Constitutional Rights

Constitutional rights are the most highly guaranteed freedoms within a legal system. In Canada, constitutional rights can be exercised by individuals or groups against the government, or by one level of government against another; either way, constitutional rights are always held against the government. If a claimant successfully argues in court that their constitutional rights have been violated, the court may decide to fix the rights violation by issuing a remedy.

The Canadian legal system sets out individuals' constitutional rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;[1] these are often called Charter rights, which are held by individuals against the Federal and provincial governments. When an individual successfully proves in court that the government has violated their Charter rights, the government must then prove that the violation is justified in a free and democratic society.[2] If the government is unsuccessful in justifying the violation of rights, then a court remedy will be issued.[3] Sometimes, the government can then choose to use the “notwithstanding clause” outlined in section 33 in order to avoid the court remedy.[4]

Some constitutional rights are held against the government by groups rather than individuals. Aboriginal rights, for example, are recognised and affirmed in section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.[5] These include a variety of rights which can be claimed by an Aboriginal person on behalf of the recognised Aboriginal group to which he or she belongs.[6]

The Constitution Act, 1867[7] creates constitutional rights of a different type: in sections 91 and 92, it distributes particular powers to each level of government under our federal structure (the division of powers). Many early constitutional cases in Canada centred around the respective rights of each level of government to legislate over particular areas or subject matters.[8] Courts have developed various interpretive tools in order to analyse whether a level of government is legislating within its constitutional powers, or whether it is infringing on the powers of the other level of government.

In Canada, constitutional rights are held against the government, and these rights are entrenched in the Constitution. This means that the Constitution would need to be amended through a complex procedure in order for rights to be modified, created, or repealed. But there are also non-constitutional rights that encompass a broader range of entitlements and freedoms enjoyed at law. These are found at common law and in statutes. For example, an individual has the common law right to use and enjoy her property without interference from her neighbours, and a non-citizen has the statutory right to apply for citizenship when he meets the criteria set out by the Citizenship Act.[9] However, because these rights are not constitutional, they can be changed by government legislation.


[3] See Schachter v Canada, [1992] 2 SCR 679, for example, where the remedies of striking down, suspended declarations of invalidity, “reading down” and “reading in” are discussed.

[4] See Charter, supra note 1, s 33(1): “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”

[6] An Aboriginal right is only made out if the activity claimed to be at the core of the right is “integral to a distinctive culture,” which requires a connection to be made between a right and a group; see R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507 at para 47.

[8] For example, the Federal Government has power over criminal law and banking, which might sometimes conflict with provincial powers over “property and civil rights” or “Matters of a merely local or private Nature”.




The "Khadr Resolution" & the Conservative Party convention, 2011

During the lead-up to the 2011 Conservative Party convention in Ottawa, media attention turned to a proposal termed by some as the “Khadr Resolution”.[1] The resolution was inspired by the case of Omar Khadr, a young Canadian citizen who fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002, while Canada was engaged in combat against the Taliban.[2] The case was controversial because it pitted the Canadian government's duty to protect citizens' Charter rights against its interest in punishing what might amount to treason.[3]

If the Khadr Resolution had been successful, the Conservative Party would have sought to allow the revocation of Canadian citizenship as punishment for those convicted of treason. This would have required an amendment to the Criminal Code.[4] Members voted to defeat the resolution. This proposal raises questions regarding the appropriate limits for government action in redefining citizenship. Does the government violate a constitutional right when it arbitrarily changes the rules of citizenship acquisition or revocation?   The answer to this question is unclear, since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not contain an explicit right to citizenship. Some might fear that the government will be allowed to sidestep its duty to protect citizens' Charter rights under sections 3, 6, & 23 simply taking a person's citizenship away through the enactment of legislation. In other words, when the government simply enacts legislation that revokes people’s citizenship, people will automatically lose the Charter rights that specifically protect them as citizens. If the Khadr Resolution had been agreed to, there are many ways in which it would likely have been challenged: i)        based on the argument that the Charter contains a right to citizenship; or, ii) based on the argument that the arbitrary removal of an individual's Canadian citizenship to constitute a violation of that individual's “security of the person”.[5]


[1]    See Steven Chase, “Conservatives reject proposal to strip citizenship of anyone fighting against Canada”, Globe and Mail (11 June 2011). [2]    “Indepth: Khadr”, CBC News Online (30 October, 2006). [3]  See Canada (Prime Minister) v Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 SCR 44. [4]    Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 46. [5]    This would be based on the idea that the proposed amendment might have violated section 7 of the Charter; that is, “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.