Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I

Part
I	Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
	Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Fundamental Freedoms Democratic Rights Mobility Rights Legal Rights Equality Rights Official Languages of Canada Minority Language Educational Rights Enforcement General Application of Charter Citation
II	Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada
III	Equalization and Regional Disparities
IV	Constitutional Conference
IV.I	Constitutional Conferences
V	Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada
VI	Amendment to the Constitution Act , 1867
VII	General

SCHEDULE B

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982⁽⁷⁹⁾

		PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
		Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada	1.	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Fundamental Freedoms
Fundamental freedoms	2.	Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Democratic Rights
Democratic rights of citizens	3.	Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Maximum duration of legislative bodies	4.	(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members. (80)
Continuation in special circumstances		(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (81)
Annual sitting of legislative bodies	5.	There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (82) Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens	6.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood		(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation		(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
Affirmative action programs		(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada. Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person	7.	Everyone has 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.
Search or seizure	8.	Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or imprisonment	9.	Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention	10.	Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters	11.	Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
Treatment or punishment	12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Self-crimination	13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Interpreter	14.	A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter. Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law	15.	(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs		(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (83) Official Languages of Canada
Official languages of Canada	16.	(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.
Official languages of New Brunswick		(2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.
Advancement of status and use		(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick	16.1.	(1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.
Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick		(2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed. (83.1)
Proceedings of Parliament	17.	(1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. (84)
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature		(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick. (85)
Parliamentary statutes and records	18.	(1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (86)
New Brunswick statutes and records		(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (87)
Proceedings in courts established by Parliament	19.	(1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. (88)
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts		(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick. (89)
Communications by public with federal institutions	20.	(1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where (a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or (b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions		(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions	21.	Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada. (90)
Rights and privileges preserved	22.	Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French. Minority Language Educational Rights
Language of instruction	23.	(1) Citizens of Canada (a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or (b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (91)
Continuity of language instruction		(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
Application where numbers warrant		(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province (a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and (b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds. Enforcement
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms	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.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute		(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. General
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter	25.	The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (92)
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter	26.	The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
Multicultural heritage	27.	This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes	28.	Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Rights respecting certain schools preserved	29.	Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools. (93)
Application to territories and territorial authorities	30.	A reference in this Charter to a Province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be.
Legislative powers not extended	31.	Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. Application of Charter
Application of Charter	32.	(1)This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Exception		(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Exception where express declaration	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.
Operation of exception		(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
Five year limitation		(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
Re-enactment		(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
Five year limitation		(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4). Citation
Citation	34.	This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
		PART II RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights	35.	(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"		(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
Land claims agreements		(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes		(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. (94)
Commitment to participation in constitutional conference	35.1	The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part, (a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and (b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item. (95)
		PART III EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES
Commitment to promote equal opportunities	36.	(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
Commitment respecting public services		(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. (96)
		PART IV CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
	37.	(97)
		PART IV.I CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES
	37.1	(98)
		PART V PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA(99)
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada	38.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
Majority of members		(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
Expression of dissent		(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
Revocation of dissent		(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
Restriction on proclamation	39.	(1) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) before the expiration of one year from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of each province has previously adopted a resolution of assent or dissent.
Idem		(2) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) after the expiration of three years from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder.
Compensation	40.	Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
Amendment by unanimous consent	41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province: (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force; (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language; (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) an amendment to this Part.
Amendment by general procedure	42.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1): (a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; (c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators; (d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada; (e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and (f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.
Exception		(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces	43.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including (a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and (b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
Amendments by Parliament	44.	Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
Amendments by provincial legislatures	45.	Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.
Initiation of amendment procedures	46.	(1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.
Revocation of authorization		(2) A resolution of assent made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
Amendments without Senate resolution	47.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.
Computation of period		(2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in subsection (1).
Advice to issue proclamation	48.	The Queen's Privy Council for Canada shall advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part forthwith on the adoption of the resolutions required for an amendment made by proclamation under this Part.
Constitutional conference	49.	A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.
		PART VI AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867
	50.	(100)
	51.	(101)
		PART VII GENERAL
Primacy of Constitution of Canada	52.	(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Constitution of Canada		(2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Amendments to Constitution of Canada		(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
Repeals and new names	53.	(1) The enactments referred to in Column I of the schedule are hereby repealed or amended to the extent indicated in Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall continue as law in Canada under the names set out in Column III thereof.
Consequential amendments		(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act 1982, that refers to an enactment referred to in the schedule by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in the schedule may be cited as the Constitution Actfollowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
Repeal and consequential amendments	54.	Part IV is repealed on the day that is one year after this Part comes into force and this section may be repealed and this Act renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of Part IV and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. (102)
[Repealed]	54.1	(103)
French version of Constitution of Canada	55.	A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts	56.	Where any portion of the Constitution of Canada has been or is enacted in English and French or where a French version of any portion of the Constitution is enacted pursuant to section 55, the English and French versions of that portion of the Constitution are equally authoritative.
English and French versions of this Act	57.	The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.
Commencement	58.	Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. (104)
Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec	59.	(1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
Authorization of Quebec		(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec. (105)
Repeal of this section		(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
Short title and citations	60.	This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.
References	61.	A reference to the "Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982" shall be deemed to include a reference to the "Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983". (106)
Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 Modernization of the Constitution

Judges taken out of lawsuits!

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 Back The Halifax Herald Limited Judges taken out of lawsuits Two Ontario justices ruled immune from suits filed by VandenElsen,Finck By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter The long list of people Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen are suing got a little shorter Tuesday. Justice Arthur Pickup granted an application to strike the names of two Ontario judges from a lawsuit the couple filed. "I am satisfied that these justices are immune from civil pursuit," Justice Pickup said in Nova Scotia Supreme Court. He also ruled that there was "nothing before me to suggest they acted outside their duty." In a lawsuit filed Jan. 10 against 18 people and organizations, Mr. Finck and Ms. Van- denElsen allege that Justices David Aston and Grant Campbell of Ontario Superior Court acted with "malicious intent" against them in court matters. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that Justice Aston sabotaged sales of Ms. Van-denElsen's book, which detailed her flight to Mexico in 2000 with her seven-year-old triplets when her ex-husband, Craig Merkley, had custody of them. They also allege that Justice Campbell damaged Ms. Van-denElsen's reputation through comments he made in his decision to terminate her access to her triplets. Scott Norton, lawyer for the two Ontario judges, told the Nova Scotia court Tuesday that his clients denied each of the allegations. He argued that allowing the claims against his clients to continue would "compromise judicial independence" and he asked Justice Pickup to strike all references to his clients from the action. Mr. Finck didn't argue against Mr. Norton's submission but asked Justice Pickup to rule so he could appeal his decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The judge ruled in favour of the application, removing the Ontario judges as defendants and all references to them in the lawsuit. They did not ask the court for costs and Justice Pickup didn't award any. Since the case was launched, the courts have dismissed claims against two other judges - Justice Robert Wright of Nova Scotia Supreme Court and Justice Deborah Smith of the Supreme Court family division - after ruling that they are also protected by judicial immunity. The remaining defendants include the Children's Aid Society of Stratford, Ont., and two of its workers, the Children's Aid Society of Halifax and two of its workers, Halifax Regional Police, the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, a Halifax doctor and Mr. Merkley and his wife, Janis Searle, both of Stratford. Ms. VandenElsen was brought to the court building Tuesday from the Nova Institution in Truro, where she is serving 3½ years for her role in a lengthy armed standoff in May 2004 over a court order to seize the infant daughter she had with Mr. Finck. The standoff ended after nearly three days when Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck came out of his mother Mona's Shirley Street home with the baby and carrying a dead Mona Finck on a makeshift stretcher. Mr. Finck's elderly mother had died of natural causes during the standoff. Ms. VandenElsen refused to enter the courtroom for Tuesday's hearing and stayed in the cells while Mr. Finck, who is serving 4½ years at the Springhill Institution, argued their case. The couple was allowed to confer for an hour during an adjournment to review a lengthy submission from Mr. Norton. The couple will be back in Halifax on Oct. 14 for a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal hearing on the June 22 family court order that placed their daughter in the permanent custody of the Children's Aid Society of Halifax. pbrooks Back Copyright © 2005 The Halifax Herald Limited

Media Release: ARE YOU A VICTIM OF JUDICIAL/POLITICAL ABUSE BY THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY? WE NEED YOUR INPUT!

For immediate Release

Canadian Civil Rights Association

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

1061 Mines Rd.

Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0

Canada

902.798.5267

cbrauer@lincsat.com

http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=115199

ARE YOU A VICTIM OF JUDICIAL/POLITICAL ABUSE BY THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY?

Then, you need you to take a few moments to fill out our survey.

We are gathering statistics to use in a court of law.
Since Canada has made a career of denying citizens their Canadian Charter of Rights, we

are working very hard to file a class action lawsuit.
It is very difficult because there are no lawyers or resources in all of Canada that protect the

Canadian Charter of Rights.
Anyone who agrees to submit their name will be benefit from any results when we file the lawsuit.

Our mission is to restore equal rights, equal shared parenting and justice for all Canadian families.

http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=115199

PASS IT AROUND!

Live Free!

Connie Brauer
Liberty Profits
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth,NS, Canada
B0P 1L0
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com
=========================================
Our websites:
http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=115199

Canadian Civil Rights Association
http://www.stopthetorture.info

Donations and New Members Here!

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Fighting for Everyone's Freedom!








Donations can be made to

BRAUER AND HARRIS
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone 902.798.5267
Cell : 902.791.0958

or

Paypal, cbrauer@lincsat.com

New members $25.
Send email to cbrauer@lincsat.com with
Canadian Civil Rights Association Membership
in subject.

All donations and memberships will be used exclusively for the cause.
Civil Rights for Parents and Children, Victims of Political/Judicial Abuse.
At this time donations are not eligible for a tax receipt.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? CANADA'S BIG FAT LIE!

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Media Release, For Immediate Release


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
CANADA’S Big Fat Lie!


Falmouth, NS couple, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris are
demanding legal and financial resources from the Canadian
government to uphold parents’ Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. We visited our Federal MP, Scott Brison, last
week and requested Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
funding and legal counsel. At the meeting, we mentioned
there are no resources available to victims of Charter
violations. This makes the Charter inaccessible and
therefore non existent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is only viable
if all Canadians have quick access to it and the country
will uphold it. Canada does not! There are no consequences
to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations.

We do not have an 800 number, there are no politicians who
can provide access, there are no lawyers in Canada willing
to prosecute Charter motions for individuals and there is
absolutely no financing for legal fees. Litigation is
further complicated because the Provincial and Federal
Governments are both guilty of Charter violations, in the
same matter. They don't even teach Charter Rights in most
law schools. If they do, they do not teach the reality of
inaccessibility. We do not have access to class actions in
NS and some other provinces, and it would be impossible to
hire a law firm anyway as they don't exist for this purpose.
They only exist for corporations. There is no mandatory, pro
bono, in Canada, either. Legal Aid is inaccessible and
inadequate. They do not do litigation.

On the other hand, Canada spends an inordinate amount of
taxpayers’ money, quashing any and all Charter motions
which individuals manage to file. Victims are expected to
hire a lawyer (impossible), pay for it (impossible) or
muddle through litigation on their own. (impossible). Then
there is always the threat of costs, awarded by the judge.

This is totally unacceptable and makes any viability of a
Charter, moot. Canada pays lip service to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms but there is no oomph! No
money, no legal counsel and no punishments for violations.
Canada is getting off Scott Free!

The Canadian governments’ have been violating parents’ and
childrens’ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for over
30 years now and there is no end in sight.

We requested an immediate short term solution. We need
immediate, financing for a class action lawsuit to uphold
our Charter rights and we need the best law firm in the
country to represent us in an unbiased manner. This is also
impossible because most law firms have a conflict of
interest, as they have government contracts. Nevertheless,
we want access to uphold our rights for all Canadians.

Mr. Brison knows, we have been working on this matter, 24/7
for the last 10 years as have millions of other Canadian
parents. Every single family is at risk of losing their
family and their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian government, systematically ignores families’
complaints.
When is government going to listen?

Our long term solution request is for a national resource
centre, exclusively maintained for the purpose of enabling
victims, all victims, not gender biased or restricted in
any way, to seek immediate redress from Charter violations.


Resources to include mediation with top government
officials, extremely competent legal counsel, (not Legal
Aid), financing for lawsuits, travel and accommodation to
the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, prompt, access to
the courts, education program in government on how to advise
victims properly, more training in Law Schools and a more
willing attitude of government to uphold the Charter.

The Charter belongs to Canadians, it is the ultimate law of
the land ( Constitution Act, 1982 & Sect. 52 of Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) and must be upheld! That's
Canada's job!

After our meeting with Mr. Brison, we really didn't get a
commitment to actively and aggressively work towards this
goal. We requested a reply with an outline of a short term
and long term agenda to get our needs met? We want to hear
from other parents who are victims of Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms violations. Call 902.798.5267 or email
us at, cbrauer@lincsat.com. Subject: Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

Sincerely,
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Canadian Civil Rights Association

Request for Immediate Resources to Uphold the Charter

Canadian Civil Rights Association
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone 902.798.5267
cbrauer@lincsat.com



Hon. Scott Brison
Liberal Caucus
Wolfville, NS
B0N 1X0


11:40 AM 8/10/2005

Request for Immediate Resources to Uphold the Charter


Dear Mr. Brison,

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday to discuss our concerns about the lack of resources and therefore the inaccessibility of the Charter of Rights to Canadians. As we mentioned there are no resources available to victims of Charter violations. This makes the Charter inaccessible and therefore non existent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is only viable if all Canadians have quick access to it and the country will uphold it. Canada does not.

We do not have an 800 number, there are no politicians who can provide access, there are no lawyers in Canada willing to prosecute Charter motions for individuals and there is absolutely no financing for legal fees. Litigation is further complicated because the Provincial and Federal Governments are both guilty of Charter violations, in the same matter. They don't even teach Charter Rights in most law schools. If they do, they do not teach the reality of inaccessibility. We do not have access to class actions in NS and some other provinces, and it would be impossible to hire a law firm anyway as they don't exist for this purpose. They only exist for corporations. There is no mandatory, pro bono, in Canada, either. Legal Aid is inaccessible and inadequate. They do not do litigation.

On the other hand, Canada spends an inordinate amount of taxpayers’ money, quashing any and all Charter motions which individuals manage to file. Victims are expected to hire a lawyer (impossible), pay for it (impossible) or muddle through litigation on their own. (impossible) This is totally unacceptable and makes any viability of a Charter, moot.

We requested an immediate short term solution. We need immediate, financing for a lawsuit to uphold our Charter rights and we need the best law firm in the country to represent us in an unbiased manner. This is also impossible because most law firms have a conflict of interest, as they do government work.
Nevertheless, we want access to uphold our rights.

As you know, we have been working on this matter, 24/7 for the last 10 years as have millions of other Canadians.
When is government going to listen?

Our long term solution request is for a national resource centre, exclusively maintained for the purpose of enabling victims, all victims, not gender biased or restricted in any way, to seek redress from Charter violations.

Resources to include mediation, extremely competent legal counsel, (not Legal Aid), financing for lawsuits, travel and accommodation to the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa,
prompt, access to the courts, education program in government on how to advise victims properly, more training in Law Schools and a more willing attitude of government to uphold the Charter.

The Charter belongs to Canadians, it is the ultimate law of the land (Sect. 52) and must be upheld! That's Canada's job.

After our meeting with you, we really didn't get your commitment to actively and aggressively work towards this goal. You mentioned a letter to Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler. I can already tell you what his reply will be.

Could you kindly, reply with your short term and long term agenda to get our needs met?

Sincerely,
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

Who's Child Is It Anyway?

Hi all,

I have finally gotten a copy of that article published on August 2nd.

Didn't hear from the Beacon Herald yet about my letter to the editor...

Blessings,

Andre

Whose child is it anyway?

The case of a Halifax couple who have been ordered to never see their young daughter again has raised troubling questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare system.

National Post Tuesday, August 2, 2005 Page: A7 Section: Canada Byline: Scott Stinson Source: National Post

In the early hours of May 19, 2004, heavily armed officers of the RCMP Emergency Response Team descended on a home on a quiet Halifax street. Four people were inside, and none of them planned to come out. Sixty-seven hours later, two of the home's occupants were under arrest, one was dead of an apparent heart attack, and the fourth resident – a five-month-old girl -- was in the care of the local Children's Aid Society.

The standoff was only the beginning of the problems for the husband and wife taken away in handcuffs on that night 14 months ago. They were sentenced last month to lengthy prison terms for their roles in the confrontation with police -- in which a blast from a shotgun sent pellets over the heads of the RCMP officers -- and their daughter has since been placed in the permanent care of the Halifax CAS. Child apprehensions in this country are nothing new, but some Haligonians -- including university professors, lawyers, and the local Elizabeth Fry Society -- say the case raises troubling questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare system. They want a public inquiry to explain what compelled the CAS to seize a child from the care of its own parents and why the police arrived bearing semi-automatic weapons and a battering ram to do so.

The province, critics say, took the baby girl from her parents not because of what they did but because of who they are. The 43-year-old mother and 51-year-old father -- who may not be named in order to protect the child's identity -- share an unusual bond beyond their marriage. Both have lost acrimonious custody disputes from previous marriages and both were charged with abducting those children from their legal guardians.

The mother was briefly an international fugitive in October, 2000, when she packed her seven-year-old triplets in the trunk of her car and drove them across the Ontario border into the United States and eventually to Acapulco, Mexico. Their history with the child welfare system has caused the couple to distrust authorities with an intensity that borders on the pathological, as even some of their supporters acknowledge. During criminal trials that ended in May, the couple insisted they were victims of a vast government conspiracy to remove children from low-income families and place them with
wealthy benefactors. They fired their lawyers and represented themselves in court, which local reports said led to frequent outbursts from the defendants, who levied wild accusations at witnesses, lawyers and judges.

Ray Kuszelewski knows first-hand the difficulties of dealing with the father. He represented the man in the early stages of the criminal proceedings, before being fired when he refused to use his client's defence to promote the conspiracy theory. Mr. Kuszelewski says that despite his former client's abrasive, combative nature, the man has a point. ''Regardless of [the father and mother] and their statements and their beliefs ... there are still issues that need to be addressed," he says. Mr. Kuszelewski, one of eight Haligonians on a committee that is pushing for a public inquiry into the Halifax CAS, says there has never been a proper explanation for why Children's Aid had an order to put the couple's child under supervisory care before she had even been born. (The mother fled Halifax with the newborn in January, 2004, when she learned of the custody order and returned a month later under a Canada-wide warrant for her arrest.)

The lawyer notes that the father lost a fight to raise his other daughter, now an adolescent, whom he wanted to remove from an Ontario native reserve after her mother died, while the mother lost her children in a dispute with her former husband. ''But this is a child of that couple, of two people who had problems individually of a different sort,'' Mr. Kuszelewski says. ''Any rational person would say these things are not the same [as their problems in the past]. ''How is it that some Ontario issue in the past is enough to trigger a call for an unborn child, which trumps all the other cases in Halifax to the point where the child is 20 days old and is already before the court?''

Stephen Kimber, a journalism professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax and another member of the newly formed committee, says he sees this case as a simple issue: ''What was the reason for taking this kid? Unless they can come up with a better reason than '[the couple] were involved in a custody battle and they challenged authority,' then I don't think they have much of a case.'' Mr. Kimber says if the Halifax CAS, which declined a request for comment on the case and the calls for a public inquiry, could show that the man and woman ''were a danger to their child, then that's a different thing, but
they haven't shown that.'' The Nova Scotia Supreme Court saw things differently, ruling late last month that the two were ''consumed with their perception of a corrupt family
justice system,'' that they were unable to act in the best interests of their child and that she ''would be at substantial risk of physical and emotional harm if returned to her parents' care.''

Mr. Kuszelewski says there is no doubt the couple were confrontational and difficult from the moment they learned the CAS wanted a role in the care of their child, which as he says was the point ''when the whole thing went off the rails.'' ''What happened in the standoff, and the shooting of the gun and all that stuff is terrible and there is legitimate reason why you can't let that go,'' Mr. Kimber says, ''but if it all keeps coming back to the question of why did [CAS] do this in the first place, if they can't justify that, then
it seems to me you have a problem.'' Michael Baker, the Conservative Justice Minister, has said he will not hold an inquiry into the case or the CAS, which says it will not discuss its reasons for action due to privacy laws.

Mr. Kimber suggests that many people in Nova Scotia are ''appalled'' by the series of events that began with the Halifax standoff, but he thinks it will take pressure from opposition politicians to convince the Tories to hold an inquiry. ''Because of what happened in the standoff, and the gun being fired, and because of [the couple's] personalities, there seems to be a lack of desire to get deeply into this by the NDP or Liberals,'' he says. ''I think they'd just prefer it goes away.'' There are hints, however, that the government will feel some pressure to provide answers to the questions Mr. Kimber and his associates are asking.

Graham Steele, an NDP member of the provincial legislature, has gone to court to force the government to appoint an advisory committee to review legislation governing the child welfare system. Mr. Steele says the Child and Family Services Act requires the review be carried out annually, but it hasn't been conducted since 1999. He says his court action is not directly related to this case, but that the furor it created ''threw a spotlight'' on the lack of oversight in the child welfare system.

The Halifax chapter of the Elizabeth Fry Society, while also choosing not to directly address the complaints raised by the mother, said recently it supports a CAS inquiry to explain what it sees as a sharp jump in the number of children taken into state care in the past couple of years. Donna Phillips, executive director of the non-profit organization that supports women in conflict with the law, said her staff has seen ''a huge increase in the number of women who are losing their children, particularly involving women with mental illness.''

Ms. Phillips said the society's outreach co-ordinator estimates 35% of her clients ''are involved with CAS trying to get their children back,'' up from only 5% two years ago. Mr. Steele says the statements from Elizabeth Fry will add to pressure on the government to give some of the questions surrounding Children's Aid a full public airing. ''The fact that a very well-regarded and serious organization is calling for the same thing makes it that much harder for the department to dismiss it as a few paranoid crackpots.'' The mother and father vow to continue their fight. She claims to be on a hunger strike while in prison, where she is serving a 3 1/2-year sentence. Her husband was sentenced to 4 1/2 years, but both have appealed their convictions. They are also appealing the court order that said they would never see their daughter again. They continue to represent themselves in court.