Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 5
Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms primarily functions as an interpretive guide for understanding and applying other rights within the Charter.
Answer: True
The source material indicates that Section 27 serves as an interpretive guide for courts in applying other Charter rights, rather than granting new specific rights.
Section 27 explicitly defines specific new rights for various cultural groups, rather than guiding the interpretation of existing rights.
Answer: False
Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg noted that Section 27 does not contain specific new rights but rather guides the interpretation of existing Charter rights in a manner consistent with multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was officially recognized as a fundamental Canadian value by Section 27 of the Charter.
Answer: True
The source material confirms that Section 27 officially recognized multiculturalism as a fundamental Canadian value, affirming the country's diverse cultural heritage.
The exact text of Section 27 mandates that the Charter be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of Canada's bilingual heritage.
Answer: False
The exact text of Section 27 specifies interpretation consistent with the 'multicultural heritage of Canadians,' not Canada's bilingual heritage.
Beyond its interpretive function, Section 27 also serves as a declaration of a national value of multiculturalism for Canada.
Answer: True
Section 27 functions not only as an interpretive guide but also as a declaration of a national value of multiculturalism, reflecting Canada's commitment to its diverse cultural heritage.
Section 27 is part of a block of provisions from section 20 to section 24 that influence Charter interpretation.
Answer: False
Section 27 is part of a block of provisions from section 25 to section 31 that influence Charter interpretation, not sections 20 to 24.
What is the primary function of Section 27 within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Answer: To serve as an interpretive guide for other Charter rights.
Section 27 primarily serves as an interpretive guide, directing courts on how to understand and apply rights articulated in other sections of the Charter.
Which fundamental Canadian value does Section 27 officially recognize?
Answer: Multiculturalism
Section 27 officially recognized multiculturalism as a fundamental Canadian value, affirming the country's diverse cultural heritage.
What is the exact text of Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Answer: 'This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.'
The precise wording of Section 27 is: 'This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.'
Beyond its interpretive role, what does Section 27 signify for Canada as a nation?
Answer: A declaration of a national value of multiculturalism.
Beyond its function as an interpretive guide, Section 27 also serves as a declaration of a national value of multiculturalism, underscoring Canada's commitment to its diverse cultural heritage.
Section 27 is part of a block of provisions that influence Charter interpretation, specifically from which section to which section?
Answer: Section 25 to Section 31
Section 27 is part of a block of provisions from section 25 to section 31 that collectively influence Charter interpretation.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established after Canada adopted its multicultural policy in 1971.
Answer: False
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established *before* Canada adopted its multicultural policy in 1971, with the commission's work preceding the policy.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism initially recommended that the Canadian government recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society.
Answer: True
The Commission's report initially advocated for the Canadian government to recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and to implement policies to maintain this character.
French-speaking minority communities were the primary group that opposed the 'bicultural' aspect of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
Answer: False
Non-French ethnic minority communities, such as Ukrainian Canadian and other European communities, were the primary groups that opposed the 'bicultural' aspect of the Commission's recommendations, advocating for a broader multicultural approach.
The Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) was formed in 1973 to engage with leaders from various ethnocultural communities.
Answer: True
The Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) was indeed formed in 1973 by the government to consult with leaders from various ethnocultural communities across Canada.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was an umbrella organization created in 1980 by the government to draft Section 27.
Answer: False
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was organized by the communities themselves in 1980 to lobby for the inclusion of multiculturalism in the Charter, not created by the government to draft Section 27.
Dr. Leonardo Leone of the National Congress of Italian Canadians played a significant role in spearheading the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
Answer: True
Dr. Leonardo Leone of the National Congress of Italian Canadians indeed spearheaded the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, playing a significant role in advocating for multiculturalism.
Laurence Decore, head of the CCCM from 1980 to 1983, is sometimes credited as the principal drafter of Section 27.
Answer: True
Laurence Decore, as head of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) during the relevant period, is sometimes credited as the principal drafter of Section 27.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was primarily established to address concerns of Canada's English-speaking majority.
Answer: False
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was primarily established to address the concerns of Canada's French-speaking minority, particularly in Quebec, not the English-speaking majority.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was formed by government initiative to lobby for multiculturalism in the Charter.
Answer: False
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was organized by the communities themselves, not by government initiative, to lobby for the inclusion of multiculturalism in the Charter.
Which historical commission preceded Canada's adoption of a multicultural policy in 1971?
Answer: The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government-appointed body, preceded Canada's formal adoption of a multicultural policy in 1971.
What was the initial recommendation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism regarding Canada's societal character?
Answer: To recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society.
The Commission's initial report recommended that the Canadian government formally recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and implement policies to uphold this character.
What government body was established in 1973 to engage with ethnocultural community leaders?
Answer: The Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM)
In 1973, the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) was established by the government to facilitate consultation with leaders from various ethnocultural communities across Canada.
What umbrella organization was created in 1980 to lobby for the inclusion of multiculturalism in the Charter?
Answer: The Canadian Ethnocultural Council
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was formed in 1980 as an umbrella organization by ethnocultural communities themselves, specifically to lobby the government during the constitutional debates for the inclusion of what would become Section 27.
Who was a key figure in spearheading the Canadian Ethnocultural Council?
Answer: Dr. Leonardo Leone
Dr. Leonardo Leone of the National Congress of Italian Canadians played a significant role in spearheading the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, actively advocating for the constitutional recognition of multiculturalism.
Who is sometimes credited as the principal drafter of Section 27?
Answer: Laurence Decore
Laurence Decore, as head of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) from 1980 to 1983, is sometimes credited as the principal drafter of Section 27.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established to address the concerns of which group?
Answer: Canada's French-speaking minority, particularly in Quebec.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was primarily established to address the concerns of Canada's French-speaking minority, particularly in Quebec.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario in *Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R.* (1984) argued that Section 27 should be largely ignored by the courts.
Answer: False
In *Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R.* (1984), the Court of Appeal for Ontario argued that Section 27 should receive 'significance' from the courts, directly contradicting the idea that it should be ignored.
The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the *Videoflicks* line of thinking regarding religious freedom and multiculturalism in *R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.* (1986).
Answer: True
The Supreme Court of Canada indeed reaffirmed the interpretive approach established in *Videoflicks* concerning religious freedom and multiculturalism in *R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.* (1986).
In *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.* (1985), Section 27 was used to uphold laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays.
Answer: False
In *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.*, Section 27 was used to support the *invalidation* of laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays, as such laws contradicted the principle of multiculturalism.
The Supreme Court in *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.* reasoned that requiring Canadians to observe the day of rest preferred by one religion contradicted the principle of multiculturalism.
Answer: True
The Supreme Court's reasoning in *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.* was that requiring observance of a day of rest preferred by one religion contradicted the principle of multiculturalism enshrined in Section 27.
How did the Court of Appeal for Ontario in *Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R.* (1984) view the significance of Section 27?
Answer: It stated Section 27 should receive 'significance' from the courts.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in *Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R.* (1984), asserted that Section 27 should receive 'significance' from the courts, thereby emphasizing its importance in legal interpretation.
According to *Videoflicks Ltd. et al. v. R.*, how does Section 27 reinforce freedom of religion (Section 2 of the Charter)?
Answer: By stating that limiting free exercise of religion fails to promote multiculturalism.
The court in *Videoflicks* articulated that a law limiting the free exercise of religion also fails to promote multiculturalism, given that religion is frequently an integral 'part of one's culture which is religiously based.' Therefore, Section 27 necessitates respect and tolerance for diverse religious practices.
How did the Supreme Court of Canada apply Section 27 in the landmark case *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.* (1985)?
Answer: It used Section 27 to support the invalidation of Sunday closing laws.
In *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.*, Section 27 was invoked to support the invalidation of laws that mandated businesses to close on Sundays, which was the Christian Sabbath.
What was the Supreme Court's reasoning in *R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.* for invalidating Sunday closing laws based on Section 27?
Answer: Requiring observance of one religion's day of rest contradicted multiculturalism.
The Supreme Court reasoned that parliamentary legislation requiring Canadians to observe 'the day of rest preferred by one religion' directly contradicted the principle of multiculturalism enshrined in Section 27 of the Charter.
Chief Justice Brian Dickson, in *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor* (1990), found that Section 27 could reinforce limits on freedom of expression, particularly for hate speech.
Answer: True
Chief Justice Brian Dickson, in *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor*, determined that Section 27 could serve to reinforce limits on freedom of expression, specifically in cases involving hate speech.
In *R. v. Keegstra* (1990), the Supreme Court agreed that Sections 15 and 27 directly impose built-in limits on freedom of expression.
Answer: False
In *R. v. Keegstra*, the Supreme Court stated that using Sections 15 and 27 to limit the scope of freedom of expression contradicted a 'large and liberal interpretation' of freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court in *R. v. Keegstra* clarified that Section 1 of the Charter is the appropriate mechanism for balancing rights and imposing reasonable limits.
Answer: True
The Supreme Court in *R. v. Keegstra* clarified that Section 1 of the Charter is 'especially well suited to the task of balancing' rights and imposing reasonable limits, rather than Sections 15 and 27 defining inherent limits on freedom of expression.
In *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor* (1990), how did Chief Justice Brian Dickson interpret Section 27 in relation to freedom of expression?
Answer: He found Section 27 could reinforce limits on freedom of expression, especially for hate speech.
Chief Justice Brian Dickson, in *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor*, determined that Section 27 could serve to reinforce limits on freedom of expression, specifically in cases involving hate speech.
What was the suggested purpose of limiting freedom of expression, according to Dickson's interpretation of Sections 15 and 27 in *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor*?
Answer: To fight racial and religious discrimination.
Dickson suggested that the objective of combating racial and religious discrimination, supported by Section 15 (equality rights) and Section 27 (multiculturalism), would constitute a sufficient objective under Section 1 of the Charter for justifying limits on free expression.
Did the Supreme Court in *R. v. Keegstra* (1990) agree that Sections 15 and 27 directly impose built-in limits on freedom of expression?
Answer: No, they stated it contradicted a 'large and liberal interpretation' of freedom of expression.
In *R. v. Keegstra*, the Supreme Court stated that using Sections 15 and 27 to limit the scope of freedom of expression contradicted a 'large and liberal interpretation' of freedom of expression.
According to the Supreme Court in *R. v. Keegstra*, which section of the Charter is the appropriate mechanism for balancing rights and imposing limits on freedom of expression?
Answer: Section 1
The Supreme Court in *R. v. Keegstra* clarified that Section 1 of the Charter is 'especially well suited to the task of balancing' rights and imposing reasonable limits, rather than Sections 15 and 27 defining inherent limits on freedom of expression.
Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg initially predicted that Section 27 would have a significant and immediate impact on Charter interpretation.
Answer: False
Peter Hogg initially remarked that it was difficult to foresee a large impact of Section 27 on the reading of the Charter, suggesting it might be 'more of a rhetorical flourish than an operative provision.'
Polls in 2002 indicated that a majority of Canadians disapproved of Section 27.
Answer: False
In 2002, polls revealed strong public support for Section 27, with 86% of Canadians approving of the constitutional recognition of multiculturalism.
Legal scholar Walter Tarnopolsky speculated in 1982 that Section 27 would be most relevant to interpreting Section 15 equality rights, especially concerning ethnic origin and religion.
Answer: True
Walter Tarnopolsky indeed speculated that Section 27 could be most pertinent to interpreting the Section 15 equality rights, particularly concerning grounds such as ethnic origin and religion.
Walter Tarnopolsky suggested that Section 15 combined with Section 27 could prevent governments from financially supporting minority cultures.
Answer: False
Tarnopolsky suggested that Section 15's guarantee of 'equal benefit of the law,' when combined with Section 27, could *lead to* governments financially supporting minority cultures, rather than preventing it.
Canadian courts have used Section 27 to establish a right for First Nations to have a specific number of seats on a jury.
Answer: False
In various judicial proceedings, Canadian courts have consistently declined to utilize Section 27 (or Section 25) to establish a right for First Nations individuals to have a predetermined number of seats on a jury.
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, enacted in 1988, explicitly references Section 27 of the Charter.
Answer: True
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, enacted in 1988, explicitly references Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, demonstrating its legislative impact.
How did constitutional scholar Peter Hogg initially assess Section 27 upon the Charter's enactment in 1982?
Answer: He observed it was intended to guide Charter interpretation, not contain specific rights.
Peter Hogg initially observed that Section 27 did not, in itself, contain a specific right but was intended to guide the interpretation of the Charter to respect Canada's multiculturalism.
What was Peter Hogg's initial prediction regarding the practical impact of Section 27 on Charter interpretation?
Answer: He remarked it was difficult to foresee a large impact, calling it a 'rhetorical flourish.'
Hogg initially remarked that it was difficult to foresee a substantial impact of Section 27 on the interpretation of the Charter, suggesting it might be 'more of a rhetorical flourish than an operative provision.'
What did polls indicate about Canadian public approval of Section 27 in 2002?
Answer: 86% of Canadians approved.
In 2002, public opinion polls indicated strong support for Section 27, with 86% of Canadians approving of the constitutional recognition of multiculturalism.
What did legal scholar Walter Tarnopolsky suggest about the potential relevance of Section 27 to Section 15 (equality rights) in 1982?
Answer: He speculated it could be most relevant to interpreting equality rights, especially concerning ethnic origin and religion.
Walter Tarnopolsky speculated that Section 27 could be most pertinent to interpreting the Section 15 equality rights, particularly concerning grounds such as ethnic origin and religion.
How might the combination of Section 15 and Section 27 influence government financial support for minority cultures, according to Tarnopolsky?
Answer: It could lead to governments financially supporting minority cultures.
Tarnopolsky suggested that Section 15's guarantee of 'equal benefit of the law,' when read in conjunction with Section 27, could potentially obligate governments to provide financial support for minority cultures, especially if existing disparities in funding between cultural groups were identified.
Have Canadian courts used Section 27 or Section 25 to establish a right for First Nations to have a specific number of seats on a jury?
Answer: No, courts have refused to grant such a right using these sections.
In various judicial proceedings, Canadian courts have consistently declined to utilize Section 27 (multiculturalism) or Section 25 (Aboriginal and treaty rights) to establish a right for First Nations individuals to have a predetermined number of seats on a jury in a trial.
Which significant piece of Canadian legislation explicitly references Section 27 of the Charter?
Answer: The Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, enacted in 1988, explicitly references Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thereby demonstrating its legislative impact and integration into Canadian law.