Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Bill Analysis and Impact

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, examining its role as the supreme law of Canada and its protection of individual rights and freedoms. The paper explores the limitations of these rights as outlined in Section 1 of the Charter, considering the concept of reasonable limits. It discusses the implications of potential legislation, specifically Bills 1, 2, and 3, and whether their enactment would violate the Charter's provisions, particularly Sections 7 and 15. The essay references relevant case law, such as Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, R v Oakes, and Schachter v. Canada, to illustrate the courts' interpretations and applications of the Charter. The author argues that the proposed bills, if enacted, would likely be unconstitutional due to their infringement on individual rights and freedoms, ultimately concluding that the Constitution safeguards citizens from government overreach and that the courts are empowered to provide remedies for violations.

Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Introduction
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out various freedoms and rights that
the Canadians believe are considered to be necessary in order to exist in a free as well as
democratic society. The Charter is a part of the Canadian Constitution and it sets out various
laws and legislations, which would comprise of certain basic rules about how a country should
operate. For instance, it is considered to state several powers related to the state as well as the
federal level along with provincial and other territorial governments in Canada.
This paper discusses the Canadian Charter and other constitutional requirement of the
Bill 1,2,3 and if such are made into law whether such would violate the provisions laid down in
the Charter. Furthermore, it would also try to discuss what would be struck down as
unreasonable breach by using the section 7 and section 15 of the Canadian Constitution along
with trying to understand the court’s jurisprudence regarding it. In conclusion, it would
summarize the points that have been dealt with in the paper.

2CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Discussion
The Constitution is considered to be the supreme law for Canada and all the other
legislations and regulatory framework would be consistent with the rules or the regulations that
have been set out with it. If such are not in compliance with the regulations of the framework
then they are not considered to be valid. Therefore, since the Charter forms a part of the
Constitution they would also form a significant part for the law that has been laid down in
Canada. However, it can also be understood that the rights and the freedom, which have been
laid down in the Charter, are not considered to be absolute as they would restrict other rights or
the national values which are significant. Section 1 of the Charter provides that the rights can be
limited as long as such can be shown in a reasonable and free democratic society. It can be
observed from the case of Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. [1984] 2 SCR 1451 where the individuals
have the right to protect themselves against any kind of unreasonable search and seizures.
Therefore, if there were a violation of such rights then the individuals would face certain kinds of
punishment for such breach2.
The Charter is considered to protect the rights of any individual in Canada whether they
are a newcomer or they have had a permanent residence. Although, there are certain exceptions
to it as the Charter gives the rights to those Canadian citizens who have the right to vote which
have been laid down in section 3 and the right to enter or remain in and also leave Canada which
would be section 6.
1 Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. [1984] 2 SCR 145
2 Albert, Richard, and David R. Cameron, eds. Canada in the world: comparative perspectives on the Canadian
Constitution. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

3CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Canadian Charter is considered to be a bill of rights which are entrenched in the
Constitution of Canada. This tries to guarantee various political rights to the citizens of Canada
and along with such protect the civil rights of everyone who reside in Canada from several
policies or actions that prevail on all areas and other levels of the government. This particular
Charter is considered to be developed and designed in order to unify the citizens around a
particular set of principles that would be embodied through the rights. The Charter was
considered to be preceded by the Bill relating to the Canadian Bill of Rights and such had been
enacted and enforced in the year 1960.
There are several civil and political rights that are considered to be exercised by a few
legal individual but few of these rights are considered to belong exclusively to various natural
persons and the rights are considered to be enforceable by the courts as the courts are permitted
to use discretion to award remedies to the individuals whose rights have been denied. Section 7
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be considered to be a constitutional
provision which would try to protect the autonomy of an individual and their personal rights as
well as legal rights from the various actions of the government in the country. The denials
regarding these rights would be considered to be constitutional only if such do not breach any
kind of rights which are referred to as the fundamental justice. Hence, it can be understood that if
the government tries to impose any unfair taxing reforms on the citizens then the Constitution of
Canada would try to safeguard the citizens by protecting their personal as well as legal rights. On
the other hand, Section 15 of the Canadian Charter is considered to make it clear that all the
individuals in Canada irrespective of their race, national or ethnic origin, religion, color, sex,
physical or any mental disability would be treated in a similar way with similar respect as well as
dignity and consideration. As a result, with respect to such all the individuals need to be treated

4CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
in a manner that would be equal and none of them should face any kind of breach or violation of
their rights as such would cause fundamental injustice. It can be understood from the case of
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 1433. The new tax regime or the
reform would violate the Charter rights of the wealthy individuals as such would limit their
inheritances or their personal income and this bold new tax regime would be against the
capitalist society and in order, to save capitalism the wealthy democracies should not be taxed.
The tax increase would also lower the overall demand and such would reduce the economic
growth thus, in order to develop the economic growth this new tax regime would not be
beneficial and it would also be a violation to the Charter rights. As it can be understood and
observed from the case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796) which was held in
an early Supreme Court of the United States.
In this particular scenario, it can be understood that if the Bills 1, 2 and 3 were made into
law they would be considered to be breach in the constitutional reform as such would not be in
accordance with the sections which have been laid down in the provisions of the Canadian
Constitution as they were autonomous and for the benefit of the government. Hence, it can be
understood that the Constitution provides certain measures to protect the citizens from any kind
of violation of their rights, which have been provided to them4.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter is considered to be often referred to as the reasonable
limits clause as the section can be used in order to justify the limitation on an individual’s
Charter rights. The Charter rights as it has been mentioned above are not considered to be
absolute and for that reason it has the capability of being infringed if the courts would try to
3 Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143
4 Jochelson, Richard, et al. "Generation and Deployment of Common Law Police Powers by Canadian Courts and
the Double-Edged Charter." Critical Criminology (2020): 1-20.

5CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
determine that such an infringement can be justified in a reasonable manner. Section 1 of the
Canadian Charter would confirm that the rights, which have been listed in the Charter, are
considered to be guaranteed and such would also be known as having certain reasonable limits
clause or any other limitation clause as it would legally allow or permit the government to limit
or restrict the Charter rights of the individuals. It can be understood from the case of R v Oakes,
[1986] 1 SCR 1035. If any individual whose rights have been infringed upon or violated can
apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for any remedy that the court would be considering
appropriate within such situations or circumstances and within the jurisdictional limits as the
court would have the authority to exercise their remedial power and it would be upon their own
discretion. Such can be understood from the case of Schachter v. Canada [1992] 2 S.C.R. 6796.
Therefore, in this particular scenario, if the rights have been violated the parties can seek a
constitutional remedy which would be upon the courts discretion as they have the authority and
the power to provide with a remedy.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded from the above discussion that the Constitution of Canada is
considered to be the supreme authority of the land and there are provisions which are applicable
to the citizens in order to ensure their safety and security along with the protection of their rights.
Thus, if there were a violation of such then the courts would be able to apply their jurisdictional
authority and try to provide them with relief or remedy. Therefore, if the Bills 1, 2 and 3 become
a law then such would breach and violate the rights of the individuals for the benefit of the
government. Thus, to conclude, it can be stated that it would be rather unconstitutional for these
particular or specific Bills to become a law.
5 R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103.
6 Schachter v. Canada [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679

6CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

7CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Bibliography
Albert, Richard, and David R. Cameron, eds. Canada in the world: comparative perspectives on
the Canadian Constitution. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143.
Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. [1984] 2 SCR 145.
Jochelson, Richard, et al. "Generation and Deployment of Common Law Police Powers by
Canadian Courts and the Double-Edged Charter." Critical Criminology (2020): 1-20.
R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103.
Schachter v. Canada [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679.