Content deleted Content added
→Interpretation and enforcement: correct Vriend, add link |
→Other sections: Section 32 was missing on the list so I added it accordingly. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1:
{{Short description|1982 Canadian constitutional legislation}}
{{redirect|Charter of Rights and Freedoms|the Quebec charter|Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms}}
{{redirect|The Charter|other uses|Charter (disambiguation)}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2022}}
{{Infobox document
|document_name = ''Canadian Charter {{nowrap|of Rights and Freedoms}}''
|image = Canadiancharterofrightsandfreedoms.jpg
|image_caption = English language version of the Charter
|date_created = 1982
|date_ratified =
|location_of_document =
|writer =
|signers =
|purpose = To protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians
|wikisource=Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
}}
{{Constitutional history of Canada}}
{{italic title}}
The '''''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''''' ({{langx|fr|Charte canadienne des droits et libertés}}), often simply referred to as the '''''Charter''''' in Canada, is a [[bill of rights]] [[entrenched clause|entrenched]] in the [[Constitution of Canada]], forming the first part of the ''[[Constitution Act, 1982]]''. The ''Charter'' guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and guarantees the [[civil rights]] of everyone in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The ''Charter'' was proclaimed in force by [[Monarchy of Canada|Queen Elizabeth II of Canada]] on April 17, 1982, as part of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''.
The ''Charter'' was preceded by the ''[[Canadian Bill of Rights]]'', enacted in 1960, which was a federal [[statute]] rather than a constitutional document. The ''Bill of Rights'' exemplified an international trend towards formalizing human rights protections following the United Nations' ''[[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]'',<ref name=":4">{{cite book |last1=Monahan |first1=Patrick J. |last2=Shaw |first2=Byron |last3=Ryan |first3=Padraic |year=2017 |title=Constitutional Law |edition=5th |___location=Toronto, ON |publisher=Irwin Law Inc. |pages=409–410 |isbn=978-1552214404}}</ref> instigated by the [[human rights in Canada|country's movement for human rights]] and freedoms that emerged after World War II.<ref name=":0">{{cite book |author-link=Peter Hogg |last=Hogg |first=Peter W. |year=2003 |title=Constitutional Law of Canada |edition=student |___location=Scarborough, ON |publisher=Thomson Canada |page=689}}</ref> As a federal statute, the ''Bill of Rights'' could be amended through the ordinary legislative process and had no application to provincial laws.<ref name=":4" /> The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] also narrowly interpreted the ''Bill of Rights'', showing reluctance to declare laws inoperative.<ref group="lower-alpha">''[[R. v. Drybones]]'' (1969), [1970] S.C.R. 282—the one and only federal law declared inoperative by the Supreme Court based on the ''Bill of Rights''.
'''See''': [[Canada (AG) v Lavell|''Canada (AG) v. Lavell'']], [1974] S.C.R. 1349—example of narrow interpretation by the SC.</ref> Between 1960 and 1982, only five of the thirty-five cases concerning the ''Bill of Rights'' that were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada resulted in a successful outcome for claimants.<ref name=":4" /> The relative ineffectiveness of the ''Canadian Bill of Rights'' motivated many to improve rights protections in Canada. The British Parliament formally enacted the ''Charter'' as a part of the ''[[Canada Act 1982]]'' at the request of the [[Parliament of Canada]] in 1982, the result of the efforts of the government of [[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]] [[Pierre Trudeau]].
The ''Charter'' greatly expanded the scope of [[judicial review]], because the ''Charter'' is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the ''Canadian Bill of Rights''. [[Court system of Canada|Canadian courts]], when confronted with violations of ''Charter'' rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when [[Law of Canada|Canadian case law]] was primarily concerned with resolving issues of [[Canadian federalism|federalism]]. The ''Charter'', however, granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the [[common law]] and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's parent country the United Kingdom, was based upon [[Parliamentary supremacy]]. As a result, the ''Charter'' has attracted both broad support from a majority of the electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased [[judicial power]]. The ''Charter'' applies only to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity.
==Features==
{{Canadian Charter}}
Under the ''Charter'', people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person (the ''Charter'' does not define the corporation as a "legal person"),<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|741–2}} but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to [[Canadian nationality law|citizens of Canada]]. The rights are enforceable by the courts through [[Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 24]] of the ''Charter'', which allows courts discretion to award remedies to those whose rights have been denied. This section also allows courts to exclude evidence in trials if the evidence was acquired in a way that conflicts with the ''Charter'' and might damage the reputation of the justice system. [[Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 32]] confirms that the ''Charter'' is binding on the federal government, the territories under its authority, and the provincial governments.
===Exceptions===
[[Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 1]] of the ''Charter'', known as the ''limitations clause'', allows governments to justify certain infringements of ''Charter'' rights. If a court finds that a ''Charter'' right has been infringed, it conducts an analysis under section 1 by applying the [[R v Oakes|''Oakes'' test]], a form of [[Proportionality (law)|proportionality]] review. Infringements are upheld if the government's objective in infringing the right is "pressing and substantial" in a "free and democratic society", and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified".<ref>''[[R v Oakes]]'', [1986] 1 SCR 103, [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii46/1986canlii46.html 1986 CanLII 46] at paras 69–70.</ref> The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] has applied the ''Oakes'' test to uphold laws against [[hate speech]] (e.g., in ''[[R v Keegstra]]'') and [[obscenity]] (e.g., in ''[[R v Butler]]''). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in the ''Charter'' are guaranteed.
In addition, some ''Charter'' rights are subject to the ''notwithstanding clause'' ([[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 33]]). The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7 through 15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, and some have speculated that its use would be politically costly.<ref>Scoffield, Heather. September 13, 2010. "Ottawa rules out invoking notwithstanding clause to stop migrant ships." ''[[The Canadian Press|Canadian Press]]''. [news article].</ref> In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of [[Quebec]] (which did not support the enactment of the ''Charter'' but is subject to it nonetheless). The provinces of [[Saskatchewan]] and [[Alberta]] have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a [[strike action|strike]] and to protect an exclusively [[Same-sex marriage in Canada|heterosexual definition]] of marriage,<ref>[http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/m-5/20060217/whole.html ''Marriage Act''], R.S.A. 2000, c. M-5. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070113082005/http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/m-5/20060217/whole.html|date=January 13, 2007}}, accessed on March 10, 2006.</ref>{{efn|Alberta's use of the notwithstanding clause is of no force or effect, since the definition of marriage is under federal and not provincial jurisdiction.<ref>McKnight, Peter. January 21, 2006. "Notwithstanding what?" ''[[The Vancouver Sun]].'' p. C.4. [news article].</ref>}} respectively. In 2021, the government of [[Ontario]] under Premier [[Doug Ford]] invoked the notwithstanding clause in order to push through Bill 307, the ''Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act'', doubling the amount of time election advertisements could run to 1 year from 6 months.<ref>{{Cite news |date=June 14, 2021 |title=Ford government pushes through controversial election spending bill with notwithstanding clause |work=CBC News |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/notwithstanding-clause-vote-ontario-1.6064952 |access-date=June 7, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What is the notwithstanding clause and why did Doug Ford just invoke it in Ontario? |url=https://www.blogto.com/city/2021/06/what-notwithstanding-clause-why-doug-ford-invoke-ontario/ |access-date=June 7, 2022 |website=www.blogto.com |language=en}}</ref> In 2006, the territory of [[Yukon]] also passed legislation that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.<ref>Parliamentary Information and Research Service. 2006. "[http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm#Section The Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter]." ''Library of Parliament'', prepared by D. Johansen (1989), revised May 2005. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061115221734/http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm#Section|date=November 15, 2006}}, accessed on August 7, 2006.</ref>
=== Rights and freedoms ===
The rights and freedoms enshrined in 34 sections of the ''Charter'' include:
====Fundamental freedoms====
;[[Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 2]]: lists what the ''Charter'' calls "fundamental freedoms" namely [[freedom of conscience]], [[freedom of religion]], [[freedom of thought]], [[freedom of belief]], [[freedom of expression]], [[freedom of the press]] and of other media of communication, [[freedom of assembly|freedom of peaceful assembly]], and [[freedom of association]]. In case law, this clause is cited as the reason for the [[secular state|religious neutrality of the state]].
====Democratic rights====
Generally, the right to participate in political activities and the right to a [[democracy|democratic]] form of government are protected:
;[[Section Three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 3]] : the right to [[voting|vote]] and to be eligible to serve as member of the [[House of Commons of Canada|House of Commons]] and [[Legislative Assemblies of Canada's provinces and territories|provincial and territorial legislative assemblies]].
;[[Section Four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 4]] : the maximum duration of the House of Commons and legislative assemblies is set at five years.
;[[Section Five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 5]] : an annual sitting of Parliament and legislatures is required.
====Mobility rights====
====Legal rights====
Rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected:
;[[Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 11]]: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be [[presumption of innocence|presumed innocent]] until proven guilty.
;[[Section Twelve of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 12]]: right not to be subject to [[cruel and unusual punishment]].
;[[Section Thirteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 13]]: rights against self-incrimination.
;[[Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 14]]: right to an interpreter in a court proceeding.
====Equality rights====
;[[Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 15]] :equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
====Language rights====
Generally, people have the right to use either the [[English language|English]] or [[French language]] in communications with Canada's federal government and certain provincial governments. Specifically, the language laws in the ''Charter'' include:
;[[Section Sixteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 16]]: English and French are the official languages of Canada and [[New Brunswick]].
;[[Section Sixteen One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 16.1]]: the English and French-speaking communities of New Brunswick have equal rights to [[Education in Canada|educational]] and [[Culture of Canada|cultural]] institutions.
;[[Section Seventeen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 17]]: the right to use either official language in [[Parliament of Canada|Parliament]] or the New Brunswick legislature.
;[[Section Eighteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 18]]: the statutes and proceedings of Parliament and the New Brunswick legislature are to be printed in both official languages.
;[[Section Nineteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 19]] :both official languages may be used in federal and New Brunswick courts.
;[[Section Twenty of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 20]] :the right to communicate with and be served by the federal and New Brunswick governments in either official language.
;[[Section Twenty-one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 21]] :other constitutional language rights outside the ''Charter'' regarding English and French are sustained.
;[[Section Twenty-two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 22]] :existing rights to use languages besides English and French are not affected by the fact that only English and French have language rights in the ''Charter''. (Hence, if there are any rights to use [[Aboriginal peoples in Canada|Aboriginal]] languages anywhere they would continue to exist, though they would have no direct protection under the ''Charter''.)
====Minority language education rights====
;[[Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 23]]: rights for certain citizens belonging to French and English speaking minority communities to have their children educated in their own language.
====Other sections====
The remaining provisions help to clarify how the ''Charter'' works in practice.
;[[Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 24]] :establishes how courts may enforce the ''Charter''.
;[[Section Twenty-five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 25]] :states that the ''Charter'' does not derogate existing Aboriginal rights and freedoms. Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under [[Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982|section 35]] of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''.
;[[Section Twenty-six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 26]] :clarifies that other rights and freedoms in Canada are not invalidated by the ''Charter''.
;[[Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 27]] :requires the ''Charter'' to be interpreted in a [[multiculturalism|multicultural]] context.
;[[Section Twenty-eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 28]]: states all ''Charter'' rights are guaranteed equally to men and women.
;[[Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 29]]: confirms the rights of [[separate school]]s are preserved.
;[[Section Thirty of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 30]]: clarifies the applicability of the ''Charter'' in the territories.
;[[Section Thirty-one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 31]]: confirms that the ''Charter'' does not extend the powers of legislatures.
;[[Section Thirty-two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 32]]: concerns the application and scope of the ''Charter''.
;[[Section Thirty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 34]]: states that Part I of the ''Constitution Act, 1982'', containing the first 34 sections of the act, may be collectively referred to as the "''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''".
==History==
{{Further|Human rights in Canada}}
{{if mobile|[[File:Every Canadian Needs A Copy.jpg|thumb|Printed copies of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'']]|{{Canadian human rights sidebar}}}}
Many of the rights and freedoms that are protected under the ''Charter'', including the rights to [[freedom of speech]], [[habeas corpus]], and the [[presumption of innocence]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20000622055357/http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/just/CSJ_page7.html "Sources of Canadian Law]" [archived]. [[Department of Justice (Canada)|''Department of Justice Canada'']]. Retrieved March 20, 2006.</ref> have their roots in a set of Canadian laws and legal precedents<ref>Constitutional Law Group. ''Canadian Constitutional Law'' (3rd ed.). Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications. p. 635.</ref> sometimes known as the [[Implied Bill of Rights]]. Many of these rights were also included in the ''[[Canadian Bill of Rights]]'', which the [[Parliament of Canada|Canadian Parliament]] enacted in 1960. However, the ''Bill of Rights'' had a number of shortcomings. Unlike the ''Charter'', it was an ordinary [[Act of Parliament]], applicable only to the federal government, and could be amended by a simple majority of Parliament. Moreover, the courts chose to interpret the ''Bill of Rights'' only sparingly, and only on rare occasions applied it to find a contrary law inoperative. Additionally, the ''Bill of Rights'' did not contain all of the rights that are now included in the Charter, omitting, for instance, the [[suffrage|right to vote]]<ref>Hogg, Peter W. 1982. ''Canada Act 1982 Annotated''. Toronto: Carswell Company.</ref> and [[freedom of movement]] within Canada.<ref>''United States of America v. Cotroni''; ''United States of America v. El Zein'' [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469.</ref>
=== ''Constitution Act, 1982'' ===
Meanwhile, Trudeau, who had become [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal]] leader and prime minister in 1968, still very much wanted a constitutional bill of rights. The federal and provincial governments discussed creating one during negotiations for patriation, resulting in the [[Victoria Charter]] in 1971, which was never implemented. Trudeau continued his efforts, however, promising constitutional change during the [[1980 Quebec referendum]]. He succeeded in 1982 with the passage of the ''[[Canada Act 1982]]'' in the British Parliament, which enacted the ''Constitution Act, 1982'' as part of the Constitution of Canada.
[[Image:Pierre Elliot Trudeau-2.jpg|right|thumb|[[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]] [[Pierre Trudeau]] was a major advocate of the ''Charter''.]]The inclusion of a charter of rights in the patriation process was a much-debated issue. Trudeau spoke on television in October 1980,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1092-6040/politics_economy/Patriation/|title=Charting the Future: Canada's New Constitution|website=CBC Archives|publisher=CBC/Radio-Canada|access-date=June 30, 2010}}</ref> where he announced his intention of a [[just society]] and constitutionalize a bill of rights that would include: fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of movement, democratic guarantees, legal rights, language rights and [[social equality|equality rights]].<ref name=":1">Weinrib, Lorraine E. 1998. "Trudeau and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Question of Constitutional Maturation", in ''Trudeau's Shadow: The Life and Legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau'', edited by A. Cohen and J. L. Granatstein. Toronto: [[Vintage Canada]].</ref>{{Rp|269}} However, Trudeau did not want a notwithstanding clause.{{Discuss}} While his proposal gained popular support,<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|270}} provincial leaders opposed the potential limits on their powers. The federal [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservative]] [[Parliamentary opposition|opposition]] feared liberal bias among judges, should courts be called upon to enforce rights.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|271}} Additionally, the British Parliament cited their right to uphold Canada's old form of government.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|272}} At a suggestion of the Conservatives, Trudeau's government thus agreed to a committee of [[Senate of Canada|senators]] and [[Members of Parliament (Canada)|members of Parliament]] (MPs) to further examine the bill as well as the patriation plan. During this time, 90 hours were spent on the bill of rights alone, all filmed for television, while civil rights experts and [[advocacy group]]s put forward their perceptions on the draft charter{{'}}s flaws and omissions and how to remedy them.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|270}} As Canada had a parliamentary system of government, and as judges were perceived not to have enforced rights well in the past, it was questioned whether the courts should be named as the enforcers of the ''Charter'', as Trudeau wanted. Conservatives argued that elected politicians should be trusted instead. It was eventually decided that the responsibility should go to the courts. At the urging of [[civil libertarian]]s, judges could now exclude evidence in trials if acquired in breach of ''Charter'' rights in certain circumstances, something the ''Charter'' was not originally going to provide for.
As the process continued, more features were added to the ''Charter'', including equality rights for people with disabilities, more sex equality guarantees, and recognition of Canada's [[multiculturalism]]. The limitations clause was also reworded to focus less on the importance of parliamentary government and more on the justifiability of limits in free societies; the latter logic was more in line with rights developments around the world after World War II.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|271–2}}
In its decision in the ''[[Patriation Reference]]'' (1981), the Supreme Court ruled there was a [[constitutional convention (political custom)|constitutional convention]] that some provincial approval should be sought for constitutional reform. As the provinces still had doubts about the ''Charter''{{'}}s merits, Trudeau was forced to accept the notwithstanding clause to allow governments to opt out of certain obligations. The notwithstanding clause was accepted as part of a deal called the [[Kitchen Accord]], negotiated by the federal attorney general [[Jean Chrétien]], Ontario's justice minister [[Roy McMurtry]], and Saskatchewan's justice minister [[Roy Romanow]]. Pressure from provincial governments (which in Canada have jurisdiction over property) and from the [[New Democratic Party (Canada)|New Democratic Party]], also prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property.<ref>Johansen, David. 1991. "[http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm Property Rights and the Constitution]." ''Law and Government Division''. [[Library of Parliament]].</ref>
==== Quebec ====
Quebec did not support the ''Charter'' (or the ''Canada Act 1982''), with conflicting interpretations as to why. The opposition could have owed to the [[Parti Québécois]] (PQ) leadership being allegedly uncooperative because it was more committed to gaining sovereignty for Quebec. This could have owed to the exclusion of Quebec leaders from the negotiation of the Kitchen Accord, which they saw as being too centralist. It could have also owed to objections by provincial leaders to the accord's provisions relating to the process of future constitutional amendment.<ref>CBC Learning. 2001. [http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisContent.html&series_id=1&episode_id=17&chapter_id=1&page_id=3&lang=E "The Night of Long Knives]" [TV episode], ''Canada: A People's History.'' CAN: [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC/Radio-Canada]]. Retrieved April 8, 2006.</ref> The PQ leaders also opposed the inclusion of mobility rights and minority language education rights.<ref>CBC News. 5 Nov 1981. "[http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1092-6045/politics_economy/Patriation/clip9 Patriation]" [news broadcast]. ''CBC Archives''. CA: [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC/Radio-Canada]]. Retrieved August 8, 2006. [beginning at 4:04].</ref> The ''Charter'' is applicable in Quebec because all provinces are bound by the constitution. However, Quebec's opposition to the 1982 patriation package led to two failed attempts to amend the constitution (the [[Meech Lake Accord]] and [[Charlottetown Accord]]) which were designed primarily to obtain Quebec's political approval of the Canadian constitutional order.
=== Following 1982 ===
While the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985 that the main provisions regarding equality rights (section 15) came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review pre-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.
==== Amendments ====
The ''Charter'' has been amended since its enactment. Section 25 was amended in 1983 to explicitly recognize more rights regarding [[Aboriginal land claims]], while [[Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 16.1]] was added in 1993. There have also been a number of [[Unsuccessful attempts to amend the Canadian Constitution|unsuccessful attempts to amend the ''Charter'']], including the failed Charlottetown Accord of 1992. The Charlottetown Accord would have specifically required the ''Charter'' to be interpreted in a manner respectful of Quebec's [[distinct society]], and would have added further statements to the ''[[Constitution Act, 1867]]'' regarding racial and sexual equality and collective rights, and about [[minority language]] communities. Though the Accord was negotiated among many interest groups, the resulting provisions were so vague that Trudeau, then out of office, feared they would actually conflict with and undermine the ''Charter''{{'}}s individual rights. He felt judicial review of the rights might be undermined if courts had to favour the policies of provincial governments, as governments would be given responsibility over linguistic minorities. Trudeau thus played a prominent role in leading the popular opposition to the Accord.<ref>Behiels, Michael D. "Who Speaks for Canada? Trudeau and the Constitutional Crisis." In ''Trudeau's Shadow: The Life and Legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau''. p. 346.</ref>
==Interpretation and enforcement==
The task of interpreting and enforcing the ''Charter'' falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter. Litigation involving the charter may be referred to as a '''Charter challenge'''.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ouellette |first1=Michelle |last2=Jacobson |first2=Jason |title=Litigating a Charter Challenge |url=https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2007CanLIIDocs602#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_1/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMAjAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5KrERCYXAnmKV6zdt0gAynlIAhFQCUAogBl7ANQCCAOQDC9saTB80KTsIiJAA |website=[[CanLII]] |access-date=17 May 2024}}</ref>
With the ''Charter''{{'}}s supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the ''Constitution Act, 1982'', the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism. However, under section 24 of the ''Charter'', courts also gained new powers to enforce creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials. Courts have since made many important decisions, including ''[[R v Morgentaler]]'' (1988), which struck down [[Abortion in Canada|Canada's abortion law]], and ''[[Vriend v Alberta]]'' (1998), in which the Supreme Court found the province's exclusion of [[sexual orientation]] as a prohibited grounds of discrimination violated the equality rights under section 15. In the latter case, the Court then read the protection into the law.
Courts may receive ''Charter'' questions in a number of ways. Rights claimants could be prosecuted under a [[Criminal law in Canada|criminal law]] that they argue is unconstitutional. Others may feel government services and policies are not being dispensed in accordance with the ''Charter'', and apply to lower-level courts for injunctions against the government.<ref group="lower-alpha">This would be the case in ''[[Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)]].''</ref> A government may also raise questions of rights by submitting [[reference question]]s to higher-level courts; for example, Prime Minister [[Paul Martin]]'s government approached the Supreme Court with Charter questions as well as federalism concerns in the case ''[[Re Same-Sex Marriage]]'' (2004). Provinces may also do this with their superior courts. The government of [[Prince Edward Island]] initiated the ''[[Provincial Judges Reference]]'' by asking its [[PESCAD|provincial Supreme Court]] a question on [[judicial independence]] under section 11.
[[Image:Ottawa - ON - Oberster Gerichtshof von Kanada.jpg|right|thumb|The building of the Supreme Court of Canada, the chief authority on the interpretation of the ''Charter'']]
In several important cases, judges developed various tests and precedents for interpreting specific provisions of the ''Charter'', including the [[Oakes test]] (section 1), set out in the case ''[[R v Oakes]]'' (1986); and the [[Law test]] (section 15), developed in ''[[Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)|Law v Canada]]'' (1999) which has since become defunct.<ref>''[[R. v. Kapp]]'', 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 SCR 483</ref> Since ''[[Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act]]'' (1985), various approaches to defining and expanding the scope of [[fundamental justice]] (i.e., [[natural justice]] or [[due process]]) under section 7 have been adopted.<ref group="lower-alpha">For more information, see the [[:Category:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|articles on each ''Charter'' section]].</ref>
=== Purposive and generous interpretation ===
In general, courts have embraced a [[purposive interpretation]] of ''Charter'' rights. This means that since early cases, such as ''[[Hunter v Southam Inc]]'' (1984) and ''[[R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd]]'' (1985), they have concentrated less on the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the ''Charter'' was adopted in 1982. Rather, focus has been given towards changing the scope of rights as appropriate to fit their broader purpose.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|722, 724–25}} This is tied to the "generous interpretation" of rights, as the purpose of the ''Charter'' provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.
Constitutional scholar [[Peter Hogg]] (2003) has approved of the generous approach in some cases, although for others he argues the purpose of the provisions was not to achieve a set of rights as broad as courts have imagined.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|722, 724–25}} The approach has not been without its critics. Alberta politician [[Ted Morton]] and political scientist [[Rainer Knopff]] have been very critical of this phenomenon. Although they believe in the validity of the [[living tree doctrine]], which is the basis for the approach (and the tradition term for generous interpretations of the Canadian Constitution), they argue ''Charter'' case law has been more radical. When the living tree doctrine is applied correctly, Morton and Knopff (2000) claim, "the elm remained an elm; it grew new branches but did not transform itself into an oak or a willow." The doctrine can be used, for example, so a right is upheld even when a government threatens to violate it with new technology, as long as the essential right remains the same, but the authors claim that the courts have used the doctrine to "create new rights". As an example, the authors note that the ''Charter'' right against [[self-incrimination]] has been extended to cover scenarios in the justice system that had previously been unregulated by self-incrimination rights in other Canadian laws.<ref name=":2">[[Ted Morton|Morton, Ted]], and [[Rainer Knopff|Knopff, Rainer]] (2000). ''The Charter Revolution & the Court Party.'' Toronto: [[Broadview Press]].</ref>{{Rp|46–47}}
=== Other interpretations ===
Another general approach to interpreting ''Charter'' rights is to consider international legal precedents with countries that have specific rights protections, such as the [[United States Bill of Rights|U.S. Bill of Rights]] (which had influenced aspects of the ''Charter'') and the [[Constitution of South Africa]]. However, international precedent is only of guiding value and is not binding. For example, the Supreme Court has referred to the Charter and the U.S. Bill of Rights as being "born to different countries in different ages and in different circumstances".<ref group="lower-alpha">The case quoted in Hogg (2003:732) is ''[[R v Rahey]]'' (1987) by [[Gérard La Forest]].</ref><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|232}}
Advocacy groups frequently [[intervention (law)|intervene]] in cases to make arguments on how to interpret the ''Charter''. Some examples are the [[British Columbia Civil Liberties Association]], [[Canadian Civil Liberties Association]], [[Canadian Mental Health Association]], [[Canadian Labour Congress]], the [[Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]] (LEAF), and [[REAL Women of Canada]]. The purpose of such interventions is to assist the court and to attempt to influence the court to render a decision favourable to the legal interests of the group.
A further approach to the ''Charter'', taken by the courts, is the [[dialogue principle]], which involves greater participation by elected governments. This approach involves governments drafting legislation in response to court rulings and courts acknowledging the effort if the new legislation is challenged.
==Comparisons with other human rights documents==
[[Image:Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg|right|thumb|The [[United States Bill of Rights]] influenced the text of the ''Charter'', but its rights provisions are interpreted more conservatively. Canadian civil-rights and constitutional cases as compared to American cases occasionally have dissimilar outcomes because the broader ''Charter'' rights are limited by the "savings clause" of [[Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 1 of the ''Charter'']] as interpreted in ''[[R v Oakes]]''.]]
Some Canadian [[Member of Parliament (Canada)|members of Parliament]] saw the movement to entrench a charter as contrary to the British model of [[Parliamentary supremacy]]. Hogg (2003) has speculated that the reason for the British adoption of the [[Human Rights Act 1998]], which allows the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] to be enforced directly in domestic courts, is partly because they were inspired by the similar Canadian ''Charter''.<ref name="saunders">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/constitution/|title=The Charter at 20|last=Saunders|first=Philip|date=April 2002|website=CBC News Online|publisher=[[CBC/Radio-Canada]]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060307194214/http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/constitution/|archive-date=March 7, 2006|access-date=March 17, 2006}}</ref>
The Canadian ''Charter'' bears a number of similarities to the European Convention, specifically in relation to the limitations clauses contained in the European document.<ref name="Brice Dickson 1999">Dickson, Brice. November 11, 1999. "Human Rights in the 21st Century" [lecture]. ''[[Amnesty International]].'' Belfast: [[Queen's University Belfast|Queen's University]].</ref> Because of this similarity with European human rights law, the Supreme Court turns not only to the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]] case law in interpreting the ''Charter'', but also to [[European Court of Human Rights]] cases.
===Canadian ''Charter'' vs. U.S. ''Bill of Rights''===
The core distinction between the U.S. ''Bill of Rights'' and the Canadian ''Charter'' is the existence of the limitations and notwithstanding clauses. Canadian courts have consequently interpreted each right more expansively. However, due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|232–3}} In contrast, rights under the U.S. Bill are absolute,{{contradictory inline|First Amendment to the United States Constitution|date=November 2024}} thus a violation will not be found until there has been sufficient encroachment on those rights. The sum effect is that both constitutions provide comparable protection of many rights.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|232–3}} Canada's fundamental justice (section 7) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than [[Due Process Clause|due process]], which is the U.S. equivalent.
Freedom of expression (section 2) also has a wider-ranging scope than the freedom of speech guaranteed under the U.S. [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] (1A).<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|232–3}} For instance, a form of [[Picketing (protest)|picketing]], though involving speech that might have otherwise been protected, was deemed as disruptive conduct and not protected by the U.S. 1A, but was considered by the Supreme Court in ''[[RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.]]'' (1986). The Supreme Court would rule the picketing, including the disruptive conduct, as fully protected under section 2 of the ''Charter'', after which section 1 would be used to argue the injunction against the picketing as just.<ref>[[Christopher Manfredi|Manfredi, Christopher P]]. 1992. "The Canadian Supreme Court and American judicial review: United States constitutional jurisprudence and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." ''[[American Journal of Comparative Law]]'' 40(1):12–13.</ref>
The limitations clause has also allowed governments to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional in the U.S. For example, the Supreme Court has upheld some of Quebec's limits on the use of [[English language|English]] on signs and has upheld [[publication ban]]s that prohibit media from mentioning the names of juvenile criminals.
The un-ratified [[Equal Rights Amendment]] in the U.S., which garnered many critics when proposed, performs a similar function to that of the ''Charter'' section 28, which received no comparable opposition.<ref>"Women on the Move in Canada" (1993), ''Women's International Network News'' Summer 19(3), p. 71.</ref> Still, Canadian feminists had to stage large protests to demonstrate support for the inclusion of section 28, which had not been part of the original draft of the Charter.<ref name="lugtig" /><ref>[[Doris Anderson|Anderson, Doris]]. 2005. "Canadian Women and the Charter of Rights." National Journal of Constitutional Law 19. p. 369.</ref>
Another difference from the U.S. Bill of Rights is that the ''Charter'' does not provide any right to possess firearms. In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rejected a constitutional challenge to the federal ''Firearms Act'', ruling that it was within the federal [[Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867|criminal law power]].<ref>{{cite CanLII |court=SCC |year=2000 |num=31 |litigants=Reference re Firearms Act (Can.) |parallelcite=2000 1 SCR 783}}</ref>
=== Comparisons to other documents ===
The ''[[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]'' has several parallels with the Canadian ''Charter'', but in some cases the ''Covenant'' goes further with regard to rights in its text. For example, a right to [[legal aid]] has been read into section 10 of the ''Charter'' (right to counsel), but the Covenant explicitly guarantees the accused need not pay "if he does not have sufficient means".<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|233–4}}
Canada's ''Charter'' has little to say, explicitly at least, about economic and social rights. On this point, it stands in marked contrast with the ''[[Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms]]'' and with the ''[[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]]''. There are some who feel economic rights ought to be read into the rights to [[security of the person]] (section 7) and equality rights (section 15) to make the Charter similar to the ''Covenant''.<ref name="lugtig">Lugtig, Sarah, and [[Debra Parkes]], 2002. "Where do we go from here?" ''[[Herizons]]'' 15(4). p.14.</ref> The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent [[standard of living]] and can help the civil rights flourish in a livable environment.<ref name="lugtig" /> Canadian courts, however, have been hesitant in this area, stating that economic rights are [[political question]]s and adding that as [[negative and positive rights|positive rights]], economic rights are of questionable legitimacy.<ref name="lugtig" />
The ''Charter'' itself influenced the [[Constitution of South Africa Chapter 2: Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] in the Constitution of South Africa.<ref name="lugtig" /> The limitations clause under section 36 of the South African law has been compared to section 1 of the ''Charter''.<ref name="Brice Dickson 1999" /> Likewise, [[Jamaica]]'s ''Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms'' was also influenced, in part, by Canada's ''Charter''.<ref>Joint Select Committee. 2011. "[https://jis.gov.jm/media/charter-of-rights1.pdf Report of the Joint Select Committee on its Deliberations on the Bill Entitled An Act to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica to Provide for a Charter of Rights and for Connected Matters]." ''[[Government of Jamaica]]''.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110417/cleisure/cleisure2.html|title=Rights and responsibilities under the charter|author=Mukulu|first=Matondo|date=2011|website=The Gleaner|___location=Jamaica|type=News article}}</ref>
The "justified limitations" wording from section 1 of the ''Charter'' also directly influenced one of the core provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, section 5, which similarly states that the right and freedoms found in the New Zealand Act "may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.".<ref>{{cite web | title=Bill of Rights for New Zealand: A White Paper | Office of Justice Programs | url=https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/bill-rights-new-zealand-white-paper }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (As at 30 August 2022), Public Act 5 Justified limitations – New Zealand Legislation | url=https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225501.html }}</ref>
==The ''Charter'' and national values<span class="anchor" id="The Charter and national values"></span>==
[[Image:March of Hearts crowd on Parliament Hill 2004.jpg|right|thumb|The "March of Hearts" rally for [[Same-sex marriage in Canada|same-sex marriage]] equality under the ''Charter'' in 2004]]
The ''Charter'' was intended to be a source of [[Canadian values]] and national unity. As Professor [[Alan Cairns]] noted, "the initial federal government premise was on developing a pan-Canadian identity".<ref name="saunders"/> Pierre Trudeau himself later wrote in his ''Memoirs (1993)'' that "Canada itself" could now be defined as a "society where all people are equal and where they share some fundamental values based upon freedom", and that all Canadians could identify with the values of liberty and equality.<ref>[[Pierre Trudeau|Trudeau, Pierre Elliott]]. 1993. ''Memoirs.'' Toronto: [[McClelland & Stewart]]. Pp. 322–3.</ref>
The ''Charter''{{'}}s unifying purpose was particularly important to the mobility and language rights. According to author [[Rand Dyck]] (2000), some scholars believe section 23, with its minority language education rights, "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned".<ref name=":3">[[Rand Dyck|Dyck, Rand]]. 2000. ''Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches'' (3rd ed.). Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning.</ref>{{Rp|442}} Through the mobility and language rights, [[French Canadian]]s, who have been at the centre of unity debates, are able to travel throughout all Canada and receive government and educational services in their own language. Hence, they are not confined to Quebec (the only province where they form the majority and where most of their population is based), which would polarize the country along regional lines. The ''Charter'' was also supposed to standardize previously diverse laws throughout the country and gear them towards a single principle of liberty.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|704–5}}
Former [[premier of Ontario]] [[Bob Rae]] has stated that the ''Charter'' "functions as a symbol for all Canadians" in practice because it represents the core value of freedom.<ref name="saunders"/> Academic [[Peter H. Russell|Peter Russell]] has been more skeptical of the ''Charter''{{'}}s value in this field. Cairns, who feels the ''Charter'' is the most important constitutional document to many Canadians, and that the ''Charter'' was meant to shape the Canadian identity, has also expressed concern that groups within society see certain provisions as belonging to them alone rather than to all Canadians.<ref name="saunders"/> It has also been noted that issues like [[abortion]] and [[pornography]], raised by the ''Charter'', tend to be controversial.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|704–5}} Still, [[opinion polls]] in 2002 showed Canadians felt the ''Charter'' significantly represented Canada, although many were unaware of the document's actual contents.<ref>Byfield, Joanne. 2002. "The right to be ignorant." ''[[Report Newsmagazine]]'' (national ed.) 29(24):56.</ref>
The only values mentioned by the [[Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|''Charter''{{'}}s preamble]] are [[Constitutional references to God|recognition of the supremacy of God]] and the [[rule of law]], but these have been controversial and of minor legal consequence. In 1999, MP [[Svend Robinson]] brought forward a failed proposal before the [[House of Commons of Canada]] that would have amended the ''Charter'' by removing the mention of God, as he felt it did not reflect Canada's diversity.
Section 27 also recognizes a value of multiculturalism. In 2002, polls found 86% of Canadians approved of this section.<ref>Tyler, Tracey. April 12, 2002 "Support for ''Charter'' runs strong: Survey; Approval highest in Quebec on 20-year-old rights law." ''[[Toronto Star]].'' p. A07.</ref>
==Criticism==
While the ''Charter'' has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, with 82 percent of Canadians describing it as a good thing in opinion polls in 1987 and 1999,<ref name="saunders"/> the document has also been subject to published criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum. According to columnist [[David Akin]] (2017), while most Liberals support the ''Charter'', most [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservatives]], most New Democrats, most [[Indigenous peoples in Canada|Indigenous people]], and [[Québécois people|Québécois]] see the ''Charter'' as "problematic" and "something to be challenged in order to be Canadian".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Akin |first=David |date=April 18, 2017 |title=Analysis: Canada's Charter remains a flawed document that no politician dares try to fix |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/3385359/analysis-canadas-charter-flawed-document-no-politician-dares-try-to-fix/ |access-date=May 9, 2022 |website=[[Global News]] |language=en-US}}</ref>
One left-wing critic is professor [[Michael Mandel (law professor)|Michael Mandel]] (1989),<ref name="Dyck446" group="lower-alpha">Dyck (2000:446) summarizes [[Michael Mandel (law professor)|Mandel, Michael]]. 1994 [1989]. ''The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada'' (revised ed.). Toronto: Wall and Thompson.</ref> who wrote that, in comparison to politicians, judges do not have to be as sensitive to the will of the electorate, nor do they have to make sure their decisions are easily understandable to the average Canadian citizen. This, in Mandel's view, limits democracy.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|446}} Mandel has also asserted that the ''Charter'' makes Canada more like the United States, especially by serving corporate rights and [[individual rights]] rather than group rights and social rights.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|446}} He has argued that there are several things that should be included in the ''Charter'', such as a [[right to health care]] and a basic right to free education. Hence, the perceived [[Americanization]] of Canadian politics is seen as coming at the expense of values more important for Canadians.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|446}} The labour movement has been disappointed in the reluctance of the courts to use the ''Charter'' to support various forms of union activity, such as the "right to strike".{{Update inline|date=April 2020|reason=right to strike since 2015, see [[Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan]]}}
Conservative critics [[Ted Morton|Morton]] and [[Rainer Knopff|Knopff]] (2000) have
Political scientist [[Rand Dyck]] (2000), in observing these criticisms, notes that while judges have had their scope of review widened, they have still upheld most laws challenged on ''Charter'' grounds.
==See also==
{{Portal|Canada|Law}}
*[[Canadian values]]
*''[[Veterans' Bill of Rights]]''
**[[List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (
**[[List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)]]
**[[List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)]]
==
===Footnotes===
{{notelist}}
===
{{Reflist}}
==Further reading==
* Beaudoin, G., and E. Ratushny. 1989. ''The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. (2nd ed.). Toronto: [[Carswell (publishers)|Carswell]].
* Black-Branch, Jonathan L. 1995. [
* [[Department of Justice (Canada)|Department of Justice Canada]]. 2019. "[https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/cases.html Examples of Charter-related cases]." ''Canada's System of Justice''. Department of Justice Canada. Web.
* {{cite web |last1=Fine |first1=Sean |title=Canada's Charter turned 40 on Sunday – and it's still as radical and enigmatic as it was in 1982 |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-charter-turns-40-supreme-court/ |website=The Globe and Mail |access-date=22 January 2023 |date=17 April 2022 |quote=While the notwithstanding clause gives governments a unique way to override basic rights, Supreme Court judges have had a broad mandate to set out what those rights are}}
* Hogg, Peter W. 2002. ''Constitutional law of Canada'' (4th ed.), with ''Supplement to Constitutional Law of Canada''. Scarborough: Carswell.
* Humphrey, J. P. 1984. ''Human Rights and the United Nations: A Great Adventure''. New York: Transnational Publishers.
* Magnet, J.E. 2001. ''Constitutional Law'' (8th ed.).
* Silver, Cindy. 1995?. ''Family Autonomy and the Charter of Rights: Protecting Parental Liberty in a Child-Centred Legal System'', in series, ''Discussion Paper [of] the Centre for Renewal in Public Policy'' '''3'''. Gloucester, ON: Centre for Renewal in Public Policy. p. 27.
==External links==
{{Wikisource}}
*[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms] – the Charter, via Department of Justice Canada
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20160110221331/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms] – the Charter, via Department of Justice Canada (Archived)
*[https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/index.html Charterpedia] – online encyclopedia about the Charter, via Department of Justice Canada
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070504011812/http://www.collectionscanada.ca/rights-and-freedoms/ Building a Just Society: A Retrospective of Canadian Rights and Freedoms] – via [[Library and Archives Canada]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110906065034/http://canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/index.html Charter of Rights Decisions Digest] – via [[Canadian Legal Information Institute]]
*[http://www.constitutional-law.net/general.html Constitutional Law of Canada] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225044206/http://www.constitutional-law.net/general.html |date=February 25, 2021 }} – via Professor Joseph E. Magnet, University of Ottawa
*[http://www.charterofrights.ca/language.php Fundamental Freedoms: ''The Charter of Rights and Freedoms''] – ''Charter of Rights and Freedoms'', includes video, audio, and the ''Charter'' in over 10 languages
{{Constitution of Canada|patriation}}
{{List of official Canadian national symbols}}
[[Category:Constitution of Canada]]
[[Category:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms| ]]
[[Category:
[[Category:
[[Category:Human rights in Canada]]
[[Category:1982 in Canadian law]]
[[Category:1982 documents]]
[[Category:Constitution Act, 1982]]
| |||