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 are 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 discuss the effects and disadvantages of what the appontiment of the supreme court judges.
The supreme court of Canada is the highest court in Canada. The role of the supreme 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.