In past 30 years Canadian courts are struggling with the Charter’s emphasis under section 11(b) that “any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time”. There has been still not any clarity what is “reasonable time” despite courts has described some factors to determine it. The most important case with reference to reasonableness was R v Askov (1990), where the Supreme Court held (9-0) that accused rights have been violated under section 11 (b) of the Charter. It took 34 months in bringing charges to the trial court; as a result of this charges against the accused were stayed. Courts made it very clear that due to lack of resources, they would not tolerate delays. The principles expressed in the “Askov”
…show more content…
But the Charter critics are leveling charges of judicial activism to the courts, blaming that judges are exceeding their limits in rendering their decisions. Furthermore they accuse that the decisions made by the courts specifically referring to the Charter are inconsistent and unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions on women’s liberty, abortion, minority rights, rights for accused of crime, rights of same sex marriage had challenged the parliamentary supremacy. Critics allege that judicial review is anti-democratic, blaming that judges are not elected democratically by voting (Boyd 2015 p134-135). They argue that the Charter is constitutional document, which gave powers to judges to make law. On the other hand people who support the judicial review suggest that judges are interpreting charter by keeping our democratic ethics and wisdoms alive. Courts interpret the law before they apply to any case. Judicial interpretation is analytical and realistic process. Precedents, set out by courts, helped creating most of our laws and the ample area of common law has been continuously been shaped and sculptured by the judges to meet the changing needs of society. In some cases Courts have strong deference to parliament while in other cases judges have scolded parliament to change those laws. For example, in RJR-Macdonald v Canada the court asked parliament to change the legislation saying there are limits to judiciary 's deference to the legislature. In R v Kapp The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy was not discriminatory and did not violate s.15 of the Charter. The courts agreed with the legislature created for Aboriginals and are in strong deference with parliament. Parliament has the power to make laws and Judges use their power to shapes the laws. (Boyd
But the Charter critics are leveling charges of judicial activism to the courts, blaming that judges are exceeding their limits in rendering their decisions. Furthermore they accuse that the decisions made by the courts specifically referring to the Charter are inconsistent and unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions on women’s liberty, abortion, minority rights, rights for accused of crime, rights of same sex marriage had challenged the parliamentary supremacy. Critics allege that judicial review is anti-democratic, blaming that judges are not elected democratically by voting (Boyd 2015 p134-135). They argue that the Charter is constitutional document, which gave powers to judges to make law. On the other hand people who support the judicial review suggest that judges are interpreting charter by keeping our democratic ethics and wisdoms alive. Courts interpret the law before they apply to any case. Judicial interpretation is analytical and realistic process. Precedents, set out by courts, helped creating most of our laws and the ample area of common law has been continuously been shaped and sculptured by the judges to meet the changing needs of society. In some cases Courts have strong deference to parliament while in other cases judges have scolded parliament to change those laws. For example, in RJR-Macdonald v Canada the court asked parliament to change the legislation saying there are limits to judiciary 's deference to the legislature. In R v Kapp The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy was not discriminatory and did not violate s.15 of the Charter. The courts agreed with the legislature created for Aboriginals and are in strong deference with parliament. Parliament has the power to make laws and Judges use their power to shapes the laws. (Boyd