Ride program charter of rights and freedoms

Swain, [] 1 SCR Shalom Schachter took three weeks off work without pay to stay home with his newborn. His application was denied. Schachter argued that he was the subject of discrimination because the act treated natural parents and adoptive parents differently. The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the act created unequal benefits, contrary to the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Charter.

The Court used this case to explain what courts could do when one part of a law unjustifiably limits Charter-protected rights and freedoms. When this happens, courts can strike down the part of the law that is inconsistent with the Charter, among other remedies.

In some circumstances, courts can also read words into the law to make it consistent with the Charter. Schachter v. Canada , [] 2 SCR Four men who were members of a Catholic religious order were charged with sexual assault. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board argued that this ban violated their freedom of expression.

Though the ban was meant to prevent this risk, it was too broad in its application. The Court held that the ban was unconstitutional and infringed freedom of expression because it was unjustifiable. Freedom of expression and the press are necessary features to a free and democratic society. Any measures that ban media from publishing information of interest restricts these freedoms and must be justified as reasonable and proportionate to the reason for the ban.

Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. They preferred to communicate through sign language. While provincial law provided funding for medically required services, no funding was available for sign language interpreters. They argued that this infringed their equality rights.

The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that their equality rights were infringed because they were denied the equal benefit of access to medical care based on their disability.

Without sign language interpreters, people who are deaf would not be able to effectively communicate with their doctors, which increases the risk of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. The case shows that equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment for everybody. In certain cases, disadvantaged groups may need more services or programs. Governments, employers and service providers need to consider the need to eliminate barriers to allow for the full participation of persons with disabilities in Canadian society.

Eldridge v. Delwin Vriend worked as a laboratory coordinator at a college in Edmonton, Alberta. After he disclosed that he was homosexual, Vriend was fired from his position. Vriend wanted to make a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission that his employer had discriminated against him. Vriend argued that failing to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination infringed his equality rights.

The Supreme Court agreed and confirmed that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Charter, even though it is not specifically listed. This case is important for many different reasons, including its discussion of how even human rights laws may violate equality rights when they fail to protect specific groups of individuals who have historically been discriminated against.

Vriend v. The act defined a spouse as a person who is legally married or an unmarried man or woman who has lived with a member of the opposite sex for at least three years.

The Supreme Court found that the act discriminated against people in same-sex relationships. The act implied that their relationships were less valuable, less worthy of recognition and less worthy of legal protection than the relationships of opposite-sex couples.

Because of this landmark case, legislation that discriminated against same-sex couples was changed across Canada. This case helped pave the way for full marriage equality to be achieved across Canada in The Minister wanted to extend the custody order for another six months. G challenged the provincial legal aid program, arguing that it violated her right to security of the person because the hearing would not be fair if she did not have legal representation.

This means that the Charter guarantees the parent a right to a fair hearing in such cases, which may require legal representation for the parent. Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community.

The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right. However, the Court found that the way that the customs officials were applying the law violated the equality rights of the customers of Little Sisters bookstore because the officials were applying a discriminatory standard to their materials compared to those aimed at a heterosexual audience.

This case helped pave the way for further recognition of the rights of sexual minorities in Canada and also confirmed that freedom of expression protects the right to receive materials like books. The case also highlighted that both laws and the actions of all government officials must respect the Charter. Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v.

Under the applicable American law, this offence was punishable by the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Canada granted the extradition and both were sent to the United States.

However, prior to extraditing them, Canada did not seek confirmation from the United States that the two men would not face the death penalty before sending them back. Burns and Rafay argued that their extradition would lead to a deprivation of their rights to life, liberty and security in breach of the principles of fundamental justice. The Supreme Court agreed.

The Court decided that, before Canada extraditing individuals to places where they could face the death penalty, they must get confirmation that the death penalty will not be imposed if they are sent back. United States v. Burns, SCC 7. A provision in the Canada Elections Act prohibited all inmates from voting in federal elections. It was replaced by a new provision that denied prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more the right to vote.

In other words, the government had not proven that there was a real and pressing need to deny inmates the right to vote. As a result of this case, Canadian prisoners over 18 have the right to vote in Canada, regardless of the length of their sentence. Allowing inmates to exercise their right to vote is an important way to teach them about the democratic values of the Canadian state.

According to the Canada Elections Act, political groups registering as official parties needed to meet certain criteria, including that a party needed to nominate candidates in at least 50 electoral districts. Registered parties were entitled to specific financial benefits under the act, including the ability to issue tax receipts for donations. Michel Figueroa, the leader of the Communist Party of Canada, argued that this candidate rule was unfair for smaller political parties.

The Supreme Court found that the democratic rights protected in the Charter include the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

Even small political parties have a role to play in engaging individual citizens in debates that help shape Canadian policy on many social issues.

The Court decided that the candidate rule interfered with democratic rights because it disadvantaged small political parties and had a negative impact on the degree to which some citizens could influence policy and vote for their preferred candidate.

The rule could not be justified so it was struck down. The Figueroa case was a significant victory for participatory democracy in Canada. Figueroa v. The federal government drafted a law recognizing the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage across Canada.

In , the government submitted questions to the Supreme Court to determine whether the law was constitutional, violated the Charter and impacted religious freedom. The Supreme Court found that Parliament had the authority to pass a law to allow same-sex couples to get married.

The Court also concluded that the new definition of marriage in the proposed federal law did not violate the Charter. In fact, the very purpose of extending the capacity to marry to same-sex couples was to promote Charter rights and values like the right to equality of members of the LGBTQ2 community.

Finally, the Court found that if a religious official was opposed to same-sex marriage because of a sincerely held religious belief, this official would continue to benefit from the Charter protection of freedom of religion.

Nothing in the law required religious officials to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Where different rights or freedoms actually conflict, the Charter allows for reconciling these conflicting rights wherever possible. The government has to justify any actual restriction on Charter rights or freedoms when different rights and freedoms actually conflict. Gurbaj Singh Multani was an orthodox Sikh student who believed that his religion required him to wear a kirpan at all times, including at school.

A kirpan is a religious object worn by people of Sikh faith that looks like a dagger. Multani sincerely believed that his Sikh faith required him to wear the kirpan and the prohibition on wearing it would have prevented him from attending public school altogether. The school board had not justified that a full ban on wearing kirpans in school was a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. There had never been a violent incident involving a kirpan at school and there was no evidence that the kirpan itself was a symbol of violence.

Multani v. Part of the new laws removed certain key collective agreement protections for employees in the health-care sector. This meant that these employees were prevented from meaningful bargaining with their employer. There were no meaningful consultations with the affected unions before this law was passed.

The Supreme Court found for the first time that the freedom of association protects the collective bargaining process. Workers have the freedom to unite, present demands to government employers collectively and engage in discussions to achieve workplace-related goals.

Governments must not substantially interfere with these activities. As a result, the law was found to violate the freedom of association and was struck down in part. British Columbia, SCC As part of a government program to improve the economic situation of Indigenous communities near the mouth of the Fraser River, communal fishing licences allowed members of three Indigenous bands to catch salmon at a designated time.

The Supreme Court found no discrimination because the special fishing privileges for Indigenous groups were granted for the legitimate purpose of assisting those disadvantaged communities. This case made it clear that governments can seek to improve the lives of historically disadvantaged groups by passing laws and creating programs intended to help them. It also recognized that when properly designed, these laws and programs can be entirely compatible with equality rights protection under the Charter.

Kapp, SCC Raymond DesRochers argued that the rights of the French-speaking population of Huronia were violated because the North Simcoe Corporation did not provide services of equal quality in both official languages. Since the North Simcoe Corporation made efforts to reach the linguistic majority community and involve that community in program development and implementation, it had the duty to do the same for the linguistic minority community. For the first time, the Supreme Court examined how linguistic equality should factor into the provision of government services.

The Court concluded that depending on the nature of the service in question and its purpose, the development and implementation of identical services in French and in English does not always allow for the provision of services to both linguistic communities in a manner that respects the substantive equality between the two languages. It is sometimes necessary to adapt existing services to accommodate the needs of the minority.

Following this decision, all government departments were asked to review their services and programs in light of the decision. DesRochers v. Canada Industry , SCC 8. The Vancouver police received information that someone planned to throw a pie at the Prime Minister during a ceremony.

The officers mistakenly identified that person as Alan Ward and handcuffed him. Ward protested his detention and was arrested for breach of the peace. He was taken to the police station, where he was detained for over 4 hours and subjected to a strip search. Sadly, the Covid mandates appear to do exactly the opposite, that is, they divide people into the vaccinated and unvaccinated and discriminate accordingly. Proportionality and Rational connection 1.

The limit must be rationally connected to the objective. The government must demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, a causal link between the impugned measure and the pressing and substantial objective. The causal relationship between the limit and the objective should be proved, where possible, by scientific evidence showing that as a matter of repeated observation, one affects the other— See answer in 1. The government need only show that it is.

Minimal impairment i. Rather, the test is whether the government can demonstrate that among the range of reasonable alternatives available, there is no other less rights —See answer in i. Impairing means of achieving the objective in a real and substantial manner — See answer in i.

The law must be carefully tailored to its objectives and must impair the right no more than reasonably necessary, having regard to the practical difficulties and conflicting tensions that must be taken into account — See answer in i.

Governments should adduce evidence as to why less intrusive and equally effective measures were not chosen. Evidence of consultation with affected. Context and deference i. While it is, in principle, possible to justify an infringement of Section 12 cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under Section 1 of the Charter, the Supreme Court has indicated that such a justification would be difficult.

As a separate analysis preceding the Oakes test, a relatively formal series of four 4 contextual factors intended to determine the appropriate level of deference in the case: 1. Discretionary administrative decision-making i. The decision-maker must then consider how the Charter protection at play can best be protected in light of the statutory objectives. See answer in i. This second step requires the decision-maker to balance the severity of the interference with the Charter protection against the statutory objectives.

The decision will be found to be reasonable if it reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter protections at issue, in light of the nature of the decision, the statutory context and the particular facts. It would appear , even to the layperson , that the government s —Federal and Provincial— have clearly not done such regarding balancing and reasonableness.

Evidence under S ection 1 i. The onus of proving a Section 1 justification rests with the government, and the government should be prepared to adduce appropriate evidenceii. It should, therefore, engage in careful planning and record keeping. Given that the purpose of the limit must be the purpose at the time at which it is implemented, the groundwork for a Section 1 justification should be laid during the process of policy development. While the purpose should usually be obvious from the text of the legislation itself, it is often useful to have supporting evidence as well.

This means that the development of policy must be carefully documented and prepared in a form that will later be appropriate for introduction as evidence in court. The documentation will also be useful to assist in the passage of the legislation through the House v. In addition, there should be continued monitoring of the legislative initiative to ensure that the purpose remains important and to enable the supplementing of the original evidencevi.

Similarly, the preparation of evidence as to rational connection and minimal impairment should begin at the policy development stage and continue throughout the life of the legislative provision. As indicated above, to establish minimal impairment there should be evidence available as to why less intrusive and equally effective measures were not chosen ix.

Finally, evidence of proportionality may require continued monitoring to determine the actual negative and positive effects of the legislative provisionx.

In order for legislation to be effectively defended, it is important that the evidence be available in a form which can be made public. The following types of evidence may be useful in mounting a Section 1 justification Hansard 2.

Legislative preambles 3. Reports of a Parliamentary committee, commission of inquiry or law reform commission 4. Ministerial speeches 5. Social science studies and statistics 7. Witness testimony government personnel, experts, historians 8. Opinion polls. In essence, i to Xi above has received very little, if any, government s focus regarding establishing and producing appropriate evidence , in the event a Constitutional challenge is established regarding one or more of the Covid mandates.

Relevant Jurisprudence, Oaths and International Instrumentsa. Convention on the Rights of the Child binding on Canada d. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities binding on Canada h. Hippocratic Oath binding on Canadian Doctors k. The Canadian Constitution binding on Canadians l. Federal and Provincial Human Rights binding on Canadians n. The Nuremberg Code binding on Canadians o. Code Sec. First Amendment not binding on Canada s. Fourteen Amendment not binding on Canada t.

It seems crystal clear that Sections 1, 2, 6, 7, and 15, and maybe Sections 9 and 12, of the CORF have been violated by those who have sworn a solemn oath to protect such; politicians and others are, indeed, conspicuous by their lack of defence of the Constitution.

To be clear and fair , the lack of defence appears to know no political stripe. T he illusion of democracy fades further with each daily sunrise and sunset. The cards are being dealt, the House knows the odds are in their favour, the card counters Governments, Big Pharma and the Elites are interspersed around the table. The public, if they elect to play this Fear Game, will lose big time—there is no doubt.

Explore Charterpedia with summaries of each Charter section, its purpose, and how it was developed. Share our graphics, infobites for social media, posters and other resources for learning and to promote awareness of the Charter. Today, we celebrate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — an essential part of our constitution for almost 40 years. I like to call myself a child of the Charter.

This foundational document was born while I was in university. It has been an inspiration throughout my career. And while I eventually became the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Charter has grown into one of our most important national symbols.

It even beat out hockey and the beaver in one survey. I am fortunate to speak three languages, but our Charter is truly multilingual. It has been translated into 23 languages, including Braille versions in English and French.