The inclusion of a charter of rights in the Constitution Act was a much-debated issue. Of great concern was the potential bias among judges, when called upon to enforce rights.  Still, the responsibility was given to the courts and judges whom could now even 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 justifying of limits to rights in free societies.

The Charter has been amended since its enactment. For example, section 25 was amended in 1983 to explicitly recognize more rights regarding Aboriginal land claims, and section 16.1 was added in 1993.

The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter clearly falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.  But, in comparison to politicians, judges at no level of the legal system have to be as sensitive to the will of the electorate in any manner, nor do they have to make sure their decisions are easily understandable to the average Canadian citizen. In essence, they are pretty much a law munching-mushing association that can infect society with whatever aberrant personal beliefs they may hold. If you do not think our system is in trouble given the bias, patronage and special interest groups read the report of our new ‘batch of bozos’ that the Trudeau Tripe are about to saddle us with. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judge-shortage-24-appointments-1.3814275 How many Islamists and Queers are now rapidly filling out judicial application forms because they know Jackass Justin is in bed with them?

Courts may receive Charter questions in a number of ways. For example, rights claimants can be prosecuted under a criminal law that they argue is unconstitutional and their cases end up in the Supreme Court. Other complainants 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, as was the case in Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education). And governments may also raise questions of rights by submitting reference questions to higher-level courts. In Canadian law, a reference question is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically, the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation. 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 provincial Supreme Court a question on judicial independence under section 11.

The Provincial Judges Reference [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 is a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in response to a reference question regarding remuneration and the independence and impartiality of provincial court judges. Notably, the majority opinion found all judges are independent, not just superior court judges and inferior court judges concerned with criminal law, as the written constitution stipulates. Unwritten constitutional principles were relied upon to demonstrate this, indicating such principles were growing in importance in constitutional interpretation. The reference also remains one of the most definitive statements on the extent to which all judges in Canada are protected by the Constitution.

The majority opinion established that independent compensation commissions are required to help set salaries free of political manipulation. These commissions are described by a majority as “an institutional sieve” and by the dissent as “a virtual fourth branch of government,” making recommendations that governments may deviate from only with rational explanations. However, the reference has been subject to harsh published criticisms.

In several important cases, judges developed various tests and precedents for interpreting specific provisions of The Charter. These include the Oakes test for section 1, set out in the case R. v. Oakes (1986). But our Charter rights are limited by the “savings clause” of section 1 of the Charter as interpreted in R. v. Oakes It is claimed Canadian courts have consistently interpreted each right more expansively, but due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right. Nor will it necessarily see the law enforced to protect a granted right.

In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of The Charter rights. This means that since early cases like Hunter v. Southam (1984) and R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), they have concentrated not on the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the Charter was adopted in 1982, but rather on changing the scope of rights as appropriate to fit their broader purpose. 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. As an example, 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.

Another 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 the courts acknowledging the effort if the new legislation is challenged.

As well, public interest groups frequently intervene in cases to make arguments on how to interpret The Charter. 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. In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a non-party, called the intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of non-parties, who ideally should have the right to be heard.

Intervenors are most common in appellate proceedings, but can also appear at other types of legal proceeding such as a trial.

In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to this however; for example, under sub rule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question then the attorney general of any province or territory, or of the federal government, may intervene “as of right”, i.e. without the need to be granted leave to intervene.

Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.

Intervenors are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters where the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair that the accused in a criminal matter be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.

There are several distinct reasons why someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:

  • if the proposed intervenor is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;
  • if the proposed intervenor represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);
  • if the proposed intervenor is concerned that the court’s decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervenor’s interests; in other words, it would be an intervention to ensure that the court’s ruling does not have “accidental” unintended effects.

It is often said that the role of intervenors is to “assist” the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. While it is true that judges sometimes do indicate that intervenors have been of aid to the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word “assist” can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervenor is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervenor is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to “assist” the court.

And one more reference you should become aware of is your right to counsel, or a right to legal aid that has been read into section 10 of The Charter whereby the Covenant explicitly guarantees the accused need not pay “if he does not have sufficient means.”


The building of the Supreme Court of Canada, the chief authority on the interpretation of the Charter.


The Charter was intended to be a source for national values and national unity.  But the only values mentioned by the Charter’s preamble are recognition for the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and these continue to be controversial.

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 Canada’s abortion law, and Vriend v. Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court found the province’s exclusion of homosexuals from protection against discrimination violated section 15. In the homosexuality case, the Court then read the protection into the law.

Homosexual and pro-abortion rights (gay rights and women’s rights) have long been systematically favored by biased judges, special interest groups and manipulating politicians. For example, a proposed Rights of the Unborn Amendment in 1986–1987, which would have enshrined fetal rights, failed in the federal Parliament. It failed, for one of Canada’s National Values is clearly the right to murder unborn children when personally desired.

We have seen many brands of Penis and Vaginal Sucking Queers invading the Canadian political arena since MP Svend Robinson first exposed himself in public in 1988. He is noted as the first Member of Parliament in Canadian history to come out as gay while in office. And by 2004 it was clearly evidenced that this critter was a mentally ill, bi-polar, sexual deviant thief at odds with anything that could be considered Godly. Intent on destroying any true moral basis of Canadian values the Psycho-Svend tried to remove the mention of God in the preamble in 1999 through proposing an amendment because “he felt it did not reflect Canada’s diversity”. Well, God is still around but the abomination called Svend now has to push his illness through other less direct avenues than the Canadian Parliament.

The same year that saw the public exposure of theft by Svend saw the “March of Hearts” rally for same-sex marriage equality under the Charter in 2004. Same-sex marriage in Canada was progressively introduced in several provinces by court decisions beginning in 2003 before being legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on 20 July 2005. The introduction of a federal gender-neutral marriage definition made Canada the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legally recognize same-sex marriage throughout its borders.

Somewhat sane and supposedly morally responsible Christians stood by and permitted the special interest groups to bring this about. Thus, we now live under the legalized stigma that Canada’s National Values Number Two is promotion and acceptance of sexual perversion in every form.

But, the perverts’ claim that same-sex marriage is an equality-human rights issue is nothing more than satanically induced nonsense. Continue to affront God through embracing such foolish ideas and you spiritually are nothing more than an impacted stool, the carnal thought results of a homosexual bareback ride celebrating a Satanic wedding night. Homosexuality of any strain is not a human right; it simply is an abomination in the eyes of God. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” (Leviticus 18:22-23)

And, to parallel abominations with God you need look no further than the practice of any strain of Islam. The practice of Islam in Canada is not a human right in any manner, and in fact to promote the same truly qualifies you to be charged under hate/bias crime laws in existence.

Trudeau has planted many sad individuals burdened bysocial worker mentalities’ within Ministries that require genuine financial capabilities by its participants. Why would the Canada Revenue Agency need a social worker moron in any helm capacity?

This is but part of his Rabid Islamic style tactics to advance sharia. Certainly appears he wants to ensure that Blood Shall Flow In Canada as posted on February 11, 2018   How much violence shall be necessary before the Canadian public rids the nation of the Top Parasite and his Blood Sucking Crew?

 It is a righteous action with God that this take place.


Galatians 4:16    Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.