In essence, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the sole piece of legislature which balances equality and liberty, whilst taking into perspective individual rights in opposition to the needs of society. The manner with which the charter is composed upholds the balance of liberty and equality justly; however, in practise the charter is implemented with the neither the honour nor the justice for which the spirit of the law intended. Furthermore, sections one, twenty four, and eight of the charter aptly demonstrate the misinterpretation with which the charter has been dealt. Overall, the faults within the charter are not within the legislature; a societal change in ideology is necessary in which the interpreters and enforcers of the
…show more content…
For example, Canada V. JTI Macdonald Corp, 2007 S.C.C and Irwin Toy LTD. V. Quebec, 1989 S.C.R. Initially, within the case between the supreme court and JTI Macdonald Corp, the courts decided that denying this corporation the freedom to make commercials was outside of reasonable limits, despite the societal danger of cigarettes which the company was advertising, this trump of freedom over equality was a misinterpretation of legislation. Next, the courts denied the Irwin Toy Company their capacity to advertise for children under the age of 13 in commercials through the reasonable limits clause; there were no grounds to limit this freedom because it was not protecting societies safety. In consequence of these two verdicts, we can assume, the law is not concrete, as these cases demonstrate similar circumstances can result in different verdicts; therefore, in resolution, societies ideology must change so both people and societies liberty and equality are …show more content…
Evidence includes, the case of R. V. Mann, 2004 S.C.C and R. V. Ns, 2012 S.C.C. The situational verdict implemented upon Philip Mann was misinterpreted, the search was reasonable because it was a matter of safety, that drugs were mistakenly found did not shift the purpose of the search; additionally, Mann’s possession of drugs is criminal and justice requires punishment. On the other hand, Ns protested her right to wear her Niqab while testifying; the court system denied this freedom to religion because it interfered with the standard process of collecting evidence through facial expression. I do not agree that this denial of personal freedom was a necessity in the preservation of societal need; additionally, it seems to conflict with the R. V. Mann trail verdict. Once again, the variance in conclusions of similar court instances is alarming, perhaps the consultation of precedent, along with a competent balancing of equality and liberty of the individual and society though proper interpretation of legislation will result in more just
For example, Canada V. JTI Macdonald Corp, 2007 S.C.C and Irwin Toy LTD. V. Quebec, 1989 S.C.R. Initially, within the case between the supreme court and JTI Macdonald Corp, the courts decided that denying this corporation the freedom to make commercials was outside of reasonable limits, despite the societal danger of cigarettes which the company was advertising, this trump of freedom over equality was a misinterpretation of legislation. Next, the courts denied the Irwin Toy Company their capacity to advertise for children under the age of 13 in commercials through the reasonable limits clause; there were no grounds to limit this freedom because it was not protecting societies safety. In consequence of these two verdicts, we can assume, the law is not concrete, as these cases demonstrate similar circumstances can result in different verdicts; therefore, in resolution, societies ideology must change so both people and societies liberty and equality are …show more content…
Evidence includes, the case of R. V. Mann, 2004 S.C.C and R. V. Ns, 2012 S.C.C. The situational verdict implemented upon Philip Mann was misinterpreted, the search was reasonable because it was a matter of safety, that drugs were mistakenly found did not shift the purpose of the search; additionally, Mann’s possession of drugs is criminal and justice requires punishment. On the other hand, Ns protested her right to wear her Niqab while testifying; the court system denied this freedom to religion because it interfered with the standard process of collecting evidence through facial expression. I do not agree that this denial of personal freedom was a necessity in the preservation of societal need; additionally, it seems to conflict with the R. V. Mann trail verdict. Once again, the variance in conclusions of similar court instances is alarming, perhaps the consultation of precedent, along with a competent balancing of equality and liberty of the individual and society though proper interpretation of legislation will result in more just