• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Law
  • Word count: 2764

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter: Democratic or Anti-Democratic?

Extracts from this document...


The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter: Democratic or Anti-Democratic? A democracy is a way of governing a country in which the people elect representatives to form a government on behalf of the country; with such a government, the idea is that everyone in that country has social equality. Social equality is state of uniformity in quantity, measure, value, privileges, status, or rights within a given society. Canada is thought to be a democratic country because, similar to the definition, the Canadian citizens select representatives by ballot to form a government on behalf of the country. The Canadian judicial system has two key elements by which to represent the country: The Supreme Court of Canada (group of 9 appointed judges) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the apex of the Canadian judicial system. It is the final general court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a set of laws revised by the Supreme Court in order to ensure safety, morality and equality to all citizens. ...read more.


It is apparent that the Charter is hindering their rule of equality and being discriminatory against minority groups; this, along with Judge Abella's statement (2004) "the judiciary has a different relationship with the public...It is accountable less to the public's opinions and more to the public interest4." Hence, it is more than apparent that the Canadian judicial system lacks the characteristics of a democracy. Secondly, the fact that the members of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed rather than elected by Canadian citizens shows that their judgement may not, in fact, be agreed upon by the country; thus, it does not demonstrate decisions being the true representation of people's views. Although some people believe the courts appoint MPs based on knowledge and previous achievement, thus giving a good face to the system, this is not representing the country efficiently. Paul Martin, Canada's Prime Minister, tried to revise the Supreme Court appointment system to make it more democratic than it previously was. Instead of appearing in front of a nominating committee, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler would take questions from a committee said to include three Liberal MPs, three opposition MPs and representatives from two bodies representing the legal profession. The panel would not vote or pass judgment on the qualifications of the nominees but would produce a report reflecting the opinions of committee members following their questioning of Cotler about the judges5. ...read more.


If minority groups were shown and expressed within the Supreme Court, the outcome of cases in which marginal opinions are faced would be much better represented and be more impartial to their individual values and beliefs. Considering the three main aspects mentioned, it is more than obvious that Canada is in no way democratic. If the Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedom were democratic, they would be based upon the principles of social equality, however they are not. The Supreme Court will continue to use the Charter to cut a swatch through broad societal expectations and practises and in doing so will make the general progress towards its decisions but not necessarily for each and every individual decision. The fact that the Canadian judicial system: allows the rights of a group to always supersede the rights of an individual, appoints the members of the Supreme Court and does not put emphasis on visible minorities in its' courts, forcefully proves its anti-democratic characteristics. Some mention that the Supreme Court is democratic because they follow the laws of the Charter, however, the cases mentioned above, along with many other cases which have been examined, prove that each citizen does not, in fact, have equal rights; this therefore substantiates that Canada does not possess the characteristics of having a democratic judicial system and, thus, is strongly anti-democratic. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    largely depend on the notion that there is an increased risk of misunderstanding, what should actually be implied and honest mistakes of perception and memory according to Pattenden29. It is submitted, that whilst in some cases this will be true.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    abortion research

    4 star(s)

    If corporations can be treated as persons under the law, why not a fetus? Even if we decided that a fetus isn't a person, that doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected.

  1. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    made more agitated and he set fire to the bedroom window - Arson and Criminal Damage as to endanger human life Intoxication rejected - voluntary intoxication Criminal damage act (1971) intention or recklessness Basic intent Can't use involuntary intoxication for these crimes Appeal under normal circumstances would be correct Possible

  2. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    The rhetoric of proximity thus plays an indispensable role in maintaining rigid binary oppositions by temporarily destabilizing them. The simultaneous fear and exploitation of similitude that Dollimore detects in Augustine's theodicy surfaces in two later medieval discourses of domination, those of heresy and of antifeminism.

  1. Justices of the Peace - Magistrates Courts

    the prosecution have hardly proved their case "beyond reasonable doubt", some 20 per cent of convictions after trial nowadays arise from majority verdicts. If the evidence is legally insufficient the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty", and in exceptional circumstances he may direct a


    Jury Decision Making Judges and jurors tend to reach their decisions in different ways. Judges offer an individual unprofessional view based on legal experience, whilst jurors offered could decisions based on their own general knowledge and life experience. A classic study by Kalven and Zeisel (1966)

  1. Our Day Out and social deprivation.

    If she cannot change the injustice in society that these children face, she can at least give them "a good day out." Mrs. Kay has a lot of positive qualities - she seems to have limitless patience. She answers Carol's repeated questions about the trip, with tolerance and tries not to lose her temper with Mr.

  2. Vicariouis liability and article 21

    The court directed initiation of criminal proceedings the police constable for his rude behaviour in his pushing her to ground, which subsequently ended in her death apart from the expediting the departmental inquiry pending against him.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work