Limitations to the Limitations to the CharterCharter

Sections 1 and 33

LIMITATIONS OF THE CHARTERLIMITATIONS OF THE CHARTERSection 1 and the Oakes Test

• Section 1 Charter ~ rights are NOT absolute. It legally allows the government to limit an individual’s Charter rights. (Government cannot limit without justification)

• Oakes Test’ ~ whether the infringement is a “reasonable limit prescribed by law” that is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

• If the infringement is a reasonable limit, the legislation or conduct is “saved” under s. 1.

• If not, courts will either strike down, read in, or read down the statute or law so that it complies with the Charter.

The Oakes Test

In the R. v. Oakes case David Oakes was found possessing narcotics, and automatically accused of having the intention to traffic narcotics.

It was found that David Oakes' rights had been violated because he had been presumed guilty of trafficking without evidence.

R. v. Oakes provided the Court with the opportunity to interpret the wording of section 1 of the Charter and to explain how section 1 would apply to a case.

The result was the Oakes Test – a test that is used every time a Charter violation is found.

The Oakes Test Section 1 requires the government to show that the law in question is a reasonable limit on Charter rights, which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

1. Prescribed by Law The limitation of any Charter right must be prescribed by law. This protects against arbitrary actions by government.

There was a limit put on David Oakes’s rights (he was presumed guilty of trafficking). There was a law that said that if you were found with narcotics then you were automatically seen as having the intent to traffic. The court found that the law did not put a reasonable limit on the Charter right.

2. Pressing and Substantial

The government must prove that the objective of the law is pressing and substantial. In other words, the purpose of the law must be important to society.

In the case R. v. Big M Drug Store, The Court found that the purpose of the Lord’s Day law was to force people to observe a Sunday Sabbath, a law that was not of significant importance, or pressing and substantial enough, to justify the infringement of section 2.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart

The drug store was charged with unlawfully selling goods on Sunday, which went against the Lord’s Day Act.

It was found that the Lord’s Day Act violated section 2 of the Charter, which states that citizens have the right to freedom of conscience and religion.

The Lord’s Day Act was struck down.

Despite the decision of R. v. Big Drug Mart, the government does not often have difficulty showing the pressing and substantial nature of a law.

This step in the Oakes Test contains three sub-steps:

i. Rational Connection The limitation of the right must be rationally connected to the objective of the law in question. Any limitation to a Charter right cannot be arbitrary, or unconnected to the purpose of the law.

For example, in R. v. Oakes, the Supreme Court of Canada found that there was no rational connection between the requirement that an accused disprove intent to traffic with the purpose of the law, to prevent drug trafficking.

3. Proportionality:

iii. Proportionate Effect

This part of the Oakes Test is concerned with the overall benefits and effects of the law in question.

It asks if the limit on the right is proportional to the importance of that law’s purpose.

Example: While it may be arguable that to prevent people from publishing whatever they want infringes freedom of expression under s. 2, it is reasonable to conclude that without s. 300 of the Criminal Code, any newspaper could knowingly publish false information about a person without facing any consequences. In this example, the central question of proportionality is whether society benefits more from having s. 300 of the Code in place than it loses by having s. 2 limited in this way.

Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqlsTNBtqEM

Eg., Hate Speech

James Keegstra, a public school teacher in Alberta was charged for promoting hatred against a group and communicating anti-Semitic statements to his students.

He said the charge was a violation of his rights.

The Supreme court of Canada using section 1, limited his rights. The majority of Justices looked at hate speech as not being a victimless crime, but instead having the potential for psychological harm, degradation, humiliation, and a risk of violence.

R. v. Keegstra

ii. Minimal Impairment

In order for a government action that infringes Charter rights to be justifiable, the Charter right must be impaired as little as possible.

Courts may also take a deferential (respectful) approach toward a law when the law in question infringes a right or freedom in order to support another right or freedom.

For example, a law prohibiting hate speech, which infringes on freedom of expression under section 2 (b), may have as its purpose to promote equality rights under section 15.

Section 1 also arises in cases where a Charter infringement is being argued.

•Often a party is arguing that some action by the government – either a specific provision of a law, a law in its entirety, or a direct action by a government agent – has infringed that person’s Charter rights.

Eg., Prostitution LawsIt was argued that the provisions of the law was infringing on the prostitutes’ rights.

LIMITATIONS CON’T (S.33)LIMITATIONS CON’T (S.33)Notwithstanding Clause

•Section 33 allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override some Charter-protected rights.•Can only be used to override rights in s. 2 (fundamental freedoms), and ss. 7-15 (legal rights and equality rights). (NO other sections)

provides a limited ability to pass laws that conflict with Charter- protected rights and freedoms.

•must be renewed at least once every five years to remain in force.•Outside of Quebec, the clause has only been relied upon on FOUR occasions since the Charter was enacted in 1982.

(Yukon, Saskatchewan, Alberta –twice )

Examples…Examples…1. Quebec, 1988: The Liberal government invoked it to protect

Bill 178, its French-language sign legislation. 2. Saskatchewan 1984: The Tory government invoked it while

legislating provincial employees back to work3. Alberta, 1998: The Alberta government invoked it to restrict

compensation it must pay to hundreds of victims of enforced sterilization between 1928 and 1972.

4. Alberta, 2000: The Alberta government in an attempt to amend that province’s Marriage Act to limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. (attempt FAILED when SCC ruled that the def’n of marriage is federal jurisdiction.

NOTE: If Section 33 is to be invoked it must be

stated within the legislation. This gives

opportunity for the opposition to raise

concerns.

Key Points….Key Points….• S. 33 carries a heavy political price (in terms of public opinion) when invoked.

• Declaration under Section 33 expires (is of no force) after five years. It must then be re-declared.

CRITICISMSCRITICISMS

1. transfers ultimate legal authority from the elected legislature to the judiciary

2. rights are now static (beyond the realm of legislative reform)

3. inspires more (sometimes frivolous) litigation

4. inspires a focus on individual rights as opposed to collective rights

1. What is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause?

2. What does the government have to do in order to use section 33?

3. The reasonable limits clause and notwithstanding clause are examples of how the Charter can be challenged and worked around. Is it reasonable to say then that one political purpose of the Canadian Charter is to “guarantee” our rights and freedoms if these exceptions exist? Explain.

Read about section 33 of the Charter.

ENFORCING THE CHARTERENFORCING THE CHARTERS.24 • Gives people the power to apply to courts whenever they feel

their rights are being infringed and ask for a remedy. • Section 24(1) allows courts to grant any remedy the judge

considers “appropriate and just” in the circumstances .• Section 24(2) specifies when trial judges can or should

exclude evidence that was obtained (normally by the police) in violation of an individual’s Charter rights.

Ex., if the police violate an accused person’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the

accused can ask a judge to exclude any evidence found during the search.

Enforcing the Enforcing the chartercharter Con’t… Con’t…S. 52 • Second remedial section - states “The Constitution of Canada

is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

• Courts can: • ‘read down’ the infringing statute • ‘read in’ words to the legislation to make it consistent with

the Charter • ‘strike down’ legislation has no force or effect

USEFUL SITESUSEFUL SITES• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

• Charter Rights Fact Sheets:• http://yourlegalrights.on.ca/human-rights/charter-rights• http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/canada/frdm-eng.cfm• http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/rht-drt/12-eng.shtml• http://ojen.ca/sites/ojen.ca/files/resources/Charter

%20Overview_Eng_Final.pdf