Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Last updated

Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights . Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights. [1]

Contents

Text

Under the heading "Enforcement," the section states:

24(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Remedies

Subsection 24(1) must be distinguished from subsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 . Whereas section 52 allows the courts to invalidate laws or parts of laws for breaches of the constitution (including the Charter), section 24 has broader capabilities (hindered only by the "appropriate and just" requirement) and can only be invoked when a claimant's rights are violated. Among other things, section 24 seems to give judges the power to place positive obligations upon a government, [2] as well as to enforce more imaginative remedies.

An example of an imaginative remedy can be found in the landmark case Doucet-Boudreau , (2003) 3 S.C.R. 3, as the claimants challenged the Nova Scotia government's delay in building French language schools as a breach of their section 23 rights. A lower-court judge had ruled in the claimants' favour, and then demanded the government report to him as construction progressed. Despite the Supreme Court minority's objections that this use of section 24 violated "fundamental justice" and the " functus officio " rule, in which a judge makes a ruling and afterwards has no role to play, the majority upheld the earlier decision. As the majority argued, section 24 is "responsive to the needs of a given case," and as such "novel remedies" may not only be permissible, but also required. The "appropriate and just" limit was defined in this case as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what is appropriate and just (although they should keep in mind traditional common law limits on judicial power; in this case it was denied that functus officio was violated), and also as requiring courts to remember that section 24 is itself a part of the constitution and allows judges to carry out their function of enforcing rights. [3]

Courts of competent jurisdiction

These section 24(1) remedies may only be dispensed by a "court of competent jurisdiction". In R. v. Rahey (1987), it was found that in any case, provincial superior and appellate courts, and courts created by the federal government, will qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction and may award remedies where it is considered "appropriate and just". An inferior provincial court may qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction where the remedy sought relates to trial procedure. [4]

An administrative tribunal may qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction where it has been granted statutory jurisdiction over the parties, subject matter, and remedy sought. [5] It is important to note that the jurisdiction over "remedy sought" means the jurisdiction as granted by statute, irrespective of the total remedies available under section 24(1) that may be applied by other courts. Even where a tribunal is not found to be a court of competent jurisdiction it is still nonetheless capable of applying the Charter. Where a tribunal has been given the power to decide questions of law [6] it must conform to the Constitution in all of its application of law and so invalid laws must be treated as having no force or effect. [7] However, even if the tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction it cannot make a declaration of invalidity for any invalid law, it can only treat it as no force or effect. [8]

Overall, section 24's "competent jurisdiction" limit on which courts may award remedies, in R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. (2001), was taken as meaning that while Charter rights are generous, they exist within a framework set up by Parliament and the provincial governments. These elected governments have the authority to grant varying degrees of powers to courts and tribunals, and deference should be shown to the governments' decisions. Reviewing courts may, however, have to exercise interpretation regarding whether lower courts have powers to award certain remedies if it is not explicit in the laws. This involves examining whether the lower court can consider Charter arguments and if allowing the lower court to dispense section 24(1) remedies would disrupt its general operations or be too much of a work burden for the court staff.

Exclusion of evidence

Practices regarding what evidence may be brought against an individual in trials are addressed by section 24(2). When evidence is obtained through the violation of a Charter right, the claimant is able to apply to have the evidence excluded from the trial under this section.

At common law, all evidence, regardless of how it was obtained, can be submitted in a trial. [9] The US exclusionary rule excludes all evidence acquired through the violation of the Bill of Rights. Canada has taken a middle ground, sometimes allowing for the exclusion of evidence, whenever its use threatens to bring the "administration of justice" into "disrepute." [1]

In the 2009 case R. v. Grant , the Supreme Court of Canada created a new test to determine when the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute (replacing the 1987 test in R. v. Collins ). The Grant test lists three factors the courts must consider: (1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct (focusing on a review of how society would view the actions of the state), (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused (focusing on a review of how the state's actions affected the accused), and (3) society's interests in the adjudication of the case on its merits (focusing on a review of the importance and reliability of the evidence).

Past interpretations

The 1987 case R. v. Collins had established three factors to consider when determining whether to exclude evidence. First, the courts would look at whether the admission of the evidence would affect the fairness of the trial. Second, they would look at the seriousness of the Charter violation, and third, they would look at the effect of excluding the evidence on the administration of justice. Typically, evidence obtained through violating an accused's right to have counsel (section 10(b)) or the right to security from unreasonable search and seizure (section 8) was excluded by this section. [1]

After Collins and other such decisions, by 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada had used the Charter to exclude evidence in 45% of section 24(2) cases that come before the Court. [10]

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. Third ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000), p. 442.
  2. ↑ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003), pp. 864-865.
  3. ↑ Supreme Court of Canada. Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) , (2003) 3 S.C.R. 3.
  4. ↑ "R. v. Smith, 1989 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 368".
  5. ↑ Weber v. Ontario Hydro (1995)
  6. ↑ see N.S. v. Martin; N.S. v. Laseur (2003) for the Charter jurisdiction test
  7. ↑ Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College (1990), see also Cuddy Chicks v. Ontario (1991)
  8. ↑ ibid.
  9. ↑ R. v. Wray (1970), 4 C.C.C. 1, 11 C.R.N.S. 235, [1971] S.C.R. 272.
  10. ↑ Morton, FL and Ranier Knopff. The Charter Revolution & the Court Party. (Broadview Press, 2000), p. 39.

Related Research Articles

<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution of Canada, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs.

Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.

<i>Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 62, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which followed the Nova Scotia Supreme Court's finding that a delay in building French language schools in Nova Scotia violated the claimants' minority language educational rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This finding led to an important debate regarding the scope of section 24(1) of the Charter, which provides for remedies for those whose rights are infringed, and the applicability of the common law doctrine of functus officio. While the Supreme Court of Canada split on what constitutes an appropriate usage of section 24(1), the majority favoured a section 24(1) with broad, flexible capabilities.

<i>R v Collins</i> (1987) Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 1987 SCC 11 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

<i>Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on the administrative law principle of natural justice.

Nova Scotia v Martin; Nova Scotia v Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Court re-examined the authority of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges and their power to strike down legislation under section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In doing so the Court overturned the previous decision of Cooper v. Canada , (1996). Also, the Court struck down provisions within Nova Scotia's Workers' Compensation Act that prohibited people who were disabled by chronic pain from benefits as a violation of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Prosper</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to duty counsel upon arrest or detainment by police under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that merely reading the accused his or her rights is insufficient to discharge the right to counsel; the police must also provide the accused with access to legal aid or duty counsel.

<i>Weber v Ontario Hydro</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Weber v Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that a labour arbitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement to court.

<i>Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario</i> (Labour Relations Board) Supreme Court of Canada case

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.

<i>Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.

<i>R v Wong</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.

<i>Mills v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Mills v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the meaning of a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) of the Charter. The Court held that a thirty-one month delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that preliminary hearing judges are not within jurisdiction, superior courts can sometimes be within jurisdiction, and criminal trial courts were always within jurisdiction.

<i>R v AM</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v AM, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer sniffer-dog searched his unattended backpack in the gymnasium of his school finding drugs in his possession.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

The "comparator group" is an element that has been used in Canadian jurisprudence to analyze statutory human rights complaints and claims pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 guarantees equality rights and the right to be free from discrimination on certain enumerated grounds.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.