The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties

1969 ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
W. S. Tarnopolsky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Important Direction

To what extent has the Supreme Court of Canada tended to promote human rights and protect fundamental freedoms? This question is examined by looking at the bases on which the Supreme Court can protect civil liberties. In decisions prior to 1950 the author finds that the Supreme Court was not protective of "egalitarian" civil liberties. With respect to "political" civil liberties, the author finds the majority judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada of the 1950's inspiring. The enactment of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960 provided an important direction to the Court to protect civil liberties. The author feels that the Supreme Court has not yet satisfac torily responded to this direction. However, the Drybones decision recognized the constitutional status of the Bill of Rights and the author supports the argument that it is constitutional instrument.

scholarly journals Building a Law of Human Rights: Roncarelli v. Duplessis in Canadian Constitutional Culture

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-460
Author(s):  
Eric M. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Law School ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Culture ◽  
History Of

This article reveals how audiences, especially in anglophone Canada, initially received and interpreted Roncarelli v. Duplessis as a case, above all, about human rights. Ignoring the judgment’s myriad complexities, commentators eagerly situated the case within the Supreme Court of Canada’s “implied bill of rights” jurisprudence then taking shape. Part of the reason for the emphasis on Roncarelli’s rights can be traced to the manner in which Frank Scott and Louis Stein argued the case, and the language of rights employed by Justice Ivan Rand’s iconic judgment. But Roncarelli’s meaning also took shape in press accounts and editorials, radio broadcasts, case comments, and law school lectures. Exploring these often-neglected sources, this article exposes the role of constitutional culture in creating jurisprudential meaning. In turn, it also calls for greater recognition of the pre-Charter Supreme Court of Canada in contributing to Canada’s intellectual history of rights.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

scholarly journals Feu la D.C.D. L'arrêt Miller et la peine de mort

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 567-576
Author(s):  
Henri Brun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

The Miller case, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 5, 1976, puts the death penalty under the light of the Canadian Bill of Rights which formulates the right to life and the right to protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The following comment on the case relates to the interpretation given specific clauses of the Bill of Rights by the Court on that occasion. But it stresses especially the law that flows from the case about the compelling weight of the Bill of Rights over acts of Parliament enacted after the Bill came into force. In Miller, the Supreme Court expressed itself on the subject for the first time.

scholarly journals Mr. Suresh and the Evil Twin

Refuge ◽  
2002 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Audrey Macklin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Security ◽  
September 11 ◽  
The State ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Wide Scope ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Substantial Risk

In Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Ahani v. MCI, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that removing a refugee accused of terrorism to a country where he or she would face a substantial risk of torture or similar abuse would virtually always violate the individual’s rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the Court deserves praise for vindicating fundamental human rights over competing claims of national security, coming so close on the heels of September 11, the victory is in certain respects more apparent than real. Given the strong endorsement of judicial deference to the exercise of Ministerial discretion in national security matters, the Court leaves the state wide scope to circumvent the spirit of the judgment while adhering to its letter.

Francis Karioko Muruatetu v. Republic

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 707-713
Author(s):  
Jacquelene Mwangi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Mandated

The decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya (Court) in Francis Karioko Muruatetu and Another v. Republic (Muruatetu), finding the mandatory nature of the death penalty unconstitutional, represents not only a victory for human rights in Africa but also the transformative capacity of contemporary constitutions in Africa and the growing assertiveness of African judiciaries. In the judgment, the Court held that the mandatory death penalty is “out of sync with the progressive Bill of Rights” in Kenya's 2010 Constitution (para. 64) and an affront to the rule of law. The Court also relied on global death penalty jurisprudence to find the mandatory death sentence “harsh, unjust and unfair” (para. 48). Consequently, the Court mandated that all trial courts conduct a pre-sentencing hearing to determine whether the death penalty is deserved. The Court's judgment could spell the end of the mandatory death penalty in Kenya after almost 120 years on the statute books.

scholarly journals An Exemption for Sincere Believers: The Challenge of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-750
Author(s):  
Sara Weinrib
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
General Application ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Strict Reading

In Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, the Supreme Court of Canada reconfigured its approach to section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms by holding that the final step of the R. v. Oakes test—the requirement of proportionality between a measure’s salutary and deleterious effects—provided the critical framework for its analysis. The author suggests that the Court’s emphasis on the last step of the Oakes test was not the most appropriate response to the specific minimal impairment argument Alberta presented. Alberta argued that the reason it could not safely offer an exemption from its licence photo requirement to Hutterites who objected to photos on religious grounds was because Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem restricted government inquiries into the sincerity of religious beliefs. Ontario intervened in support of Alberta’s concerns. Although the Court did not address this minimal impairment argument, the author argues that it reflects an unnecessarily strict reading of how Amselem’s guidelines would apply in this context. In support, the author presents an exemption that would have cohered with Amselem and achieved Alberta’s safety objectives. The author then argues more broadly that the provinces’ concerns in Hutterian Brethren demonstrate the critical role the minimal impairment step of the Oakes test plays in generating solutions to clashes between laws of general application and minority religious practices. The Court’s new emphasis on the proportionate effects test, in contrast, may unfortunately discourage both parties from formulating potentially innovative alternatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document