Charter of Rights and Freedoms Summary

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Purpose of the Charter

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canada’s Constitution, created in 1982.
It protects the rights and freedoms of individuals from government actions.
Its main purpose is to ensure that laws and actions taken by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments respect basic human rights.
These include freedoms like expression, religion, and peaceful assembly, as well as legal rights such as the right to a fair trial and protection from unreasonable search or arrest.
The Charter helps maintain fairness and justice by giving people the ability to challenge laws or government actions in court if their rights are violated.
Courts can strike down laws that are unconstitutional or exclude evidence obtained unfairly.
It plays a key role in protecting minority groups and ensuring all individuals are treated equally, especially in areas like race, gender, and disability.
The Charter applies only to government and public sector actions, not private disputes.
Section 1 allows the government to limit Charter rights if the limits are reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society.
- This ensures a balance between individual rights and the interests of society as a whole.

Case Example: R. v. Oakes

David Oakes was found with a small amount of hashish and cash and was charged under the Narcotics Control Act for possession for the purpose of trafficking.
The law stated that anyone found in possession of narcotics was presumed to be trafficking unless they could prove otherwise.
This reversed the burden of proof, violating Section 11(d) of the Charter (right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty).
The Supreme Court found that this shift was unconstitutional because it didn’t meet the requirements of Section 1 (reasonable limits clause).
The Court created the Oakes Test, a legal test still used today to determine if a limit on a Charter right can be justified:
1. Is there a pressing and substantial objective? The law must serve an important government interest.
2. Is there a rational connection? The limitation on rights must logically help achieve the objective.
3. Minimal Impairment: The law must limit rights as little as possible to achieve its goal.
4. Proportionality: The benefit of the law must outweigh the harm caused by limiting rights.

Case Example: Khadr v. Canada

Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan at age 15 and sent to the U.S. military prison Guantanamo Bay, where he was detained for over a decade.
While in U.S. custody, Khadr was subjected to severe mistreatment, including:
- Sleep deprivation
- Stress positions
- Interrogation without proper legal representation
- Detention without charge or fair trial for years
Canadian officials interrogated Khadr at Guantanamo and shared information with U.S. authorities, even though they knew about the unlawful conditions of his detention.
Khadr’s fundamental rights to liberty and security were violated by both the U.S. detention and Canada’s participation in his interrogation (Section 7).
- Canada failed to protect his rights as a minor and as a citizen, contributing to his ongoing detention in inhumane conditions.
Khadr’s imprisonment at Guantanamo was arbitrary, meaning he was detained without valid legal process or justification (Section 9).
- He was held without timely access to courts or due process, and Canada’s involvement indirectly supported this violation.
The treatment Khadr received was cruel and degrading, especially as a minor (Section 12).
- Conditions at Guantanamo and the use of torture-like methods (e.g., prolonged sleep deprivation) were seen as violating basic human dignity, contrary to Section 12.
- Canada’s failure to act or intervene was seen as a breach of its responsibility to prevent cruel treatment of its citizens.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Khadr's Charter rights were violated, and that Canada had a duty to remedy those violations. He was eventually returned to Canada in 2012.

Case Tracker Summary

Multani v. Commission Scolaire M.B

Sections Applied: Fundamental Freedoms, Section 2(a)
Summary: A student in Quebec, 12 yo Turbaj, was found wearing a Kirpan to school. The school board said that the ceremonial dagger was against school code of conduct. Initially, the school allowed student wear Kirpan under conditions, but later backtracked allowing it only as necklace.
Judgment: At provincial court, Multani was granted the right to wear the Kirpan. The school board appealed, and Multani was not accomodated. The case was appealed to SCC and the court verdict was that Multani is accommodated.
Legal Significance: It sets the precedent for wearing religious articles in public settings. Led to further change regarding Kirpan, now it may be worn in court (with respect to certain guidelines).

R. v. Oakes

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Section 11(d):
Summary: David Oakes was charged with unlawful possession of Narcotics For the purpose of trafficking. Oakes argued that the burden of proof switching to him, went against the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Judgment: The court ruled that just because the accused had a small quantity of narcotics does not prove intention to traffic it. The appeal was dismissed, and section 8 of Narcotic Control Act ruled unconstitutional.
Legal Significance: Created Oakes Test: (to determine the balance of individual rights against the rights of society. Proportionality test consisting of three questions. Reinforced the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and the crown being responsible for burden of proof

Khadr v. Canada

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Section 9: Detention or Imprisonment, Legal Rights, Section 7: Life, Liberty and Security of Person
Summary: Convicted terrorist, for allegedly killing US soldier. He was severely injured and subjected to cruel punishment in Guantanimo Bay. Claimed CSIS ignored the issue and dismissed Khadrs condition. Once his sentence was complete he returned to Canada and sued the Canadian Government for violating charter rights
Judgment: Canadian Goverment gave financial compensation ( $10.5 M$ ) for Khadr's rights violation. Set a precedent for cases where Charter rights are violated, plaintiff will receive compensation
Legal Significance: Showed how complicated cases. Government should avoid loopholes. Full disclosure required in trials.

R. v. Truscott

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Sechon 7: Life, Liberty and Security of Person
Summary: Steven Truscott (14) charged with murder of Lynne Harper. Convicted based on circumstantial evidence, conflicting witness testimony, and unreliable forensic science. Sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment. Spent 10 years in prison before parole
Judgment: Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that forensic evidence was flawed. Highlighted dangers of tunnel vision in police investigations. Conviction overturned, acquittal entred. Government gave financial compensation of $6.5M$ .
Legal Significance: Reinforced presumption of Innocence. Highlighted dangers of tunnel vision. Strengthened forensic standards in criminal cases

R. v. Mann

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Section 8: Search or Seizure Enforcement, Section 24(1) Enforcement of Guaranteed Rights and Freedoms
Summary: Philip Mann was patted down for weapons (he fitted the description of the suspect of a break and enter). The police officer found marijuana and valium pills, and he was charged with possesion of drugs for the purpose of traficking. It was argued that he was charge with wrongfully obtained evidence as the purpose of the pat down was to look for weapons
Judgment: Court upholds common law: allows police to detain someone and then to search him or her for the purposes of protection. However, police may not be searching or attaining anything unrelated to the case
Legal Significance: determined that while pat-down searches are practiced, must abide by limits.

R. v. A. M.

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Section 8 Search or Seizure Enforcement, Section 24(2): Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into Disripute
Summary: A sniffer dog was used to search students for drugs at a school for drugs without a warrant. Based on the dog's alert, A.M. was searched by the police, who found marijuana and other drugs in his possession. A.M argued that the search violated his charter right, as there was no prior suspicion or search warrant
Judgment: Agreed with A.M. that his charter rights were violated, and upheld A.M's aquital.
Legal Significance: Before police can use a drug-sniffing dog to search a person or their belongings, they must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is carrying drugs inside on their person or belongings.

R. v. Morgentaler

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Section 7: Life, Liberty and Security of Person
Summary: Dr. Henry Mortganteler, along with two other doctors, provided abortions at private clinics without approval from a hospital's therapeutic committee, violating Section 251 of the Criminal code (criminalized abortion). He argued that the law was unconstitutional under the CCRF
Judgment: SCC Majority struck down Section 251 as unconstitutional. The procedural barriers in th abortion law caused delays & hard ships, violating women's right to security of the person under Section 7, and decided that the government shouldn't be interfering with a women's bodily autonomy
Legal Significance: De criminalization of abortion canada no longer has federal abortion laws, making abortion a medical matter. Canada's current abortion is regulated like other medical procedures

V. Rodriguez

Sections Applied: Legal Rights, Section 7: Life, Liberty, and Security of Person
Summary: Sue Rodrigues, a victim of a terminal illness, ALS, had decide that once she was unable to enjoy life, she wanted a doctor to help her end her life. Assisting in committing suicide was illegal.
Judgment: SCC disagreed with Rodriguez, and kept the law on assisted suicide in the Criminal Code.
Legal Significance: Raised contrevorsy around whether people with illnesses Should be allowed to choose their death time. Developed MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) Laws after.

Overall Takeaways

The Charter is a powerful tool for protecting individual rights from unfair laws and government actions.
Many rights can be limited, but only if the limitation is justified under Section 1 (e.g., through the Oakes Test).
Section 7 is one of the most frequently used rights, especially in cases involving autonomy, security, and justice.
Courts use the remedies in Section 24 to exclude evidence or strike down laws when rights are violated.
These cases highlight the tension between individual rights and societal interests (e.g., public safety vs. freedom of religion).
Charter rights evolve-as seen in how rulings on assisted dying changed between Rodriguez and Carter.
Police and state actions are closely scrutinized, especially in relation to arbitrary detention, search and seizure, and equality.
Many cases show the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining fairness and upholding democratic values.

Cases Bringing Administration of Justice into Disrepute

R. v. Mann

Police conducted a pat-down search for safety, but then reached into Mann’s pocket and found marijuana.
The Supreme Court ruled that while the initial detention and safety search were justified, the search inside the pocket went too far and violated Section 8 (unreasonable search).
Yes, the ruling emphasized that when police exceed their lawful authority, it undermines public confidence in the justice system.

R. v. A.M.

Police brought sniffer dogs into a school without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. Drugs were found in a student’s backpack.
The Court found this violated Section 8, and the evidence was excluded under Section 24(2).
Yes, the use of police dogs without legal authority was ruled to bring the administration of justice into disrepute because it set a precedent of unlawful search practices, especially in schools.

R. v. Brown

Deecovan Brown, a Black man, was stopped and detained arbitrarily by police without cause.
The stop violated Section 9, and the evidence was excluded under Section 24(2) due to racial profiling and lack of legal justification.
Yes, the Court held that allowing evidence obtained through arbitrary and discriminatory police stops would seriously harm the public’s trust in the justice system.