of Rights and Freedoms
Part of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
3, 4, 5
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Official Languages of Canada
16, 16.1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Minority Language Education Rights
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Application of Charter
Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides remedies that are available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights: Namely, Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.
2.1 Courts of competent jurisdiction
3 Exclusion of evidence
3.1 Past interpretations
5 External links
Under the heading “Enforcement,” the section states:
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Subsection 24(1) must be distinguished from subsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Whereas section 52 allows the courts to invalidate laws or parts of laws for breaches of the constitution (including the Charter), section 24 has broader capabilities (hindered only by the “appropriate and just” requirement) and can only be invoked when a claimant’s rights are violated. Among other things, section 24 seems to give judges the power to place positive obligations upon a government, as well as to enforce more imaginative remedies.
An example of an imaginative remedy can be found in the landmark case Doucet-Boudreau, (2003) 3 S.C.R. 3, as the claimants challenged t