Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Last updated

Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constitutionally guarantees Canadian citizens the right to vote for a federal and provincial representative and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislature. The rights provided under section 3 of the Charter may be subject to reasonable limits under Section 1 of the Charter.

Contents

Section 3 is one of the provisions in the Charter that cannot be overridden by Parliament or a legislative assembly under Section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause. Section 3's exemption from Section 33 provides extra legal protection to the right to vote and it may prevent Parliament or the provincial governments from disenfranchising any Canadian citizen for ideological or political purposes, among others.

Section 3 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada to strike down legislation preventing prisoners, persons in mental institutions, and non-resident Canadians from voting.

Text

Under the heading "Democratic Rights," the section reads:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

History

No formal right to vote existed in Canada before the adoption of the Charter. There was no such right, for example, in the Canadian Bill of Rights . Indeed, in the case Cunningham v Homma (1903), it was found that the government could legally deny the vote to Japanese Canadians and Chinese Canadians (although both groups would go on to achieve the franchise before section 3 came into force). [1]

Interpretation

Stephen Harper, who as leader of the National Citizens Coalition challenged limits on campaign spending in Harper v Canada, and as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada opposed prisoners' voting rights after Sauve v Canada. Harper,-Stephen-Jan-23-06.jpg
Stephen Harper, who as leader of the National Citizens Coalition challenged limits on campaign spending in Harper v Canada , and as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada opposed prisoners' voting rights after Sauvé v Canada.

Voting

The section has generated some case law expanding the franchise. In 1988, section 3 had been used to grant suffrage to federal judges and those in mental institutions. A more controversial example is Sauvé v. Canada (2002), [2] in which it was found that prisoners could vote. They did so in the 2004 federal election, despite public opposition from Conservative leader Stephen Harper. [3]

In the 2002 case Fitzgerald v. Alberta, [4] the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta found that although a minimum voting age of 18 violated section 3 of the Charter, it was justifiable under section 1 of the Charter. The decision was upheld upon appeal. [5]

Candidate Requirements

Section 3 of the Charter provides the right to citizens of Canada to be qualified for membership in the House of Commons. In the 1996 case Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General) , the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 3 provides the right to be a candidate and the right to sit as a member of Parliament or a legislature. [6] Fred Harvey, a member of the New Brunswick Legislature was convicted of illegal practice, and contested his subsequent disqualification from the legislature under section 119 of the Elections Act. [7] The six member majority for the Supreme Court held the provision violated section 3 of the Charter, but the violation was justified as a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter as it furthered the objective of preserving the integrity of the election process. [8]

In Figueroa v Canada (AG) the court determined that Section 3 explicitly grants both the right to vote and the right to run for office to all Canadian citizens. In Szuchewycz v. Canada [9] the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta found that the $1000 federal candidate deposit requirement violated Section 3 and could not be justified under Section 1. Justice Inglis noted in paragraph 59 "I agree that the potential to prevent a serious and impressive candidate from running in an election, due to the financial pressure a $1000 deposit could create, is a real risk of the requirement. In my opinion, the impugned Deposit Requirement Provision would infringe many individuals’ – including the Applicant's – ability to communicate their messages to the public, and participate meaningfully in the electoral process as a candidate." [10]

Electoral participation and political spending

Generally, the courts have interpreted section 3 as being more generous than simply providing a right to vote. As stated in the case Figueroa v. Canada (2003), [11] the section has been viewed as a constitutional guarantee to "play a meaningful role in the electoral process," which in turn encourages governmental "respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions." This does not mean, however, that interest groups have complete freedom to promote their beliefs and opinions. Since the voter must have an opportunity to balance various ideas in his or her own mind before meaningfully participating in an election, the Supreme Court has, in the case Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), [12] upheld laws that limit the amount of money a single group can contribute in the election (to prevent a monopolization of the campaign).

Sizes of constituencies

Although one cannot see this on the face of the Charter, the Supreme Court has also ruled that section 3 guarantees a measure of equality in voting. In Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) (1991), [13] it was found that constituencies should have roughly the same number of voters, although perfection was not required. The reasoning behind this expansion of section three's meaning was that it supposedly reflected the original purpose of the section, namely to allow "effective representation." The concession that perfection is not required stemmed from the fact that perfection would be impractical, given geographical limits in drawing boundaries and a general desire to give minorities more representation. While Saskatchewan's constituencies were found to be valid in the 1991 decision, Prince Edward Island's were later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the province's electoral map had to be redrawn.

Referendums

While section 3's reach has been expanded to cover the sizes of constituencies, it has not been extended to guarantee the right to vote in a referendum. In Haig v. Canada (1993), [14] it was ruled that since section 3 was designed in specific reference to electing representatives, the right could not include participation in a "device for the gathering of opinions". It was also noted that unlike elections, governments do not have to hold referendums, nor do governments have to commit themselves to the result of a referendum. Thus, how a referendum is administered is within governmental discretion.

Related Research Articles

The implied bill of rights is a theory in Canadian jurisprudence which proposed that as a consequence of the British North America Act, certain important civil liberties could not be abrogated by the government. The significance of an implied bill of rights has decreased since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an entrenched written bill of rights, but remains important for understanding the evolution of Canadian human rights law and the Constitution of Canada. In the 1938 decision of Reference Re Alberta Statutes, the Supreme Court of Canada first recognized an implied bill of rights.

<i>Reference Re Secession of Quebec</i> 1998 Canadian Supreme Court case on the ability of Quebec to legally secede from Canada

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality, under both Canadian and international law, of a unilateral secession of Quebec from Canada.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

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.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

Haig v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the protection of the right to vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), [1993] 3 SCR 519 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by a terminally ill woman, Sue Rodriguez. In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the provision in the Criminal Code.

<i>Harper v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Harper v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Court ruled that Canada Elections Act's spending limits on third party election advertising did violate section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was justified under Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual.

<i>RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Canadian constitutional law case

RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 is a leading Canadian constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada what upheld the federal Tobacco Products Control Act but struck out the provisions that prevented tobacco advertising and unattributed health warnings.

<i>Figueroa v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Figueroa v Canada (AG), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to participate in a federal election under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court struck down a provision requiring a political party to nominate 50 candidates before receiving certain benefits.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

<i>Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act</i> (Alta) Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, commonly referred to as the Alberta Reference, was a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that section 2(d) did not include the right to strike. In 2015, Alberta Reference was overruled, with the Court recognizing a right to strike in the Charter.

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

R v Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on language rights. Notably, the majority adopted a liberal and purposive interpretation of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, overturning conservative case law such as Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents (1986). As the majority wrote, "To the extent that Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick... stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected."

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.

<i>CBC v New Brunswick AG</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick [1996] 3 SCR 480 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the open court principle.

<i>Frank v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Frank v Canada (AG) 2019 SCC 1 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the voting rights of expatriate Canadians. The majority in the 5–2 decision struck down a passage in the Canada Elections Act which had limited the right to vote to "a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident".

<i>Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General)</i> 2021 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Toronto (City) v Ontario , 2021 SCC 34, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and unwritten constitutional principles. By a 5–4 majority, the court held that the Government of Ontario's decision to reduce the size of the Toronto City Council in the middle of 2018 municipal election campaign did not violate either section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the unwritten principle of democracy. The court further held that unwritten constitutional principles could not serve as an independent basis to invalidate legislation.

References

  1. ↑ Hogg, Peter W. Canada Act 1982 Annotated. Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1982.
  2. ↑ Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519.
  3. ↑ CBC.ca, "Canada has restricted political rights to Canadians living abroad for more than 5 years. 12,500 prisoners get to vote on June 28," Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:28:42 EDT.
  4. ↑ Fitzgerald v. Alberta 2002 ABQB 1086 (CanLII), [2003] 3 WWR 752.
  5. ↑ Fitzgerald v. Alberta 2004 ABCA 184 (CanLII), [2004] 6 WWR 416.
  6. ↑ Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 163 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 876, retrieved on 2024-09-29, at para 28.
  7. ↑ Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 163 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 876, retrieved on 2024-09-29, at paras 4–7.
  8. ↑ Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 163 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 876, retrieved on 2024-09-29, at paras 40 and 53.
  9. ↑ "Szuchewycz v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII)". CanLII. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  10. ↑ "Szuchewycz v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII)". CanLII. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
  11. ↑ Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General) 2003 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912.
  12. ↑ Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33 (CanLII).
  13. ↑ Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158.
  14. ↑ Haig v. Canada, 1993 CanLII 58 (S.C.C.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995.
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.