COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and...

20
COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality

Transcript of COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and...

Page 1: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Class 7 – September 10 2008

CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality

Page 2: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Wrap-Up – Class 6

• Charter of Rights and Freedoms: history and rights it contains

• Uniquely Canadian feature: s. 33 Override Clause

• State action doctrine embodied in s. 32

Page 3: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

S. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

• Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

• 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Page 4: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Tiered Scrutiny in the U.S.• Really began with the famous footnote 4 in U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)• Text of Footnote Four• “There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of

constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth…

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation.

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious … or national … or racial minorities …: whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.

Page 5: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Some classifications are especially suspect

• E.g. race, national origin

• What level of scrutiny do they get?

Page 6: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Some classifications are especially suspect

• E.g. race, national origin

• What level of scrutiny do they get? Strict: can only be upheld if suspect classification is necessary to the accomplishment of a compelling governmental objective

• Test is also applicable to regulations of speech that discriminate based on content of speech, viewpoint of speaker

Page 7: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Some classifications are mildly suspicious

• Such as classifications based on gender or legitimacy

• What level of scrutiny do they get?

Page 8: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Some classifications are mildly suspicious

• Such as classifications based on gender or legitimacy

• What level of scrutiny do they get? Intermediate – government must prove that its actual objective is IMPORTANT (but not compelling) and the classification is SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED but not necessary to the accomplishment of the important objective

• Variations of intermediate scrutiny apply to regulations of commercial speech, time, place and manenr restrictions

Page 9: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Central Hudson Test – see 447 U.S. 557 (1980)

• The "Central Hudson" test asks: – (1) whether the speech at issue concerns

lawful activity and is not misleading; – (2) whether the asserted government interest

is substantial; and, if so, – (3) whether the regulation directly advances

the governmental interest asserted; and – (4) whether it is not more extensive than is

necessary to serve that interest.28

Page 10: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Default level of scrutiny – rational basis

Page 11: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Default level of scrutiny – rational basis

• Challenger of regulation must establish that either government has no legitimate (hypothetical) purpose or its action is not rationally related to the accomplishment of that purpose

• Substantial tolerance for over and under inclusiveness

• Some cases have applied less deferential form of rational basis scrutiny, e.g. Romer v. Evans (1996), Cleburne (1985), Plyler v. Doe (

Page 12: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Is Tiered Scrutiny Collapsing?

• See, e.g. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

• Will the Court’s “adherence to formalism eventually rot the form”, as Calvin Massey asks in his article?

Page 13: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

• Majority judgment written by Brian Dickson C.J. (but there are rumors that it was his law clerk, Joel Bakan)

Page 14: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

• What is the Oakes test?

Page 15: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

• What is the Oakes test? 1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective

• 2. The means must be proportional – The means must be rationally connected

to the objective – There must be minimal impairment of

rights – There must be proportionality between the

infringement and objective

Page 16: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

• Oakes cited by the Court in over 150 subsequent cases

• Oakes cited by courts around the world, including in Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Namibia, South Africa, U.K., Vanuatu, Zimbabwe

Page 17: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Central Hudson Test – see 447 U.S. 557 (1980)

• The "Central Hudson" test asks: – (1) whether the speech at issue concerns

lawful activity and is not misleading; – (2) whether the asserted government interest

is substantial; and, if so, – (3) whether the regulation directly advances

the governmental interest asserted; and – (4) whether it is not more extensive than is

necessary to serve that interest.28

Page 18: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

R. v. Edwards Books

• Did the Court apply the Oakes test?

Page 19: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

According to Choudhry

• After Edwards Books, Supreme Court of Canada continues its “unannounced yet transparent trend toward deference.”

• In what way?

• Is the Court deferential in all s. 1 cases?

Page 20: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Class 7 – September 10 2008 CANADA: Limitations on Rights and Proportionality.

Is there an overlap

• Between section 7 (fundamental justice) and s. 1

• Section 7 provides: LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.