Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 26: Line 26:     
==Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter Rights==
 
==Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter Rights==
Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The Charter and the courts recognize that governments make laws in the broader public interest, even if a law harms some groups and violates their right to equality under section 15. In such a case, a court will analyze whether the government can justify the violation under section 1. This section says that Charter rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably (clearly) justified in a free and democratic society. A court may accept and permit a violation of a Charter right if the government can meet the test under section 1. But section 1 applies only to written laws, not to government action, because it requires any limit on a Charter right to be “prescribed by law.So when government action—not a written law— violates the Charter, section 1 does not let the government try to justify the violation. The action is unconstitutional.
+
Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The Charter and the courts recognize that governments make laws in the broader public interest, even if a law harms some groups and violates their right to equality under section 15. In such a case, a court will analyze whether the government can justify the violation under section 1. This section says that Charter rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably (clearly) justified in a free and democratic society. A court may accept and permit a violation of a Charter right if the government can meet the test under section 1. But section 1 applies only to written laws, not to government action, because it requires any limit on a Charter right to be “prescribed by law”. So when government action—not a written law— violates the Charter, section 1 does not let the government try to justify the violation. The action is unconstitutional.
    
The essential questions courts must decide under section 1 are whether the law has a very important objective and whether the government chose a proportionate way to meet that objective—a way that interferes as little as possible with constitutional rights. For example, could the government achieve its objective in another way, without violating equality rights? Does the law do more harm than good?
 
The essential questions courts must decide under section 1 are whether the law has a very important objective and whether the government chose a proportionate way to meet that objective—a way that interferes as little as possible with constitutional rights. For example, could the government achieve its objective in another way, without violating equality rights? Does the law do more harm than good?
3,009

edits

Navigation menu