Charter Application
Category: The Charter
The Charter protects certain human rights and freedoms. Before considering whether a Charter right or freedom has been violated, there is a threshold question that must be answered: does the Charter even apply? Section 32 of the Charter explains who the Charter applies to:
Habeas Corpus
Category: The Charter
Existing since the 13th century, habeas corpus is both a free-standing right and, more recently, a right protected under section 10(c) of the Charter.[1] Habeas Corpus translates to “produce the body”.[2] A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful. Provincial courts must hear these applications quickly.
Opting Out
Category: Federalism
The term ’opting out’ in Canadian constitutional discourse refers broadly to any action by which a province, of its own volition, is excluded from a measure that applies to the other provinces. However, it is important to distinguish clearly between two kinds of ‘opting out’. Opting out of a federal, or federal-provincial, program is entirely different from ‘opting out’ of a constitutional amendment. There has been no actual instance of the latter, but it is at least theoretically possible, under certain conditions, since 1982 (see amending formula).
Official Languages
Category: The Charter, Official Languages of Canada (Sections 16-22)
‘Official language(s)’ refer to the language(s) in which states normally conduct their business and communicate with their citizens. Many of the world’s constitutions privilege particular languages as ‘official’ by so declaring them. Some go on to designate their official languages as the languages of use in the legislatures, courts, civil administration, schools and other public emanations of the state. Commonly, states affirmatively promote their official languages with state power. This, however, is not invariably so.
Oakes Test
Category: The Charter
The Oakes test was created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1986 case of R v Oakes.[1] The test interprets section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that rights are guaranteed, “subject only to such reasonable limits . . . as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”[2] This means that the government must establish that the benefits of a law outweigh its negative impact—that is, its violation of a Charter right.
Natural Resources
Category: Federalism
By contrast to the manufacturing economies of Ontario and Quebec, the economies of the western provinces have traditionally emphasized primary production of oil, gas, wood, minerals and grains. These natural resources are sold largely in interprovincial and international markets. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Parliament has paramount jurisdiction to legislate in relation to the export of natural resources. The decisions invalidated provincial taxes upon exported natural resources as “indirect taxation” (see taxation power), made provincial regulatory jurisdiction insecure and seemed to hollow out provincial ownership rights.
Mobility Rights
Category: The Charter, Mobility Rights (Section 6)
At their most basic, mobility rights allow individuals to move from place to place, largely free from government intervention. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, the ability to live and work in a location of your choosing, and enter and leave the country freely, are of great importance.
Aboriginal
Category: Aboriginal Rights
Through its mention in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the term “Aboriginal” has surged to heavy usage both in the legal sphere and in general Canadian English.[1]
Judicial Review
Category: Democratic Governance
In Canada, as well as in many other constitutional democracies, there are two types of ‘judicial review’ – judicial review on administrative acts, and judicial review on the constitutionality of legislation. Both types of ‘judicial review’ are based on the idea of the rule of law. This idea means that not only citizens, but also governments’ officials, are subject to the law. If these officials do something that the law does not allow them to do, the courts are allowed to nullify their actions.
Watertight Compartments
Category: Federalism
This article was written by a political sciences student for the general public.