Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation | Canadian Pacific Railway | Royal Canadian Navy | Royal Canadian Air Force | Canadian Football League | Canadian Forces | Canadian National Railway | Royal Canadian Mounted Police | Canadian dollar | European Court of Human Rights | Canadian federal election, 2004 | Human Rights Watch | Canadian Army | Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission | Canadian federal election, 2006 | Canadian federal election, 1993 | Canadian federal election, 1988 | charter | European Convention on Human Rights | Canadian federal election, 1984 | Canadian football | United Nations Charter | French Canadian | Canadian federal election, 2000 | Canadian Alliance | Equal Rights Amendment | Digital rights management | Center for Constitutional Rights | Canadian federal election, 2008 | Canadian Expeditionary Force |
Because Section 11 of the Charter is among the sections that can be overridden under Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause), Parliament could in theory enact ex post facto laws by invoking Section 33.
NAHO defined "Aboriginal Peoples" using the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35, to consist of three groups – Indian (First Nations), Inuit, and Métis.
Specifically, section 28 addresses concerns of sexual equality, and is analogous to (and was modelled after) the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the United States.
•
As the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women noted, many of the feminists who pushed for having section 28 in the Charter hoped that it would not just be read literally but would also "provide a social and historical context in which women's claims can be better understood"; it existed to remind judges charged with enforcing the Charter that women had been "recognized as 'persons'" and had gained more equality in marriage.
They may also include those created by ordinary legislation, like the Indian Act, and constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has speculated that without this section, section 15 (the equality provision) would have possibly threatened these rights, since they are particular to a race.
The current Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin once referred to this as an early form of freedom of religion in Canada.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R. (1984) argued that section 27 should receive "significance" from the courts, and that the section could reinforce freedom of religion (section 2).