The issue addressed in this paper is whether we have effective remedies for breach of Charter protected rights and freedoms, as well as clear jurisdictional guidelines for granting such remedies. The relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government provides the context for exploring the jurisprudence on remedies and jurisdiction. The cases that establish the foundational principles regarding the interpretation of section 24(1) and section 52(1), and the relationship between these provisions, are examined. The guidelines for granting section 52(1) remedies and for identifying the decision makers that have jurisdiction to do so are explored, as are the guidelines and jurisdiction for granting remedies under section 24(1). The the sis of this paper is that while there have been substantial developments in this area, we do not yet have a cohesive set of principles that will ensure that a person whose Charter rights have been infringed will be granted a just and appropriate remedy in an expeditious manner. There are gaps in the law, particularly for statutory courts and administrative tribunals that have the duty to abide by and apply the Constitution, but not the authority to grant a remedy that will do justice to a claimant. The courts cannot provide a complete solution since the legislatures have exclusive authority to assign the jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals. However, the courts can point out the problem and urge the legislatures to take up the issue in a manner that respects the division of powers among the branches of government.
McAllister, Debra M..
"Charter Remedies and Jurisdiction to Grant Them: The Evolution of Section 24(1) and Section 52(1)."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.