Your search
Results 91 resources
-
The Charter at 25: The Complaint of Judicial Activism.
-
In the recent case of Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a condominium association’s refusal to permit Orthodox Jewish unit-owners (the appellants) to construct succahs on their balconies, as part of the Jewish festival of Succot, breached their freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Because the restriction of religious practice was imposed by a non-state actor, the Canadian Charter of Rights was not applicable. However, the majority judgment of Iaccobucci J. was clear that “the principles … applicable in cases where an individual alleges that his or her freedom of religion is infringed under the Quebec Charter” are also applicable to a claim under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
-
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to all persons “freedom of conscience and religion.” The Charter, however, does not include any obvious equivalent to the Established Clause of the First amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. According to the Canadian courts, s. 2(a), the freedom of religion provision in the Charter, protects the individual from “coercion in matters of conscience.” It prohibits the state from either restricting or compelling religious practise. But it does not necessarily preclude state support for religion. State support for the practises of institutions of a particular religion will breach s.2(a) only if it coerces some members of the community, and interferes with their ability to practise their faith or compels them to practice the favoured religion.
-
The author argues that the apparent collapse or erosion of the Oakes test reflects the problem of fitting a right such as freedom of expression, which is social and relational in character, into a structure of constitutional adjudication, which is built on an individualist conception of rights. In the leading Canadian freedom of expression cases, the task for the courts under section 1 is not simply to strike the proper balance between competing interests, but rather to resolve the single but complex question of whether the expression contributes to, or undermines, human agency or autonomous judgment. In these cases, the “value” of expression and the “harm” of expression are not distinct issues, but rather two sides of the same basic issue. Whether expression is more likely to contribute to insight and judgment or to manipulate and lead to an unreflective response is a relative judgment that will depend significantly on the social and economic circumstances in which it occurs. This issue fits awkwardly within an adjudicative structure that is based on an individual liberty model of rights. The author argues that this awkwardness accounts for the “erosion” of the Oakes test in freedom of expression cases and more specifically for the court's increasing, and inadequately justified, deference to legislative judgment under section 1.
-
When poverty activist resort to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, things cannot be going very well. The Charter of Rights will not eliminate poverty or gross disparities in wealth. It will not ensure that affordable housing is provided to those in need. All it may be able to do is to protect the individual’s right to ask others for help, to beg in the streets.
-
A discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada's freedom of expression decisions which move between a discourse of freedom and rationality when defining of the freedom to a causal or behavioural discourse when determining justified limits.
Explore
Author / Editor
Resource type
- Audio Recording (1)
- Book (10)
- Book Section (10)
- Film (1)
- Journal Article (31)
- Magazine Article (3)
- Preprint (35)
Publication year
- Between 1900 and 1999 (20)
- Between 2000 and 2025 (71)