JURISDICTION, ENFORCEMENT, AND
GUARANTEE
Charter defines the relationship between people,
organizations ,and companies in Canada and the
government
Jurisdiction S.32
Enforcement S.24
Guarantee S.1
Applies to the
relationship between
people and their
governments(
provincial and
federal)
The Supreme Court of Identifies and
Canada is interpreting guarantees rights and
and enforcing laws
freedoms within
reasonable limits-
JURISDICTION-THE AREA OF AUTHORITY THAT DEFINES THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN PEOPLE, COMPANIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS IN CANADA AND
THEIR GOVERNMENTS ( FG AND PGS)
ENFORCEMENT OR
CONSTITUTION
THE
GUARDIAN
OF THE
Was the right
infringed or
violated by the
government
Enforcement(The
Supreme Court
of Canada)= 9
judges
Is the right in
question
covered under
the charter
Is the Violation
or infringement
within a
reasonable
limit?
ENFORCEMENT 2/ INTERVENERS

Interveners are third-party participants in a legal proceedings;
also called friends of the court
IT
MAY BE NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEIR EXERCISE WOULD BE INIMICAL( OPPOSED) TO
THE REALIZATION OF COLLECTIVE GOALS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO
THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA.
The reason for limiting
the Charter must be
shown to be important
enough to justify the
overriding a
constitutionally
protected right
The measure carried
out to limit the right
must be reasonable and
logically connected to
the objective for which
it was enacted
The right must
be limited as
little as possible
The more severe
the rights
limitation , the
more important
the objective
must be.
GUARANTEE- SECTION 1 GUARANTEES OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME ,MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THESE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ARE
NOT ABSOLUTE BUT ARE “ SUBJECT TO REASONABLE LIMITS”


1.
2.
3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAUVLxP_8Ic
Read the Case on page 85 and answer the following questions:
State in your won words the meaning of “ reverse onus in
s.8 of the Narcotic Control Act found to be contrary to the
Charter.
What reason could be considered important enough to
satisfy the first criterion used to justify limiting a right?
Does the third criterion apply to this case? Is it possible to
partially limit the right to be presumed innocent ? Explain.
PLEASE CHECK
YOUR
ANSWERS
1)
Reverse onus means that the burden of proof is on the accused , who must
disprove an essential element of an offense. In other words, the accused
must prove that he or she did not commit the offence instead of the Crown
needing to prove that the accused did commit the offence. Reverse onus
breaks the rule of innocent until proven guilty contained in Charter s.11(d)
,a concept fundamental to Canada’s legal system.
2)
The court must decide whether a restriction is justified in a free and
democratic society. The Charter guarantees freedom of expression, but hate
literature causes such great harm that a limit on it may be regarded by a
society as an acceptable restriction.
3)
In this case where a guilty verdict could result in a jail sentence, the right to
be presumed innocent cannot be partially limited . There are, however,
cases where reverse onus has been upheld.
4)
http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/22875.html