Talk:Fundamental justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
At first glance, it looked like it could be merged with Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but on second thought, it's a concept that exists outside section 7, namely in the Bill of Rights and perhaps section 24. On that grounds, although principles of fundamental justice redirects to section 7, I expanded this and I think this article can stand. CanadianCaesar 13:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It is true that 'fundamental justice' is an operative concept in administrative law. However, as far as caselaw is concerned, the purview of 'fundamental justice' extends far beyond being principles of natural justice. see Re Motor Vehicle Act 1985 SCC 72 This is a good start, however, it is somewhat misleading. I would remove "administrative" from "administrative law". In fact, this page is in great need of expansion. --Ben 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article has a couple links to Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's about what you're looking for. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm aware that there are links to section 7 of the Charter. My point is that "fundamental justice" is a term found in Canadian Constitutional Law or quasi-constitutional law (Canadian Bill of Rights), not in administrative law per se -- although it may be applied there. The article just seems a tad incoherent . . . it seems to jump from one thing to another. I would propose that we focus on the meaning that fundamental justice has been given in the case law and perhaps contrast it with the concept of "due process" etc. --Ben 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly better treatment of the term is in order. From the looks of cases like Chaoulli, "fundamental justice" is going to be a real hot legal topic for some time to come. --PullUpYourSocks 04:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not getting you. The article has a large section on the Bill of Rights. While the case law has extended fundamental justice past natural justice, as far as I'm aware that's a section 7 thing, not a Bill of Rights thing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that the concept of "fundamental justice" is self-standing. Since it is given an article of its own its meaning should be independent of the laws it is found other, most notably section 7 of the Charter and Section 2 (e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. There is a substantial amount of a caselaw under which "fundamental justice", per se, is expounded upon, majority opinions, concurring opinions, dissenting opinions. What I suggest is that we take a look at those opinions and provide a neutral and broad perspective of "fundamental justice" as a term, not solely found in administrative or constitutional law, but in Canadian Law in its entirety. --Ben 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- What are specific examples in which fundamental justice is viewed as a guarantee in and of itself? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well for starters the Courts have recognized that "fundamental justice" must be guranteed in cases where there is a deprivation of life, liberty and security of the person per section 7. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm looking at "fundamental justice" as a concept and not right.--Ben 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- What are specific examples in which fundamental justice is viewed as a guarantee in and of itself? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that the concept of "fundamental justice" is self-standing. Since it is given an article of its own its meaning should be independent of the laws it is found other, most notably section 7 of the Charter and Section 2 (e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. There is a substantial amount of a caselaw under which "fundamental justice", per se, is expounded upon, majority opinions, concurring opinions, dissenting opinions. What I suggest is that we take a look at those opinions and provide a neutral and broad perspective of "fundamental justice" as a term, not solely found in administrative or constitutional law, but in Canadian Law in its entirety. --Ben 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
I have concerns about the new introduction. It's now seemingly based on section 7. Does the author know this is how the right is read in New Zealand? Also under the Canadian Bill of Rights it was a more limited right. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Your concerns are warranted. However, Canadian jurisprudence as to content of fundamental justice, to my knowledge (which I confess is rather thin), is and would be more developed than the relevant jurisprudence in New Zealand. Perhaps, the article could be divided, one specific to each country. With respect to fundamental justice under the Canadian Bill of Rights, it was a qualifier of a right: the right to a fair hearing (". . . the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;"). It was interpreted in that light as imposing the requirements of natural justice, but was left undefined by the courts. The difficulty with a comparison, is that until the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fundamental justice was a rarely and unconventionally used term. It certainly was and still is novel and somewhat controversial. Ben 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see no reason to divide this when we already have this separate from Section 7 of the Canadian Charter and don't see how we can judge whose law is better evolved that whose without resorting to OR. I'd suggest moving that material down to the section on section 7. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think much of the material on the principles of fundamental justice in the section 7 article should be moved under this article. Whatever we do, however, it may be wise to be mindful of diversity in jurisprudence. The due process clause in the Canadian Bill of Rights, for instance, means nothing like the due process clause in the 5th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution. We should certainly learn more about how the courts have interpreted fundamental justice in NZ before we make the decision. The term was imported from Canada's legal system, they may have placed great weight on how Canada's courts interpret it. Until we learn more, it looks like this article is at an impasse.Ben 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
