Canada Essay, Research Paper

This ISP is is about my views on the Canadian Constitution and

what I think needs to be changed in it. Some topics I have chose to discus,

which I think need to be changed ar ones such as the notwithstanding

claws and it’s disadvantages, as well as the discanct society claws and it’s

disadvantages as well as what effects it has on the Canadian socity. I will

also discuis the effects and disadvantages of what the appontiment of the

suprem court judges.

The supreme court of Canada is yhe higest court in Canada. The

role of the suprem court is to hear cases which have been heard in

provincal court and have been appeled to the supreme court for futher

ruling. The court also hears cases which deal with constutitionl law and

cases that deal with criminal and civil cases. In appointing judges for the

supreme court a process of elimination is used by going through all of the

provincal lawers untill one is found who is thought to be fit for the

possition. Judges manitain officewith good behavoruntill age 75 and can

only be removed by the Governal general of Canada with addvess from the

senate and house of commons.

The Supreme Court is also a general court of appeal for criminal

cases. In theory any citizen may come before the Supreme Court to plead

his own case, but such instances are rare. In criminal cases the court will

hear appeals if an acquittal has been set aside or if there has been a

dissenting judgement in a provincial Court of Appeal on a question of law.

A guilty verdict in a case of first-degree murder may automatically be

appealed to the Supreme Court. If it first grants leave to appeal, the court

may also hear appeals on questions of law arising from summary

convictions or indictable offences. In civil cases appeals may only be

presented with the prior permission of the court; such permission is

granted when the court believes that the case raises a question of public

importance or an important issue of law or of mixed law and fact that

ought to be decided by the court in the national interest.

In about 75% of its cases, the court explains its reasoning along

with its decision. In about 56% of these cases, it has upheld the decision of

the lower court. Normally the justices go into conference immediately after

the argument of a case, review its elements and compare their opinions.

One of the justices drafts the court’s judgement. If, after receiving and

reading this judgement, his colleagues disagree with it, there may be

further work sessions. In principle, the court tries to hand down unanimous

verdicts, but frequently this cannot be done, and the justices who disagree

with the majority opinion write a dissenting judgement which is published

along with the other. These dissensions are very important because they

permit jurists to see the tendencies at work within the court. The rules of

procedure ensure that the parties provide the court with a dossier of

everything that happened in the court of first instance and in appeal,

including all transcripts and main procedural documents. As well, parties

must present a factum containing a summary of the case facts, the points in

dispute, the reasons the case is being pursued and their conclusions.

Some disadvantages to apponting Judges over electing them for the

supreme court is that lawers who work hard to try and seek justice may

not get a fair chance to be a supreme court judge, but ones who put on a

pretty may. It is also a disagvantage to Canadian citicans because no one

in our country becides a person who is appointed has a say in who is going

to decide the way our socitey is run and maintained. It is also a

disadvantage because it is not a varry democratic way of running a country

and gives the people really no say in what precedents they want set in our

law for the way the country is run.