click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
OJEN handout
section 1 handout
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| When was the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms enacted? | 1982 |
| What does section 1 do? | Section 1 of the Charter both limits and guarantees rights, justifying limitations while preventing unjustified government infringement. |
| What happens once a charter infringement is found? | Once a Charter infringement is found, the court conducts a Section 1 analysis to determine if it can be justified as reasonable and necessary in a free and democratic society. |
| What steps guide the court in determining if the infringement is acceptable under Section 1. | Prescribed by Law, Reasonable Limits, Demonstrably Justified, Balancing, Legal Certainty, Consistency with the Rule of Law (fairness) |
| What test is used to determine if a limitation on a Charter right can be justified under Section 1? | The Oakes Test |
| What is the supreme law of Canada? | The Constitution |
| What happens when a law is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution? | Inconsistency renders the law invalid. |
| What is striking down ? (remedy) | Its when a court declares that a law that infringes the Charter is cancelled and is of no force of effect. |
| What is partial invalidity? (remedy) | Courts can cancel parts of a law if they don't follow the constitution. Lawmakers can then change those parts to match the constitution. |
| What is reading down? (remedy) | "Reading down" means the court interprets the law narrowly to make sure it follows the Charter. |
| What are remedies? | Remedies are solutions or actions taken to address a problem or correct a legal violation. |
| What is constitutional exemption? (remedy) | A court may order that a particular law is valid but a certain individual doesn't have to follow it |
| What is Temporary Suspension of Invalidity? (remedy) | A court can say a law or part of it is not valid, but let it stay in effect for a while so Parliament or the legislature can fix it to follow the Charter. |
| Why does the government have to justify limiting a person’s rights? | The government must justify limiting a person's rights to ensure that restrictions are fair and reasonable in a free and democratic society. |
| What is the significance of the R v Oakes case. | R V Oakes case established the framework for interpreting and applying the limitations on Charter rights outlined in Section 1. |
| Why should there ever be limits to charter rights? | limits to Charter rights are sometimes needed to balance interests or protect others, but they must be fair and reasonable. |
| What is a situation where an infringement of a right would be justified. | Limiting freedom of speech to prevent hate speech and maintain social harmony is a situation where infringing on a right might be justified. |
| What is a situation where an infringement of a Charter right would not be justified? | Restricting freedom of assembly during peaceful protests without a valid reason wouldn't be justified. |
| What do you think about the courts’ role in deciding whether an infringement of a right can be justified? | The courts play a vital role in deciding if an infringement of a right is justifiable, ensuring fairness and upholding democratic principles. |
| What happens if the government cannot show that a Charter infringement is justified (i.e. it does not satisfy the elements of the s. 1 analysis)? | the court may declare the law or action invalid or strike it down. |
| If a law is declared to have no force or effect, can Parliament or the legislature do anything about it? | Yes, Parliament or the legislature can amend the law or enact a new one to address the issue. |
| What happens if the court rules that a breach of the Charter rights was not justified? | A remedy will be ordered, allowing individuals to seek appropriate relief. |
| What happens to unconstitutional legislation according to the Constitution Act, 1982? | Unconstitutional legislation is considered invalid under Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act |
| What is reading in? | "Reading in" refers to adding words or provisions to a statute or legal document to make it comply with constitutional or legal requirements. |
| When is reading in used? | "Reading in" is used in law when a rule or law is deemed under-inclusive, meaning it does not cover everyone it should. |