Section 24 of the Charter Canadian Charter

Question: Describe about the Section 24 of the Charter for Canadian Charter. Answer: 1 . Why section 24 of the charter was included Section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has two subsections. Subsection 1 denotes that anybody, whose rights have been infringed upon, has the privilege of protesting against the identified breaches at a competent court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court will have the power and capability of providing appropriate remedies, in the circumstances or based on the issue at hand (Rgimbald Newman, 2013). This is a section that is important because it grants a competent court of jurisdiction the power of a judicial review. This means that the courts have the capability of striking down any policy enacted by the Federal and the Provincial governments, which may result to the breach of an individuals rights and freedoms, in accordance to the Charter and the Bill of Rights (Greene, 2014). In fact, before the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial leaders were opposed to it, because of the belief that the courts may be used to check their activities and policies they seek to implement (Fudge Jensen, 2016). A good example where section 24 (1) has been used to check the policies of a provincial government; is, Doucet-Boudreu v Nova Scotia, where the court, by applying section 24 ruled that the delay in building school that teach French language, was a breach of section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Mendes Beaulac, 2013). From this ruling, it is possible to denote that section 24 was intended to help the courts to check the excesses of the government, and prevent the passage and implementation of policies that are harmful to people. Additionally, section 24 (2) was introduced for purposes of preventing the admission and use of evidence that has been illegally obtained. This is because the courts will refuse to use the evidence under consideration if it will negatively affect the administration of justice. R v Grant is a Supreme Court case that created the test of identifying whether the evidence before the court is admissible or not. These tests are, the seriousness of infringement of the charter, the impact of the breach, on areas that the charter has protected the interests of the accused and the interest of the society regarding the merits of the case. 2: Case Law: R v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 The Parties Involved in the Case Appellant: Paul Conway Respondents: Her Majesty the Queen Head of Mental and Addiction Health Center Ontario Review Board Attorney General of Canada British Columbia Review Board Mental Health Legal Committee David Asper Center for Constitutional Rights Criminal Lawyers Association Facts of the Case: Mr Paul Conway was charged in 1983 for raping his aunt while armed with a knife. During trial, he was not found guilty because he pleaded insanity. Therefore, Mr. Conway spent a number of years in mental health facilities that are found in Ontario. Moreover, the Ontario Review Board has been monitoring his case every year, and in 2006, Mr. Conway instituted a legal case, claiming that there was a breach on his Charter rights (Heritage, 2013). The rights breached are under section 2, 7, 8. 9 and 15. Therefore, he was seeking the protection of the Ontario Review Board under section 24 (1) of the Charter. While claiming protection from the board, Mr. Conway argued that his rights were violated because of the poor living condition he was subjected to, environmental pollution and poor treatment. Furthermore, he was threatened by his handlers that they would use physical and chemical methods to restrain him (David, 2014). In making their ruling, the Ontario Review Board denoted that it did not have any jurisdiction to rule on aspects touching on the charter. This was a decision that was upheld at the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2008. However, Mr. Conway appealed the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. Issue before the Court Whether the Ontario Board of Review has the jurisdiction to provide remedies under section 24 (1) of the Charter, and if it has the jurisdiction, is the appellant entitled to the remedies that he is seeking? The Law Considered in this case The Canadian Charter of Rights section 24 (1) Section 672 of the Criminal Code Decision of the Court The Supreme Court ruled that the Ontario Review Board did not have a jurisdiction to provide an absolute remedy as per s. 24(1) of the act. The Reasoning of the Court In coming up with a decision, the court relied on the following tests, If an administrative tribunal can be classified as a court of competent jurisdiction, and if it has the authority to decide questions of law, and it is not excluded from the charter. If the administrative authority has the power to grant the remedy that is being sought. In applying these tests to the case, the Supreme Court denoted that the ORB is a court of competent jurisdiction as per section 672 of the Criminal Code (Cornell, 2015). However, the ORB does not have the power to provide an absolute remedy in circumstances where the person may be a danger to the safety of the public. In determining whether the ORB has the power to give out the remedy being sought, the Supreme Court applied the test identified in Mill v The Queen. The Courts Interpretation of the Section of the Charter In interpreting section 24 (1) of the charter, the Supreme Court ruled that a court has competent jurisdiction over an issue, if it has jurisdiction over the parties, remedy sought and subject matter that is within the court. 3: The number of times the case has been considered, distinguished and followed. R v Conway is a new common law precedent, and as such, not many courts have relied on the precedent that has been set up by the court to determine their cases. However, two notable cases that have considered the application of the precedents developed in R v Conway are R v Sazant and Dorv. Barreau du Qubec. All these cases were determined in 2012. 4 a). Wether the precedent is considered, followed or distinguished. The most recent case to use the principles established in r v Conway is Dorv.Barreau du Qubec. The court considered and distinguished the application of this law, in determining whether the administrative decisions of Barreau du Qubec were compliant with the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights. It is important to denote that the case of Dore touched on the powers of administrative tribunals to grant remedies, in accordance to the charter (Collins, 2013). On this basis, the judges in the Supreme Court applied the tests developed in r v Conway to determine whether Barreau du Quebec had the power to make the administrative decisions under consideration. b). How the court interpreted the section of the charter While deliberating on this case, the Supreme Court found out that the administrative tribunals have the power to make a decision on issues that pertain to the law, and in accordance to the charter (Bickenbach, 2015). Furthermore, these administrative tribunals have the power to grant remedies, in accordance to the issue that is before their jurisdiction. However, these tribunals are only limited to making a decision based on their scope of expertise, and the decisions must be within the values of the charter. Therefore, the court denoted that the integration of the values of the charter into the administrative approach of the courts, and the recognition of the expertise of these tribunals, helps in ensuring that there is a control and appropriate use of their powers. References Bickenbach, J. E. (2015). The ADA v. the Canadian charter of rights.Americans with Disabilities, 342. Collins, L. M. (2013). An Ecologically Literate Reading of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,(2009).Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues,26, 7. Cornell, C. (2015). Succession to the Throne and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Law Bus. Rev. Am.,21, 193. David, L. (2014). Principled Approach to the Positive/Negative Rights Debate in Canadian Constitutional Adjudication, A.Const. F.,23, 41. Fudge, J., Jensen, H. (2016). The Right to Strike: The Supreme Court of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Arc of Workplace Justice.King's Law Journal,27(1), 89-109. Greene, I. (2014).The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 30+ years of decisions that shape Canadian life. James Lorimer Company. Heritage, C. (2013). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mendes, E., Beaulac, S. (Eds.). (2013).Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Oliphant, B. J. (2015). Taking purposes seriously: The purposive scope and textual bounds of interpretation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.University of Toronto Law Journal,65(3), 239-283. Rgimbald, G., Newman, D. G. (2013).The Law of the Canadian Constitution.