Law Essays- Driedger's Case
Over 7 & half years of operating in the US, Australia, CAD, UK markets
A pool of over 400 writers & editors qualified in various disciplines such as Business, History, Finance, Engineering and many others
Over 12,000 satisfied & return clients
Personal support & approach to each customers requirements
Customers support 24/7 and direct contact with the writer
FREE cover page, FREE bibliography page for all orders applied!
0% plagiarism guarantee, don’t worry about turnitin scans we got you covered!
Delivered even before the specified time so that you have enough time to go through your essay
Our writers come from top universities in the world, Our market base is huge don't feel discriminated Order from the BEST!!
Sample Essay on Driedgers's Modern Approach
Driedger’s modern approach in Law essays
Driedger’s modern approach in Law essays is now critical to understanding the interpretation of ambiguous statutory language in Canadian courts. This statement is true based on all the cases in which judges has invoked Driedger’s approach over the years since its inception in 1984. Driedger’s approach states that the words of an act are to be read in their entire context grammatically and in the ordinary sense in harmony with the scheme of the act, the object of the act as well as the intention of parliament. Ambiguous statutory language has been a problem for many courts the world over due to their subjectivity to a myriad of interpretations. Ambiguous statutory language in the hands of an unscrupulous individual could be deadly. This is for the simple reason that the individual could twist the words to favor him or herself, whether they are right or wrong (Boyd 2011). This ambiguity in turn renders the act in its entirety as well as the law vulnerable to different interpretations. Such would result in a discriminatory law that would prove advantageous to those who know how to get around it. For the purposes of maintaining an unequivocal law that neither favors nor discriminates against, Driedger’s approach has proved extremely useful.
Rizzio Rizzo Research Paper
The first instance in which Driedger’s approach was seen to be extremely useful was in the case of Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Limited. Having declared bankruptcy, all the employees of Rizzo Shoes lost their jobs. In addition to this, all due wages, commissions and salaries were paid to the due date of the delivery order. After a careful audit of the firm by the Ministry of Labor to ascertain if any termination or severance pay was due to the employees, the Trustee delivered a proof of claim. This claim was later disallowed on the grounds that in the Employment Act, bankruptcy does not constitute dismissal from employment and therefore does not allow for entitlement to vacation, termination or severance pay. The Ministry appealed the decision and it was successful. This resulted in a counter appeal that was also allowed. After paying the creditors of Rizzo Shoes, very few funds remained that were to be paid as dividends. An appeal by the former employees was granted in which they added themselves as a party to the proceedings.
The subsequent appeal was allowed on the grounds that although the Employment Act does not provide for bankruptcy as a form of termination of employment, if the court were not to allow the ruling, then those employees who would have been dismissed just a day before Rizzo Shoes filed for bankruptcy would receive their severance and termination pay while those who lost their employment due to the bankruptcy would receive nothing. This would make no sense as the employees who would have been dismissed before Rizzo Shoes filed for bankruptcy would have probably been the most junior while those who lost employment and ‘sank with the ship’ were most probably the most senior. In this line of thought, the judge granted that all employees who lost their jobs after filing for bankruptcy also be compensated for the simple reason that the more senior an employee, the more valuable he is to the company in terms of work output and vice versa. Through applying Driedger’s approach, the judge looked at the act in its entirety to make a fair and just ruling o the case.
Austin and Lachapelle Approach Custom Essay
In the other cases of Austin and Lachapelle, it is also clear that Driedger’s approach proves not only useful but also vital in the interpretation of statutory language. The fat that in the Canadian courts today there are more cases being filed is a factor that shows just how much we need to keep at Driedger’s approach. The fact that the Canadian law, as any other law, is subject to numerous interpretations, it is only fair that we stick to the right interpretation. This is based on the context in which the law is applied and also basing on the three golden rules that were provided but Elmer Driedger. This approach is a vital too in fostering judicial and legislative dialogue since it promotes the formation of fair and just laws that are not prone to numerous interpretations.
Nonetheless, Driedger’s approach does have its own share of weaknesses. Over the years, Driedger’s approach has fallen prey to numerous misinterpretations. What this vital approach means to different judges is at times very different from what it meant to Driedger. Receiving different interpretations and thus fostering the making of different rulings, some justified and some not so justified, has resulted in the watering down of Driedger’s approach. This approach could very well be used by an unscrupulous judge to twist a ruling in favor of one party. This is especially where large amounts of money or great reputations are at stake. This could result in the discriminatory dispensation of justice.
Driedger’s approach if used inappropriately could also be the source of endless judicial dialogue that is of no clear benefit. This dialogues that exist between the legislature and the judicial system could easily resolve into a sort of power play between the legislature and the judicial system. This is because judges will be able to make numerous applications of a single law to suit different scenarios. This is at a loss to the public who prefer a law that fits all shapes and sizes. This approach also denies the legislature the opportunity to clearly formulate or correct existing laws to ensure that they are impartial, fair and just once they are dispensed.
Over the years, it has become rather evident that the present laws enshrined in the Canadian charter could prove a hindrance to the administration of justice. It is clear, as well, that the Charter has not ushered a completely new era in which civil rights and liberties are granted paramount respect. As shown in the two cases, Canada vs. Khadr and R. vs. McCrimmon, the flouting and somewhat disregard fro civil rights and liberties is still a problem in Canada. The fact that the accused in both cases were deprived of rights and liberties granted them by the Canadian Charter in s.7 and s.10 (b) respectively cannot be ignored. Both cases present flaws in the dispensation of the constitution and observation of civil rights and liberties to Canadian citizens living both within and outside the country.
In the first case of Canada vs. Khadr, a young Khadr is arrested on war crimes charges and subsequently detained in Guantanamo Bay by US authorities over the same charges. Having been a Canadian citizen at his time of arrest and a minor at that, it would only be rational that Mr. Khadr has been subjected to a gross violation of his civil rights and liberties as outlined in the Canadian Charter. Mr.Khadr was 16 years old at the time of his arrest and detention and the fact that he was placed in an adult detention center is a gross violation of the protection that he receives from the Canadian Charter by virtue of being a Canadian citizen. By constantly laying claim to his repatriation, Mr. Khadr calls on the Canadian government to grant him protection as a Canadian citizen. In spite of this, his request for repatriation is ignored and he is forced to continue enduring violations on his rights and liberties such as the subjection to a sleep deprivation technique known as the “frequent flyer program”. This program is designed to reduce his resistance to interrogation.
The Canadian Charter exhibits the fact that Canada has not yet welcomed a new era in which civil rights and liberties are respected. In their ruling, the appellate judges in favor of the ruling argue that there is indeed an infringement on Mr. Khadr’s rights and liberties but that the US is the primary perpetrator of the injustice. In addition to this, the court claims that Mr. Khadr has failed to prove that his detention in Guantanamo Bay is indeed a Charter violation. They admit that there is a causal relationship between his deprivation of rights and the Canadian government but that it is no guarantee. It argues also that since the Canadian Charter demands that all Canadian citizens be subject to the rule of law of the foreign country in which they find themselves, so Khadr is subject to the rule of law in the US.
Another case that clearly depicts the premature birth of civil rights and liberties in Canada is that of R, vs. McCrimmon. In this case, McCrimmon is repeatedly denied access to counsel by the police. Having been arrested on assault charges on five different women over the past few months, McCrimmon once in police custody was denied access to counsel in spite of his repeated demands to have his lawyer present. McCrimmon was only given one chance to contact his preferred counsel. When he could not reach him, no further attempt to reach his counsel was made by the police and McCrimmon was then offered state counsel whom he consulted very briefly. In the course of a long monologue of an interview, Sgt. Allan Proulx repeatedly ignored McCrimmon’s demand to have his counsel present. Sgt. Proulx persisted in with the interview that resulted in McCrimmon making incriminating statements that were later used against him in court. His appeal to have the statements he made in the course of the lengthy interrogation excluded from the evidence against him in court id not stand. Sgt. Proulx is also seen as having made numerous rebuffed remarks about taking McCrimmon back to his cell whenever he decided not to talk. This was leveraged to ensure that McCrimmon continued talking, a matter that eventually le him into making incriminating statements. The judges that heard McCrimmon’s appeal differed in their opinions but eventually McCrimmon’s appeal was dropped on grounds that the police did not infringe on McCrimmon’s right to counsel.
Both cases serve as clear pointers that the Charter is still in its teething stage insofar as the respect of civil rights and liberties is concerned.