Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms
BRAINSTORM
Why would someone want to
immigrate to Canada?
What is a “right”?
• A right is a legal, moral or social
entitlement that citizens can expect,
mainly from the government.
Example: In Canada, a person is
entitled to a fair trial.
What is a “freedom”?
• A freedom is a right. It is your right to live
your life without interference from the
government. Freedoms do have limitations
to protect public safety and also to protect
the rights and freedoms of others.
Example: In Canada, you have the right to
search for employment in any part of
Canada.
The 5 W’s of the Charter
Who was the person responsible for overseeing the
Charter when it was created?
• Former Prime Minister of Canada-Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, made it a goal to have the Charter
entrenched- meaning that it is protected and can
only be changed by an amendment to the
Constitution. A government in power cannot just
change, modify or eliminate any parts of the
Charter. In order to change anything in the
Charter, a referendum must be held or a large
majority at all levels of government must vote for
change.
What is the Charter?
• The Charter is a document which outlines a
person’s rights and freedoms. It is how
people can expect to be treated by all levels
of government in Canada and all of the
government agencies that act on behalf of
the government. (example: RCMP, Dept. of
Fisheries)
When did the Charter take effect?
• The Charter became part of the
constitution in 1982.
Where does the Charter have
jurisdiction/power?
• In all parts of Canada and with all
levels of Government.
Why do we have a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms?
• Before the Charter, there were other pieces
of legislation such as the Canadian Bill of
Rights, but they weren’t as complete and
definite as the Charter. The purpose of the
Charter is to control the behaviour of the
government.
Some other important things you
need to know about the Charter…
• Rights and freedoms are not absolutemeaning there are limitations.
The safety of the general public will always
come first- not the right of an individual.
For example, although we have the right to
freedom of speech, the government will limit
that right so that people will not be
permitted to speak falsely about another
person without consequence.
• The Charter does not regulate relations between
individuals.
Examples:
* A mother will not let her child go to a friend’s house based
on religion.
* An employer won’t hire someone based on religion.
You do have protection to avoid and/or address
discrimination with individuals in society, but not using the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• If your rights have been violated by the government
or an agency of the government, you can take the
government to court.
This falls under the category of constitutional law.
Your case will be heard by the Supreme Court of
Canada in which a panel of nine (9) judges will
hear your case. It is their job to interpret the
Charter as it is written, hear about the incident at
hand and then make a decision as to whether or
not something “unconstitutional” or unfair has
taken place.
Checking Your Understanding…
Shirley attempts to enter a private
men’s club in which no women are
allowed. The man at the door refuses
her entry. Have her Charter rights
been infringed/violated? Explain.
• Lastly, when all levels of government
are making laws, they must make
laws which do not contradict the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Example: Death Penalty
However, there are always
exceptions….
The Notwithstanding Clause…
When the Charter became part of the constitution, not all
people were happy- namely politicians.
The previous piece of legislation prior to the Charter was the
Canadian Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was part of statute
law and therefore, allowed governments in power to change
and amend parts of the Bill of Rights as they saw fit. This
idea displeased many citizens of Canada because their rights
were constantly changing depending on the government in
power. So, by creating the Charter, citizens would once and
for all know their rights and freedoms without having to
worry about change, etc.- they were, in fact, more dependable
and stable.
As for the politicians, the creation of the Charter, took away
some power and also placed limits on laws created at the
various levels of government.
So….. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau had to
somehow convince these politicians to vote in
favour of the Charter. How was this accomplished?
• The Notwithstanding Clause was born! This clause
allows governments to make laws every now and
again even though they may violate a part of the
Charter. (Yes! This does go against why the Charter
was created!) However, this clause may not be used
to overrule certain rights such as the right to vote,
minority language education rights and mobility
rights. So- there are some limitations.
• It is important to mention that any
law that is created using the
“Notwithstanding Clause”, can only be
in effect for a period of five years or
less and is then reviewed.
The Notwithstanding clause has been
used by many governments since
1982.
The Notwithstanding Clause
One of the early uses of the clause took place in
1988. The Supreme Court of Canada rule that
Quebec’s Bill 101, (which required all public signs
to be printed in French only), was invalid because
the law violated people’s rights under the Charterfreedom of expression.
The Quebec government really wanted the law, so
in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, the
Quebec government introduced another bill around
the same issue and renamed it Bill 178 by invoking
the Notwithstanding clause.
What happened?
In 1993, 5 years after the Quebec government introduced their law
to have “French only signs” the United Nations Human Rights
Commission ruled that the sign violated the international statute of
freedom of expression. A compromise was made so that bilingual
signs are now allowed, but the French words must be twice as large
as the English.
What do you think?
Should public schools be permitted to
begin each day with a Christian
prayer?
• If no, then why should schools
observe other Christian related
practices and celebrate them by
having concerts and days off from
school?
THE FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS
a) FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION:
• You have the right to entertain the religious beliefs
you choose, to declare these beliefs through
practice, worship, teaching and dissemination.
• Parents are free to engage in religious practices,
these activities may be curtailed when they
interfere with the “best interests of the child”
* See Article: Page 87
Activity: Fundamental Freedoms
Page 87: “Calgary teen to appeal transfusion ruling”
1.Explain why the Albert Court of Queens’ Bench allowed
doctors to proceed with the transfusions.
2. At what age do you think a minor should be granted
the power to decide on matters related to their medical
treatment?
3.If the 16 year old in this case challenges the decision
as an infringement of her section 2 (a) Chart right, do
you think her appeal will be allowed? Why or why not?
Freedom of expression…or not?
There was once a society where everyone valued
peace, order, and religion above all other things. In
this society anyone who didn’t maintain peace and
order was severely punished, even killed. The
punishments were never carried out arbitrarily, but
were done according to the law of the country.
One day, someone had a brilliant idea. Privately,
and with great care, he proved that his idea was
correct. His idea though went directly against what
all the other believed to be true. Even so, he
published his idea in a small book.
What should happen to this individual?
This is a scenario that has been repeated
throughout history in many parts of the world. In
fact, some of our best thinkers of other eras have
been punished for saying what they believed to be
true.
• Should these individuals have maintained silence
and therefore allowed their ideas to wither away
just so that ideas of the majority would not be
challenged?
• Should they have spoken out or published their
work?
• What might have been the consequence of not
speaking out for civilization?
So….a lesson learned about
freedom of expression is…
There are times when people must
tolerate opinions that they absolutely
disagree with in order to ensure that
even the most disliked individual has
the same rights as the most favoured
individual in our society.
THE FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS
b) FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION
• You are free to think and believe what you want
and to publicly express your opinions through
writing, speech, painting, photography and other
means.
• Freedom of the Press is also included. They are
allowed to communicate information to the public.
• Common limitations of this right include: hate,
obscenities, child pornography, slander
(saying/writing untrue things), and lastly,
sometimes to ensure a fair trial, courts will impose
a ban on media
Freedom of Expression
Censorship Laws:
• Governments have been known to ban or
limit the availability of materials that are
found to be obscene. For example, movies
contain a rating and then the rating limits
who can view the films. These laws are
made to protect the moral standards of
society and to protect people whom may be
harmed by these materials.
R. v. Keegstra
1.
2.
3.
What was Keegstra’s main defence for his actions?
Did Keegstra abuse the public trust he enjoyed as a
teacher?
After the Court’s decision, Jim Keegstra said:
“If we all have to think the same way, well, then we’re just
robots…We were taught in University that you can be
skeptical and no, you’ll never be taken to court. Well, you
see that’s not true anymore.”
Do you agree with Keegstra’s opinion? What section of the
Charter supports his view?
The “Riot Act”
An excerpt:
• Her Majesty the Queen charges and
commands all persons being assembled
immediately to disperse and peaceably to
depart to their to their habitations or to
their lawful business on the pain of being
guilty of an offence for which, on conviction,
they may be sentenced to imprisonment for
life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
THE FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS
c) FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
• Everyone has the right to assemble for
PEACEFUL purposes such as an orderly
demonstration/protest.
• Riots (which involve 12 or more people), are
not considered lawful assemblies if property
is destroyed, people are hurt or fear for
their safety or looting takes place. These
types of events can be dispersed if it
disturbs the peace.
THE FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS
d) FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
• We have the right to connect with other people or
groups such as unions, political parties, cultural
groups, educational organizations or sporting
clubs.
• Limits on this right usually pertain to:
Probation orders/Inmates
RCMP Officers/Federal Lawyers:
not allowed to join unions
Law In Your Life
In 1976, Alice Munro’s Lives of Girls
and Women and Margaret Laurence’s
The Diviners were removed from some
high schools. Discuss whether section
2 (b) of the Charter protects against
this type of censorship.
Democratic Rights
1918, 1947, 1960, 1982, 1970, 2000
•
•
•
•
•
•
Homeless people permitted to vote
Canada Elections Act lowers the voting age and
the minimum age to run for office from 21 to 18
Women permitted to vote
Status Indians permitted to vote
Chinese and Japanese Canadians permitted to
vote in federal elections
The right to run or vote for office became
guaranteed
• 1918:
• 1947:
• 1960:
• 1982:
• 1970:
• 2000:
Women permitted to vote
Chinese and Japanese Canadians
permitted to vote in federal
elections
Status Indians permitted to vote
The right to run or vote for office
became guaranteed
Canada Elections Act lowers the
voting age and the minimum age to
run for office from 21 to 18
Homeless people permitted to vote
Should all citizens of a country be
eligible to vote?
(Why should all citizens be permitted
to vote? If not, which groups should
be excluded and why?)
Article: Should Inmates Be Allowed to
Vote? (page 91)
Democratic Rights:
• “Every” citizen has the right to vote and run for
office- some restrictions apply
• Restrictions may include: age, mental capacity,
residence and registration- MUST be a Canadian
citizen
• The Canada Elections Act now permits inmates
serving less than a 2 year sentence to vote
Section 4 provides that Canadians will have the
right to elect new provincial and federal leaders at
least every 5 years except in the time of war or
national emergency
Women’s Suffrage
This is the story of our Mothers and Grandmothers
and Great Grandmothers who lived only 90 years
ago.
Headquarters of an AntiSuffrage Group (c.1910)
•
Opposition to the goal of women’s suffrage came from many. Some
objected because they believed that women would only duplicate the
voting of their husbands, while others believed that women were
unable to exert the rational thought that voting required.
Anti-Suffrage Pamphlet (c.1910)
The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed
nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs
asking
for the vote.
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive.
Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a
rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk
traffic.'
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell
bars above her head and left her hanging for the
night, bleeding and gasping for air.
Lucy Burns
• They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed
her head against an iron bed and knocked her out
cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was
dead and suffered a heart attack.
Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing,
dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching,
twisting and kicking the women.
Dora Lewis
Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15,
1917, when the warden at the Occoquan
Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach
a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there
because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's
White House for the right to vote.
For weeks, the women's only water came from an
open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was
infested with worms.
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger
strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat
and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured
like this for weeks…
until word was smuggled out to the press.
Alice Paul
It was jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and
his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to
declare Alice Paul insane so that she could
be permanently institutionalized. And it was
inspiring to watch the doctor refuse.
Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave.
That didn't make her crazy.
•
•
•
•
So, refresh my memory. Some women
won't vote this year because-why, exactly?
We have carpool duties?
We have to get to work?
Our vote doesn't matter?
It's raining?
“What would those women think of the way I use, or
don't use, my right to vote?”
Women voting in Wyoming
All of us take it for granted now, and not
just younger women. We ALL need to
remember the sacrifice and fight of our
previous generations. VOTE!
MOBILITY RIGHTS:
Section 6
Some provinces have suggested that
for people moving into a province,
there should be a residency
requirement of a specified time
period before being allowed to collect
welfare.
Should provinces be allowed to
enforce this?
The legal answer…
There are limitations for people
moving province to province. Publicly
funded social services (such as
welfare) can be restricted to those who
have lived in the province for a certain
length of time. Provinces are also
permitted to create programs to favour
its’ own permanent residents- for
example: job hiring.
Mobility Rights:
• Canadian residents, permanent residents, and in
some cases, refugees and illegal immigrants, are
protected by the Charter. However, the right to
enter, remain in and leave Canada are extended
only to Canadian citizens.
• Mobility rights allow people to move in and out of
the country and in and out of provinces
• Canada will EXTRADITE people who have
committed crimes in another jurisdiction to stand
trial. Canada will not extradite people who have
committed CAPITAL OFFENCES. ‘Capital Offence’
indicates a crime that is punishable by death in
another jurisdiction. They will only extradite the
person if the government has a guarantee that the
person will not face the death penalty for his/her
crime. This supports a person’s “right to life” in the
Charter.
(Case: page 41)
• Con Air: Sending Fugitives Back to
Face Justice
Legal and Equality Rights
Sections 7-11 of the Charter cover all areas
of the criminal law- from investigating a
crime, ensuring fairness at a trial and
deciding how and if evidence will be used.
If anyone such as the police, a lawyer or
another member of the justice system
violates a person’s right(s), the a judge may
choose to exclude evidence in a case or
dismiss the charges altogether.
Life, Liberty and Security:
Section 7
(This is one of the most difficult sections of the
Charter to interpret and to make decisions about)
• LIFE: This section protects a person’s life- this
makes assisted-suicide and the death penalty
illegal. You have the right to LIVE.
• LIBERTY: Most often associated with criminal
cases. This section includes rights such as
presumption of innocence, the right to a fair
hearing before an impartial decision-maker, and
the right of habeas corpus.
• SECURITY: This provides SECURITY for an
individual from certain forms of corporal
punishment and physical suffering.
Consider This!
The Supreme Court of Canada has
ruled that a fetus is not a “person”, it
is not afforded the protection of the
‘right to life’ as stated in section 7.
Do you agree with this ruling?
Why or why not?
R. v. Parker (2000), Ont. C.A. 359
If you break the law in an effort to
save your own life, should you be
punished?
Important Definitions
Euthanasia:
The act or practice of painlessly ending the
life of an individual suffering from a
terminal illness or an incurable condition.
Euthanasia may be active, such as
administration of a lethal drug, or passive,
such as withholding of extraordinary
medical treatment.
Vocabulary
• Hospice: A program or facility that
provides special care for people who
are near the end of life and for their
families
Terri Schiavo
(1963-2005)
Terri Schiavo Video Collection
Michael Schiavo Interview After Terri's Death
YouTube - Remembering TERRY SCHIAVO
YouTube - The Terri Schiavo Story
Website Dedicated to Terri
Important Discussion
Questions
• Who should have had control over Terri’s
future- her husband or her parents? Why?
• Do think that this case could have occurred
in Canada just as easily?
• What type of euthanasia is this?
• Are living wills important? Would it be a
good idea for government to mandate that
people over the age of 18 to have one?
Schiavo Case: Classroom
Activity
• Reflect upon the Terry Schiavo case
and the information you have learned
today about a person’s right to life.
• Choose ONE word which describes
what you are thinking about all that
you have been exposed to today.
• Be ready to share that word with the
class.
• WORDLE/AUDIO recording
The Latimer Case
Who did the case directly involve?
• Robert Latimer (father)
• Tracy Latimer (daughter)
What happened?
• Robert admitted to ending the life of
his severely disabled daughter, Tracy,
when she was 12 years old.
The Latimer Case
When did this happen?
• October 24, 1993
Where?
• Wilkie, Saskatchewan
Why?
• Robert Latimer claims he was motivated by
love and compassion for his daughter.
Mercy Killing is a form of euthanasia.
It is involuntary on the behalf of the
victim. It is the act of killing someone
painlessly (especially someone
suffering from an incurable illness)
without the informed consent of the
patient. Ending the patient’s life is
motivated by the love and compassion
one has for the patient.
The Latimer Case
The Latimer Case
The Latimer Case:
Video Commentary
• CBC's Rex Murphy: Commentary on
Robert Latimer's Parole (February 28,
2008)
• YouTube - CTV News Saskatoon Robert Latimer
• CBC Video Latimer's Release
Assisted Suicide is suicide committed
by a patient with the assistance from
another person. The patient actively
takes the last step in ending his/her
life.
The Criminal Code
COUNSELLING OR AIDING SUICIDE
241. Everyone who
(a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or
(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 14 years.
…no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him and
such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any
person
…This section does not violate the rights of a terminally ill person
… In the case of a genuine suicide pact, the surviving party should
have a defence to murder.
Sue Rodriguez and the RightTo-Die Debate
"Whose body is this?"
Sue Rodriguez
• Sue Rodriguez (August 2, 1950 – February 12, 1994) was an
advocate of assisted suicide.
• She was born in British Columbia, with the given name Sue
Shipley, and grew up in Thornhill, Ontario, a suburb of
Toronto. Her first marriage was short lived.
• Rodriguez, who lived in Victoria, British Columbia, was
diagnosed with ALS in early 1991. She fought to have a legal
right to an assisted suicide. She twice took her cause to the
Supreme Court of Canada, but ultimately lost both battles.
On September 30, 1993, in what would become a landmark
decision, Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the
SCC held 5-4 against her.
• In 1994, she decided to take her own life with the help of an
anonymous physician. Svend Robinson, a New Democrat
Party MP who had championed her cause, was also present.
Video clips provided by CBC:
Video #1
Sue's Legal Struggle
Video #2
The Reaction on Parliament Hill
Video #3
Other terminally ill patients share views
Video #4
At the end of the day...
The Sue Rodriguez Story
INQUIY QUESTION:
Do you think people with debilitating
diseases or incurable illnesses should
have the right to a physician-assisted
suicide? Why or why not?
Meet Jack Kevorkian (a.k.a.
Dr.Death)
• Born May 26, 1928
• Former pathologist
• He is most noted for publicly championing a
terminal patient's right to die via physicianassisted suicide
• He claims to have assisted at least 130 patients to
that end. He famously said that "dying is not a
crime."
• Between 1999 and 2007, Kevorkian served eight
years of a 10-to-25-year prison sentence for
second-degree murder in the death of Thomas
Youk.
• He was released on June 1, 2007, on parole due to
good behavior
Jack Kevorkian: Video
• Jack Kevorkian on 60 Minutes (May
1996)
Hmmm….
• Can you refuse to be searched for
drugs?
• Can police search your home for
suspected concealed drugs?
• What is the document called that
police can obtain to conduct
searches?
Unreasonable Search and
Seizure:
Section 8
• Must have a good reason for searching
person, home or belongings of a person
• Search must be conducted fairly
• Police can search the place where a person
is arrested in order to find a weapon or
articles relating to the offence
• A warrant isn’t always needed- police can
search any place (except a residence) where
they suspect drugs are concealed.
Arbitrary Detention or
Imprisonment:
Section 9
• People cannot be held for questioning,
arrested, or kept in jail by police
without good reason
• Habeas Corpus (Can’t be detained
after a period of 24 hours without
being charged)
• Random (Police) roadside traffic
checks are legal.
Rights While Under
Arrest or Detention
Section 10
• Must be promptly and clearly informed of the
reason for arrest, (usually while the arrest is made)
right to consult a lawyer/legal aid without delay
• If a person requests a lawyer, all questioning stops
until the accused and lawyer can speak; police are
not privy to that conversation
• Police are not permitted to withhold the reason for
the arrest
• Charges can and might be dismissed if police do
not follow proper procedures (don’t inform accused
of rights, reason for arrest, etc.)
Rights When Charged with a
Criminal offence: Section 11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trial must take place with a reasonable time
Accused cannot be forced to testify at his/her own trial
Accused is innocent until proven guilty
Trial takes place in an impartial/independent court
Cannot be denied bail without a good reason
For serious charges, the person has the right to trial by jury
If someone is tried for an offence and found not guilty, that
person cannot be tried on the same charge again. Also, if a
person is found guilty and is punished for the offence, he or
she cannot be tried or punished for it again. (DOUBLE
JEOPARDY)
• If someone commits an offence and prior to sentencing a new
law is made which may alter the fine or length of
imprisonment, the person is sentenced under the law that is
most lenient.
Nicotine Addiction…
Inmates in federal penitentiaries have
argued that their rights have violated. They
believe that being denied cigarettes is an
example of cruel and unusual punishment.
Do you agree?
P.S. They have been unsuccessful in their
mission!
Cruel and Unusual Treatment
or Punishment: Section 12
• Governments cannot treat or punish individuals in an
unnecessarily harsh fashion
• When sentencing/punishing an accused, a judge will
consider the following:
* the seriousness of the offence
* the personal characteristics of the
offender
* the particular circumstances of the case
The dangerous offender provision of the Criminal Code allows
for criminals who have committed a certain number of
indictable offences to be declared dangerous and subject to
an infinite penalty.
Rights of Witnesses in Court
Section 13
• Witnesses giving evidence in court cannot
have their testimony used against them
• Anyone who is hearing impaired or cannot
understand/speak the language used in
court has the right to an interpreter
Equality Rights:
Section 14
• Every individual is considered equal
and the government cannot
discriminate. (This includes
discrimination on the basis of race,
gender, sexual preference, marital
status, etc.)
• Our Charter Rights must be applied
equally to all persons
Quiz Yourself!
1)
•
Katrina was arrested for possession of marijuana.
The police informed her that she had the right to
contact a lawyer without delay. Katrina said,
“Who can afford a lawyer?” The police laughed
and then asked Katrina several questions about
who sold her the marijuana and how much she
paid for it. Katrina answered all of their
questions. Can this evidence be used against her
in court? Why or why not?
Cannot be used in court because the police did
not inform her of all her legal rights. They should
have told her that counsel was available at no
cost.
2) Explain why random police checks to determine whether
motorists have been drinking are legal even though they
violate section 9 of the Charter.
Section 9 of the Charter reads: Everyone has the right not to
be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
When conducting road checks, the police are stopping people
for no apparent reason- just to ensure that they are following
the rules.
• The objective of spot checks is to detect intoxicated drivers
and to protect others in society and potentially, save lives.
Therefore, this is reasonable. Remember- not all rights are
absolute– there are limitations!
Language and General Rights
• Canada is a bilingual country; French and English
have equal status as official languages in
Parliament and Federal Government Agencies.
• Minorities in any province have the right to have
their children educated in their own language,
provided sufficient numbers warrant it.
• There is a provision in the Charter which also
protects the culture, customs, traditions,
languages and other rights and freedoms
pertaining to Aboriginal peoples.
A British judge once said:
“It is better that ten guilty
persons escape than one
innocent suffer.”
Do you agree?