Canada's Supreme Court: Power To Overturn Unjust Laws

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Canadian government can be held liable for enacting laws that are clearly unconstitutional, done in bad faith, or stem from an abuse of power. This means that the government can be sued for damages if it passes laws that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court's decision reaffirms its previous ruling in Mackin v New Brunswick, which held that the state only has limited immunity from such claims. This ruling has important implications for constitutional law in Canada and sets a precedent for future cases involving potential violations of Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada can hold the government liable for damages when Charter rights are infringed

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the government can be held liable for damages when Charter rights are infringed. This means that if the government enacts legislation that is found to be "clearly unconstitutional" or was enacted in "bad faith" or as an "abuse of power," the state can be held accountable. This ruling affirms the Court's 2002 decision in Mackin v New Brunswick, which held that the state has limited immunity in such cases.

In the recent case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold for claiming Charter damages. Mr. Power, who had served a prison sentence, did not initially apply for a pardon. When he later sought a pardon, he was no longer eligible due to new legislation enacted by the Conservative government, causing him to lose his job. The legislation was subsequently deemed unconstitutional, and Mr. Power sought damages from the federal government. The Court's decision in Power established that the government does not have absolute immunity and clarified the threshold for claiming Charter damages as "clear unconstitutionality" rather than "clear wrongness."

The Supreme Court's ruling in Power and its affirmation of the Mackin decision have been praised for upholding Charter rights and providing remedies for violations. The Court's majority emphasized the importance of legislative accountability and respecting individuals' constitutional rights. However, dissenting opinions in the Power case argued that the majority's decision encroached on Parliament's "sphere" and that parliamentary privilege should be protected.

The Supreme Court of Canada has a history of upholding Charter rights and striking down unconstitutional laws. For example, in United States v. Burns, the Court found that a provision in the Canada Elections Act prohibiting inmates from voting unjustifiably infringed on inmates' right to vote. Similarly, in R. v. Morgentaler, the Court decided that a provincial law preventing non-citizens from becoming lawyers infringed on equality rights. These cases demonstrate the Supreme Court's role in ensuring that government legislation respects and upholds the Charter rights of individuals.

The Court can rule laws unconstitutional if they violate freedom of expression

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the country and plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing the Canadian Constitution, including protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the right to freedom of expression, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right broadly. This means that any act intended to convey a message is protected under Section 2(a), as long as it does not involve violence.

The Court has ruled on several notable cases involving freedom of expression. For example, in the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover, the Court ruled that the book could continue to be published and found that it was not obscene, despite containing explicit language and descriptions that some readers found offensive. In another case, the Court ruled that a signage regulation requiring outdoor commercial signage to use English text only if it is half the size of the French text was a "reasonable" limit on freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of censorship and obscenity laws. In 2006, the Court heard a complaint against Mark Steyn's book, "America Alone," which was accused of discriminating against Muslims. Additionally, the Court has ruled on cases involving the freedom of the press, such as when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board challenged a ban that they argued violated their freedom of expression. The Court agreed, stating that the ban was too broad and infringed on their rights.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has confirmed that Charter claimants can claim damages against the government for enacting unconstitutional legislation. This was demonstrated in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, where the Court rejected the argument of absolute immunity for the Crown. The Court clarified that the government could be held liable for enacting laws that are "clearly unconstitutional," done in bad faith, or stemming from an abuse of power.

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada plays a vital role in upholding freedom of expression and can rule laws unconstitutional if they violate this fundamental right. The Court's interpretations and rulings shape the boundaries of acceptable limitations on freedom of expression, ensuring that Canadians' rights are protected.

The Court can strike down laws that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Supreme Court of Canada can strike down laws that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is based on the interplay between two sets of competing constitutional principles: those that protect the autonomy of legislatures and their processes, and those that demand legislative accountability.

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, the Supreme Court confirmed that Charter claimants can seek damages against the Crown for enacting laws that violate the Charter. The Court rejected the argument that the Crown has absolute immunity in these situations. The Court's decision turns on the interplay between foundational constitutional principles that underlie the framework of Canada's constitutional governance. The majority opinion leans more heavily on the principles of government accountability, while the minority opinions favour the principles underpinning legislative sovereignty.

The Court's ruling in Power clarified the threshold for claiming Charter damages, stating that the legislation must be "clearly unconstitutional" or enacted in "bad faith" or as an "abuse of power." This builds on the Court's previous ruling in Mackin v. New Brunswick, which held that the state has limited immunity and can be held liable for enacting laws that are "clearly unconstitutional."

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down several laws that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, in R v Zundel (1992), the Court held that the offence of spreading false news violated freedom of expression (section 2(b) of the Charter). In R v Martineau (1990), the Court found that the definition of murder was unconstitutional because it allowed for convictions without the necessary intent or knowledge, contrary to section 7 of the Charter.

The Court's ruling can uphold the state's limited immunity

In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can be held liable for enacting laws that are "clearly unconstitutional," done in bad faith, or stemming from an abuse of power. This ruling reaffirms the state's limited immunity, as outlined in the 2002 Mackin v. New Brunswick decision, which held that the state only has limited immunity from damages for enacting unconstitutional laws.

The Court's decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Power clarified the immunity threshold, specifying that for the state to be held liable, the legislation must be "clearly unconstitutional," indicating that lawmakers knew the law was unconstitutional or were reckless or wilfully blind to its unconstitutionality. This ruling upholds the state's limited immunity by setting a high bar for claiming Charter damages.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion leans towards government accountability, emphasizing the importance of damages as a remedy for state violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court rejected the argument of absolute immunity, asserting that limited immunity allows for accountability when the state enacts laws that are "clearly wrong."

The Court's ruling provides a check on legislative power, ensuring that the state cannot act with impunity in enacting unconstitutional laws. This decision reinforces the principle that the state is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for its actions, even in the realm of lawmaking.

In summary, the Courts' ruling upholds the state's limited immunity by setting clear criteria for when the state can be held liable for enacting unconstitutional laws. This ruling strikes a balance between legislative independence and accountability, ensuring that the state's actions remain within constitutional bounds.

The Court can rule laws unconstitutional if they violate equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Supreme Court of Canada can rule laws unconstitutional if they violate equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter applies to all people in Canada, including permanent residents and newcomers, though some rights are exclusive to Canadian citizens, such as the right to vote and the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada. The Charter also recognises the rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada to protect their culture, customs, traditions, and languages.

The Charter guarantees the equal protection and equal benefit of the law to all without discrimination, particularly based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. It also establishes the principle of advancing the equality of status and use of the official languages of English and French by Parliament and provincial legislatures. This includes the right to distinct educational institutions and cultural institutions that preserve and promote the English and French linguistic communities.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Canadian government can be held liable for enacting laws that are "clearly unconstitutional", done in bad faith, or stemming from an abuse of power. This sets a precedent for legislative accountability and reaffirms the limited immunity of the state. The Court's decision in Mackin v New Brunswick in 2002, which held that the state only has limited immunity, was reaffirmed in a 2024 ruling.

The Court's ability to rule laws as unconstitutional is based on the interplay between constitutional principles protecting legislative independence and those demanding legislative accountability. This includes the separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, and parliamentary privilege. The Court's rulings have clarified that parliamentary privilege does not grant absolute immunity to Parliament for conduct within its "sphere of activity".

The Charter also protects the freedom of religion and expression of religious beliefs, though this does not extend to hate speech involving threats or violence. It ensures freedom of speech and assembly, including the right to protest against government actions or institutions. These freedoms are not unlimited and may be subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law in a free and democratic society.

Frequently asked questions