gh s.1 does not appl4A the &ro6n is still entitled to a :ustificator# process that a$oids 0oth

etremes of entren&hing past reg#lations and entren&hing a0sol#te #nrestri&ted eer&ise of a0originalrights.

1= If legislation has effe&t of infringing a rightA it?s a prime fa&ie infringement of s.3/<1=. The on#s is on theindi$id#al &hallenging the la6.,= If soA is that infringement 7#stified <this 6hole se&tion is read in= a= Is there a $alid o07e&ti$e Conser$ation &o#ntsA as does pre$ention of harm to general pop#lation orto a0original pop#lation 0= Is the tr#st relationship 0eing respe&ted <G#erin= &= )inimal impairment d= &ons#ltation <& and d are a means test= e= Fair &ompensation <ereA that re5#ired that )#s5#eam interest tr#mp all 0#t &onser$ation in theallo&ation of fisheries reso#r&es=

retrial to esta0lish if <a= the net length re5#irement is a prima fa&ie infringement and <0= 6hether thatinfringement is &onsistent 6ith s.3/<1=

'ifferen&e 0n s.1

In s.1 &aseA &o#rt is going to spea for so&iet4 at large. B#t in these &asesA 6ill spea for so&iet4 at large 0#talso the fid#&iar4 d#t4.

Antaki

o (oos at the 5#estion in CC( 6hi&h loos at the legitima&4 of go$?t a&tion. <CBp.//=. The4 a&t#all4 mean

legalit4. The4 are 0l#rring the lines 0n (% %N' P*(ITIC!UUUo o6 is the idea of legitima&4 tied to the hono#r of the &ro6n. This is 0ro#ght #p in this &ase.

o Relationship 0n limitationA etin&tion and &onsentA &ons#lt. !eem that the greater the limitationA the more

&ons#ltation and then &onsent is needed.o Possi0le &o#nter arg#ment against the s#pport for #se of s.1 rather than this idea of this test and fid#&iar4 d#t4 6o#ld

0e that it p#ts a larger ono#s on the Parl to 7#stif4 &ertain things.o %ntai thins that the tool of fid#&iar4 d#t4 in litigation is a0sol#tel4 essential. Needed as then there is an ine5#alit4

at the 0argaining ta0le.

0. v. :an der Peet

#risdi&tion !CC 8199" H (amer CC

Fa&ts ' <mem0er of the sto:lo= sold fish that 6ere &a#ght #nder the a#thorit4 of an Indian food fish li&ense &ontrar4to B.C. Fisher4 regs. Claims these regs $iolate s.3/<1= of Constit %&t.

Iss#es 'o Fisher4 regs $iolate s.3/<1=

olding

Ratio • %rg#ment that C.%. erred 0& it defined a0original rights thro#gh the identifi&ation of pre&onta&t a&ti$ities

)a8e 3.




rather than preeisting legal rights.

• To identif4 the p#rpose of the pro$isionA m#st loo to the rationale and fo#ndation of the re&ognition and

affirmation of the spe&ial rights of %0original peoples.

• % p#rposi$e test for %0original rights: Din order to 0e an a0original right an a&ti$it4 m#st 0e an element

of a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition integral to the distin&ti$e &#lt#re of the a0original gro#p &laiming theright.; <h4 p#rposi$e see CBp. /"=

• Considerations in&l#ded in the ,B&E#0AL & A D,(&,BC&,:E C)L&)0E &E(& :1. The perspe&ti$e of %0original peoples themsel$es

o6e$erA Dthe perspe&ti$e m#st 0e framed in terms &ognia0le to the Canadian

legal and &onstit#tional str#&t#re.; Relationship 6ith %0original peoples to the land

,. The pre&ise nat#re of the &laim 0eing madehether a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition is of central significance to the %0original so&iet4 in 5#estion<!o#nds lie &ore peripher4=

This means that one m#st demonstrate that the pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition 6as one

of the things 6hi&h made the &#lt#re of that so&iet4 distin&ti$ethat it 6as one of thethings that tr#l4 made the so&iet4 6hat it 6as.; <again this deals 6ith the idea of &ore=

3. hether a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition has &ontin#it4 6ith pra&ti&esA &#stoms or traditionsthat eisted prior to &onta&t

(amer CC &laims that this is not the same thing as froen rightsA; 0e&a#se it allo6sfor pra&ti&esA &#stoms and traditions to e$ol$e into modern formsA pro$ided there issome &ontin#it4 6ith pre&onta&t times. The &ontin#it4 doesn?t ne&essaril4 need to 0e#n0roen.

. The e$identiar4 diffi&#lties inherent in ad7#di&ating %0original &laims/. hether a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition is important to the spe&ifi& gro#p &laiming the right". hether a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition is of independent signifi&an&e; to the &#lt#reA and

not 7#st in&idental to another pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition2. hether a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition is distin&ti$e; <and not ne&essaril4 distin&t;= H

this is a &laim that the &#stom m#st mae the &#lt#re what it is. <seems lie a $er4 stri&tre5#irement=.

+. hether a pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition is onl4 integral to a &#lt#re 0e&a#se of E#ropeaninfl#en&e

9. he relationship of %0original peoples to the land and the distin&ti$e so&ieties and &#lt#resof %0original peoples(amer CC held that @an der Peet did not ha$e an a0original right to sell fishA 0e&a#se the e2change of fish6as not a distin&ti$e part of !to:lo &#lt#re it 6as 7#st in&idental; to other aspe&ts of !to:lo &#lt#re.

'issent • (?e#re#'#0O A dissentingA preferred an a0stra&t; approa&hA rather than fo&#sing on the parti&#lar

pra&ti&eA &#stom or tradition in 5#estion. s.3/<1= does not prote&t a &atalog#e of indi$id#alied pra&ti&esAtraditions or &#stoms; it prote&ts %0original &#lt#res as a 6hole.

• (?e#re#'#0O disagreed 6ith (amer CC?s re5#irement of &ontin#it4 6ith pre&onta&t &#lt#reA

&onsidering it ar0itrar4 and &alling it a froen rights; approa&h. !he preferred a d4nami& rights;approa&hA permitting &#lt#res to e$ol$e and adapt. !he #ses the )Otis as an eample of the inade5#a&4 ofa pre&onta&t re5#irement.

• The determining fa&tor sho#ld onl4 0e that the a0original a&ti$it4 has formed an integral part of a

distin&ti$e a0original &#lt#re H ie to ha$e 0een s#ffi&ientl4 signifi&ant and f#ndamental to the &#lt#re and

so&ial organiation of the a0original gro#p H for a s#0stantial &ontin#o#s period of timeD;'issent • )&(a&hlin A dissentingA arg#ed that the la6 has histori&all4 re&ognied %0originals? right to s#stain

themsel$es from the land and 6atersA and to trade as far as ne&essar4 to s#stain themsel$es. !he arg#edthat an&estral rights ma4 0e eer&ised in modern forms.

• (amer?s test is said to 0e o$er0road as 6ords distin&ti$eA in&idental en&ompass man4 non$ital a&tions.

• (amer: %0original rights as falling o#tside the li0eral do&#ment of the Charter <as mentioned 04 (amer CC at CBp.

/"=. These are not li0eral rights as the4 do not fo&#s on the inherent dignit4 of ea&h indi$id#al in so&iet4. InsteadAtheir eisten&e is 0ased on the fa&t that the s#07e&ts of these rights are a0original H ie mem0ership of a gro#p. <o6does this fit 6ith s.1/ 6hi&h also 0asi&all4 re5#ires mem0ership of a gro#p.=

)a8e >0




There seems to 0e a more froen rights in (armer?s de&ision. )ore a0stra&t approa&h is needed a&&ording to (?'.

• Prof. !heppard said that (amer?s 7#dgment &an 0e taen as the &#rrent state of the la6.

• o#ld selfgo$ernment 0e an %0original right #nder s.3/<1=

• Prof. !heppard thins that the Van der Peet test 6o#ld #phold the right to selfgo$ernment. B#t there 6o#ld still 0e

an iss#e of defining the s&ope of selfgo$ernment.Interesting here is the &ontrast 6ith nsele" 6hi&h made s#re the &o#rt did not loo into spe&ifi& religio#s pra&ti&es 6hereashere the4 are loo <as a &entral e$al#ation= at the pra&ti&es and &#stoms of a Band in order for it to 0e &onsidered a prote&ted%0original right.

0. v. #ladstone

#risdi&tion !CC 8199" H (amer CC

Fa&ts )em0er of the eilts# Band &harged 6ith attempting to sell erring spa6n 6itho#t a proper li&ense.

Iss#es Is this a $iolation of s.3/<1=

olding Les H &ommer&ial sale or 0arter of herring spa6n on elp to 0e an %0original Right.

Ratio o (amer CC applied the test in Van der Peet A and fo#nd that the sale of herring spa6n on elp

6as a distin&ti$e feat#re of eilts# so&iet4.o (amer CC held that there 6asn?t eno#gh e$iden&e to determine 6hether an infringement had

0een 7#stified. e re&ognied <in the a0stra&t= the o$er6helming importan&e of &onser$ationA 0oth to %0original gro#ps and to Canada as a 6hole. e 6ent on to sa4 thatA on&e &onser$ationgoals had 0een metA $ario#s other &riteria &o#ld 7#stif4 infringement of %0original rightsA s#&has e&onomi& and regional fairness; and the histori&al fishing pra&ti&es of non%0originalgro#ps.

4aida Bation v. $.C. !inister of +orests

#risdi&tion !CC H 8,-- H )&(a#&hlin CC

Fa&ts Tree farm li&ense gi$en to forestr4 firm on land for 6hi&h title is &laimed 04 aida. aida has &laimedtitle on this island and s#rro#nding 6aters for o$er 1-- 4ears. Tree farming li&ense 6as transferred tone6 &ompan4 in 1999. From 199 onA aida ha$e &ontested the li&ense and &ontested the transfer.BC!C said their 6as no legal d#t4 to &ons#lt the aidaA onl4 a moral one. C% re$ersed this.

Iss#es Is there a legal d#t4 to &ons#lt the aida regarding tree farming li&enses on the island of 6hi&h the4

&laim titleolding Go$ernment m#st &ons#lt in good faith. Pri$ate &ompan4 has no d#t4 to &ons#lt.

Ratio hile the asserted 0#t #npro$en %0original rights and title are ins#ffi&ientl4 spe&ifi& for the hono#r ofthe Cro6n to mandate that the Cro6n a&t as a fid#&iar4A the Cro6nA a&ting hono#ra0l4A &annot &a$alierl4r#n ro#ghshod o$er %0original interests 6here &laims affe&ting these interests are 0eing serio#sl4 p#rs#ed in the pro&ess of treat4 negotiation and proof.

o The fo#ndation of the d#t4 in the Cro6n?s hono#r and the goal of re&on&iliation s#ggest that the

d#t4 arises 6hen the Cro6n has no6ledgeA real or &onstr#&ti$eA of the potential eisten&e of the%0original right or title and &ontemplates &ond#&t that might ad$ersel4 affe&t it.

o Cons#ltation and a&&ommodation 0efore final &laims resol#tion preser$e the %0original interest

and are an essential &orollar4 to the hono#ra0le pro&ess of re&on&iliation that s. 3/ of theConstitution ct0 5D9A demands.

o The Cro6n is not #nder a d#t4 to rea&h an agreement ratherA the &ommitment is to a meaningf#l

pro&ess of &ons#ltation in good faith.o The s&ope of the d#t4 is proportionate to a preliminar4 assessment of the strength of the &ase

s#pporting the eisten&e of the right or titleA and to the serio#sness of the potentiall4 ad$erseeffe&t #pon the right or title &laimed.

o Finall4A the d#t4 to &ons#lt and a&&ommodate applies to the pro$in&ial go$ernment. %t the time

of the JnionA the Pro$in&es too their interest in land s#07e&t to an4 interest other than that ofthe Pro$in&e in the same. !in&e the d#t4 to &ons#lt and a&&ommodate here at iss#e is gro#ndedin the assertion of Cro6n so$ereignt4 6hi&h predated the JnionA the Pro$in&e too the landss#07e&t to this d#t4.

)a8e >




The strength of the &ase for 0oth the aida?s title and their right to har$est red &edarA &o#pled 6ith theserio#s impa&t of in&remental strategi& de&isions on those interestsA s#ggest that the hono#r of the Cro6nma4 also re5#ire signifi&ant a&&ommodation to preser$e the aida?s interest pending resol#tion of their&laims.

Framewor for infrin,ement

/. Wa) t#e!e a !'#t?&arrow = Ian der Peet

2. Wa) 't e+t'n*')#ed?$' D%e) &e')&at'%n 6%! !e*&at'%n7 'n!'ne !'#t? onus on person !hallen8in8 le8islation;

Eunreasonableness= undue hardship= et!'F4. I) t#e 'n!'nement @*)t''ed? onus shifts to 8oernment;

obGe!tie of the le8islation - !ompellin8 and substantial yes - publi! interest no Gustifi!ation of the le8islation - Ehonour of the CrownF# fidu!iary duty - alid internal limitationH oernmental priorities

- if there is no internal limitation - R v. 7ladstone

Delgamuukw v. $.C.

#risdi&tion !CC 81992 H (amer CC

Fa&ts /1 Chiefs 0ring a &laim of a0original title and selfgo$?t to a region of B.C.

Iss#es is the land claim valid?

olding Trial 7#dge re7e&ted the &laims 0e&a#se he did not gi$e &reden&e to oral histor4. % ne6 trial 6as ordered 0e&a#se of the importan&e of re&ogniing different methods of re&ording histor4. Co#rt eplains ho6 toesta0lish a0original title.

Ratio o %0original title is s#i generis. It &onfers the right to #se land for a $ariet4 of a&ti$itiesA not all of

6hi&h need 0e aspe&ts of pra&ti&esA &#stoms and traditions 6hi&h are integral to eh distin&ti$e&#lt#res ratherA the4 are parasiti& on the #nderl4ing title.

o The so#r&e is fa&t of prior o&&#pation. Lo# ha$e to esta0lish 4o#r &laim rele$ant to the period

leading #p to so$ereignt4.o

This is the &#t off 0e&a#se at the moment of so$ereignt4 the &ro6n ass#med title of the land.!in&e a0original title is a 0#rden on the Cro6n titleA so long as 4o# &an esta0lish 4o#r title to theland 0efore the Cro6n &o#ldA 4o# had a &ase.

o It?s more genero#s than rights 0e&a#se it &an s#r$i$e &onta&t. Treat4 of 1+" esta0lished &ontrol

o$er BC. (and is held &omm#nall4.o Content: e&l#si$e #se and o&&#pation of landA 6hi&h &annot 0e in&ompati0le 6ith the

atta&hment to the land.o Eamination of &ontent <e&l#si$it4 6ith inherent limit <6hi&h deals 6ith paternalism==A

prote&tion 04 s.3/A proof <6hat &o#nts as o&&#pationA ho6 is &ontin#it4 demonstrated.

• Three 0ig 5#estions on a0original &laims:

1. 6hat?s the rele$ant time,. 6hat are the limitations on the #se of the land3. 6hat ind of 7#stifi&ations are there for limiting title

• ogg: there are important differen&es 0et6een %0original title and &ommon la6 title to land:

$. A+oriinal title is pre@sovereint! occupation, and &ommon la6 is 0ased on postso$ereignt4 of the &ro6n*. A+oriinal title is onl! aliena+le to the Crown

. A+oriinal title can onl! +e held communall!, 6hi&h ne&essaril4 entails me&hanisms 6ithin the &omm#nit4 tode&ide ho6 the land 6ill 0e #sedA 6hi&h is an aspe&t of selfgo$ernment

7. A+oriinal title is constitutionall! protected. )4 title to m4 ho#se is not entren&hed in the &onstit#tion. It &an 0etaen a6a4 tomorro6 04 legislation. Prior to 19+, Parliament &o#ld eting#ish a0original title if it had a $alidreason or &lear intentA 0#t pro$in&es &o#ldn?t 0e&a#se 4o# need &lear intent and if pro$in&ial legislation had &lear

)a8e >2




intent it 6o#ld 0e ultra vires 0e&a#se of di$ision of po6ers. Post19+, an4 infringement of a0original title m#stsatisf4 3/.1 and Sparrow.

#EJ%EW (0 DA WF(LE )%'?

Entren&hment and %mendment

• Constit as something entren&hed

• )#st go thro#gh amendment form to 0e &hanged

o 'ifferent from organi& sort 0#t not entren&hed in the formal sense

• Formal methods ased ho6 is this idea of a forma &hange <amendment form= fit 6ithin o#r idea of de$eloping

&onstit#tion and li$ing treeo !an4?s idea of a li$ing tree

• To 6hat eten are formal amendment pro&ed#res demo&ra&ti&

Instr#ments of fle

•

Instr#ments that allo6 fle 0e4ond the 6ritten 6ord.o hat is meant 04 fle

o h4 6o#ld it 0e ne&essar4

Broader role of state in so&ial poli&4 <6elfare state no re5#ires fle=

• )odalities of fle

o Intergo$

o 'elegation

o !pending po6er

#sti&ia0iilt4 6h4 no ans6er to gro#nd and s&ope of spending po6er

'on?t ha$e great amo#nts of material 0#t good things to ha$e in minds for 0roader 5#estions

!&hmitt and !a7o

• !e&ession ref ideas are 0roght #p

• (oss of prestige of parliament and parliamentarism. Co#ld s#0stit#te legitima&4 for prestige.

o 19th & Parl H free e&hange of ideas going to6ards tr#th

o 6ith ad$ent of mass demo&ra&4 leads to la& of free e&hange of ideas

o mo$e to this n#e6 era 6here interest gro#ps assert their 6ill

• !&hmitt disaggregate li0eralism and demo&ra&4 <attempts

o No6A 6hen thin of demo& 6e thin of li0eralism

o 'isagregation is e4

)a8e >$




o 'emo& e4 &on&ept is the people. This is diff from li0eralism. (i0eralism is fo&#sed on the indi$id#al and

sees to limit the state.

• %ttempt to thin thro#gh e4 terms in the &o#rse <demo&A li0eralismA parliamentarismA legitima&4=

%nte&ednts of Charter.

• Red 0oo a#thors asing ho6 ne6 6as the &harter reall4 To 6hat etent 6ere p#rposes and aims of the &harter

refleted in pre&harter • Tradition of British &onstit

o Ron&arelli to 6hat etent is lang#age of rights $isi0le or prominent and to 6hat etent do rights do the

legal 6or

• Jse of Federalism to limit state po6er.

o Federalsim and ra&e &ases

!ee !CC and red 0oo str#ggle 6ith s.91<,/= to 6hat etent pro$in&ial la6s are ultra vires to

prote&t rightso Implied Bill

%nalogo#s to fed &ases. Jse of &riminal la6 po6er. !till looing to di$ision of po6ers.

>: Degree to which the courts are willing to sa58 even Parl cannot do certain things.

• Jse of ordinar4 legislation 0ill of rights.

o Not entren&hed.

• Three ante&edents H ho6 ne6 is the &harter reall4 For&e #s to loo &aref#ll at 6hat &harter re$ol#tion reall4 6as.

o6 deepl4 entre&hed 6ere these ante&edents. %s the 5#estionD.0#t don?t ans6er.

!tr#&t#re of Charter

• e4 6ords

o hi&h rights are g#aranteed to e$er4one

!.,A s.2A s.1/ s#07e&t to not6ithstanding

o To &itiens

Not s#07e&t to s.33

o !A1 has e4 role.

• !.1 and s.33 limit rights 0#t in radi&all4 different 6a4s.

• (ang#age pro$ision

• !., and enfor&ement• !.3, and appli&ation to 6hom does it appl4

%d$ent of the Charter

• hat happened 6hen &ame on the lands&ape

o 'emo& $s. &onstit#tionalism

The legitima&4 of 7#di&ial re$ie6

• ho o#ght to 0e maing the de&isions <7#dges or ele&ted=

o Canadian Ntl #nit4 and &harter

Not 7#st their to prote&t rightsA 0#t as a s4m0ol of #nit4 6hi&h 0rings #p the 5#estion of >#e0e&

and ho6 it 6as or 6as not in&l#ded.o Petter H 19th C li0eralDD

Thin a0o#t H $er4 important to Petter that it &osts mone4 to go to &o#rts. Compesition of 7#di&ial is &riti&al to Petter.

E$en in&l#siong of s.1A s.1/A s.,+ might not temper Petter 0& of so&iologi&al 0a&drop.

o ogg 'ialog#e

Important in legitima&4 as &o#rts do not ha$e last 6ord. (ess of legitima&4 6orr4.

Certain feat#res of &harter that 6ill fa&ilitate dialog#e <s.33A s.1A other 5#alified &harter rights <s.2=

and e5#alit4 rights= ThereforeA has less pro0lem 6ith legitima&4 and thin dialog#e 6ill 0e 0enefi&ial to demo&

• R lang#age is also in 0a&drop

)a8e >4




Frame6or

• P#rposi$e in Hunter .

o Is the 6ord p#rpose in p#rposi$e approa&h diff from #se of p#rpose in federalism &ases

o Relation 0n p#rposi$e approa&h and li0eralism approa&h. Tenden&4 of &o#rts is to tie 6ith 6ord genero#s.

hat 6or is 0eing done 04 the 6ord p#rposi$e approa&h

• *aeso ,nd part of s.1. <don?t for get pres&ri0ed 04 la6 first=

o #di&ial assessment of importan&e of legislat#re?s o07e&ti$e. <also thin p#rpose in terms of lang#age=

o %nal4sis of proportionalit4

Rational &one&tion

)inimal impairment <do the means &hose impair as little as possi0leD

-agenais modifi&ation to 0alan&ing of effe&ts.

• ilson separate 0#t &on&#rring opinion in %d"onton 4ournal

o Contet#al approa&h in opposition to a0stra&t approa&h

o In 0oth &asesA m#st identif4 the $al#es the g#arantee is designed to prote&t <p#rposi$el4= and then o07e&ti$e

of the legislat#re. !o 6hat?s the diff eighing of $al#es differentl4

• Sa"e1se2

o 'i$ision 0n la6 and politi&s H sho#ld &o#rt e$en ans6er 5#estion <7#sti&ia0ilit4=

o (ang#age of li$ing tree

o Politi&s of re&ognition. <s4m0oli& re&ogD..=

Enfor&ement

• Promian&e or importan&e in the theor4 or dialog#e

• *ptions of enfor&ement 6ill &hange dialoge. If &o#rts &an ro0#stl4 enfor&eA then not thro6ing 0a& to legislat#re. If

&an read inA not going to thro6 0a&. This affe&ts dialoge.

• 'isting#ished s./, and s.,

o !./, H #n&onstit#tional <no for&e and effe&t=.

(a6 is de&lared #n&onstit#tional

(a6 itself m#st 0e pro0lemati&

o !., H enfor&ed in an improper 6a4

Possi0ilit4 of damages and in7#n&tions 'e&laration that 4o#r right has 0een enfringed.

Co#rt of &ompetent 7#risdi&tion.

• inds of fa&tors that infl#en&e remedies

o 'ialog#e

o B#dgetar4 impli&ations ma4 &onstrain. If there are ma7ore impli&ations and 7#dges reign themsel$es inA less

pro0s 6ith (EGITI)%CL

• Co#rts 6ill to read in terms.

o Vriend 'issent sa4s prett4 &lear %l0erta is opposed and prmotes s#spension of in$alidit4.

o /ittle Sisters (a6 on fa&e is $alid. %t 6hat point does ar0itrar4 enfor&ement of a la6 0e&ome

pro0lemati& for the la6 itself. Ia&o0#&&i?s dissent sa4s sho#ld hold the la6 in$alid instead of ass#ming it6ors.

%dmin Tri0#nals

• Not on eam #nless &an 0ring it inD.

%ppli&ation <essential to 0e a0le to #se legal propositions=

• To 6hom does &harter appl4

• 'olphin &harter does not appl4 dire&tl4 to pri$ate a&tors

• )&inne4 7#st 0& &reat#re of stat#te does not mean &harter applies to 4o#.

• Petter Charters reins&ri0es p#0li& pri$ate di$ide of 19 th &

)a8e >5




(imitation

• *aes

o @ag#eness and pres&ri0ed 04 la6. @ag#eness and )inimal Impairment.

o Not m#&h time spent.

o )ost 6ill s#&&eed in passing

o Reloo at *aes !#0se5#ent to *aes #nder heading of Contet and 'eferen&e. !oA to 6hat etent is greater

importan&e of &ontet is a 6a4 in 6hi&h limitations on rights &an 0e more easil4 #pheld. -agenais modifi&ation of *aes. (oo to sal#tar4. To 6hat etent is this modifi&ation a response

to ilson in %d"onton 4ournal

s.,<a=

• )oon

o %rg#: Transformation from freedom of religion into freedom of &ons&ien&e. Indi$id#al li0ert4 fo#nd in

freedom of religion. No longer religio#s tr#th that re5#ires no religio#s &oer&ion.o !ensiti$e to s4nonm4. P#rpose and o07e&ti$e. %#tonom4A li0ert4 and freedom.

• Big M

o P#rpose of la6 eplitl4 religion p#rpose &annot shift o$er time for s.1 *aes test. )#st entertain

*riginal p#rpose• %dwards Books

o Effe&ts and s.1 are fo&#s.

• Childrens' id Societ#.

o 'ifferent 7#dgments. !ome more 6illing to pit rights of &hild against right of parents. Threatening of

safet4 of the &hild are not prote&ted. *ther possi0ilit4 6as genero#s #nder ,<a= and then #phold limitation #nder s.1

I)P*RT%NT di$ision of la0o#r 0n s.1 and s.,<a=

s.,<0=

• Three 7#stifi&ations integral to politi&al demo& <Parliamentarist=A sear&h for tr#thA self realiation of listener and

speaer <selff#lfillment=

• $rwin To# o Intro idea that ma40e &ommer&ial epression is of lesser @%(JE

o !o&ial s&ientifi& e$iden&e. To 6hat etent 6ill re5#ire this e$eiden&e or to 6hat etent gi$e deferen&e.

o 'eferen&e for prote&tion of $#lnera0le gro#ps.

• ;eegstra and Butler

o Iss#e of so&ial s&ientifi& e$iden&e

o Effort of &o#rt to 0e amoral of epression. Not to sa4 this is more and less 6orth4 and (ag#age of %R)

does more 6or. !tr#ggle to sta4 a6a4 from lang#age of moralit4 <sometimes letting it in=

• )&innon and est

• o6 different #nderl4ing prin&iples of the &harter are inter&onne&ted. 'i&son in *aes. !ame $al#es and

prin&iples that lead to the rightsA lead to de&ision to limit rights. ereA thin of 6hat prin&iples are allo6ing limits<&ompare 6ith Children's id Societ#8

s.2

• T6o fold 0a&drop.

o %meri&an de0ate o$er s#0stanti$e d#e pro&ess. Not 7#st ho6 the legislat#re 0#t 6hat &an it tae a6a4

o Nat#ral 7#sti&e.

• Morgentaler

o Tenstion 0n s#0stanti$e and pro&ed#ral d#e pro&ess. To 6hat etent and 6hi&h 7#dges fo&#s on pro&ed#re

and others fo&#s on s#0stan&e <ilson=

• Rodrigue&

o Tension 0n poli&4 and prin&iple.

)a8e >3




o6 is it that s#i&ide is not &riminal 0#t assisting is

o 'ignit4 &omes #p 6hi&h 6ill pro$e so &r#&ial in e5#alit4 &ases.

• New Brunswick case

o )#st %rti&#lation of &laim in terms of ps4&ho damage. That des&ription itself does $iolen&e to the parent

&hild relationship.o Thin Children's id H relgion and indi$id#al &hoi&e and not.

• Right to statef#nded &o#nsel. #sti&ia0ilit4 of po$ert4. E&erpt from CC(.o Feminisation of po$ert4 from (?e#re#'

s.1/

• %ndre6s to (a6

• 'oes %ndre6s test reall4 refle&t %ndre6s &ase.

• In la6A tries to flesh o#tA 6hat is dis&riminator4 0ringing in dignit4. Not eno#gh that there is deferential treatement.

hat 4o# need is the 0enefit to 0e denied that reinfor&es stereot4pe that f#&s 6ith dignit4.o Reasona0le person test. Not eno#gh that 4o# as a sing#lar indi$id#al 0#t m#st 0e reasona0le indi$id#al

6o#ld 0eli$e that.

• %d$erse effe&ts dis&rimination

o *pposed to federalism 6here loo at p#rpose is determinati$e. ereA e$en if p#rpose is fine on its fa&eA

effe&ts still &an mae de&lared in$alid if re5#ired.o !heppard: Importan&e of fo&#s on effe&ts. !ho#ld not ha$e to 0e an intent to dis&riminate.

• Idea of a statisti&all4 disproportionate impa&t. Co#rt not 6illing to go $er4 far in that area.

o Gro#p not effe&ted in same 6a4. %ldridge hole gro#p is dis&riminated in same 6a4.

o Co#ld ha$e other &ases 6here mem0ers of gro#p s#ffer in different 6a4 <eample of !tandardied tests=

• %nalogo#s and en#merated gro#nds.

o )#st arti&#late &laim in lang#age of analogo#s and en#merated gro#nd.

o Re&og?d se#al orientationA marital stat#sA offreser$e stat#s

o hat 6o#ld f#t#re gro#nds 0e dependant on I)JT%BI(ITL H ho6 does this effe&t

• /ovelace

o 1/<,= and &ar$ing o#t an e&eption N*.

o !till possi0ilit4 of some 0eing left 0ehind 04 the program that reinfor&es stereot4pes or demeans dignit4 or

in a 6a4 that lea$es 4o# 6hole.

Eam:<K3-= Chara&ter of Constit#tional %d7#di&ation #nder Charter $.s #nder federalism &omparison.

<K-= !tr#&t#re of Charter as a 6hole. 'e0ates spoen of s.1 and 6or of others.

<K3-= E&erpt m#st read and &omment on.

%d$erse effe&ts reminded in 1st half.

329 Antaki Constitutionallaw Winter2005 2

Documents

Transcript of 329 Antaki Constitutionallaw Winter2005 2