section 6
1. Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
2. Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
3. The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
4. Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
2. Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
3. The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
4. Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
Analysis
This section of the Charter gives all Canadian citizens the right to come to and leave Canada. All citizens or residents have the right to work or have businesses in any province or territory in Canada. However, some provincial requirements must be fulfilled and may be necessary to work in some occupations. Also, provinces may require their workers to meet residence rules to receive social services like welfare. Section 6’s mobility rights may be overruled or limited under section 1 of the charter if one were to be prosecuted for a crime in another country. Reason being that the extradition act would come into play.
What is the extradition act? (brief explanation)
The extradition act amends the Canadian Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in consequence. This act comes into play when one who has committed a crime in another country is tried in Canada and sent back to the country where they committed the crime and then is prosecuted for it.
What is the extradition act? (brief explanation)
The extradition act amends the Canadian Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in consequence. This act comes into play when one who has committed a crime in another country is tried in Canada and sent back to the country where they committed the crime and then is prosecuted for it.
United States v. Burns
Summary: http://www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/activiteiten/documentatie/OldActivities/DeathPenalty/Burns.pdf
In this case two young Canadian men, Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay were convicted for the triple homicide of Atif’s mother, father, and sister. The homicide was committed close to the police department in Bellevue, Washington, of the United States. The two men fled to Canada soon after the murder and carried out their plans to create a movie. After returning to Canada, Burns and Rafay confessed their doings to an undercover Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer. After the investigation was complete, Burns and Rafay claimed that their confessions had been fabricated. However, they admitted to planning the murder ahead of time. Burns and Rafay argued that section 6, mobility rights provided them with rights against extradition and to be charged in Canada. Their reasoning for this was simple, since the murders occurred in the US, Canada could only charge them with planning the crime. The Court rejected their arguments about any violation under section 6. They soon came to a verdict based on the citation of precedent that while extradition may violate section 6, it was permissible under the reasonable limits clause in section 1 of the Charter.
Analysis:
In this case, section 6 of the charter came into play when Burns and Rafay fled to Canada after committing a triple homicide. The two boys argued that their mobility rights were being violated because subsection 1 states that everyone has the right to leave, stay, and remain in Canada. This charter law however, was over ruled by section 1, extradition act. Therefore proving that the Canadian charter right for mobility can be argued and has its restrictions.
In this case two young Canadian men, Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay were convicted for the triple homicide of Atif’s mother, father, and sister. The homicide was committed close to the police department in Bellevue, Washington, of the United States. The two men fled to Canada soon after the murder and carried out their plans to create a movie. After returning to Canada, Burns and Rafay confessed their doings to an undercover Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer. After the investigation was complete, Burns and Rafay claimed that their confessions had been fabricated. However, they admitted to planning the murder ahead of time. Burns and Rafay argued that section 6, mobility rights provided them with rights against extradition and to be charged in Canada. Their reasoning for this was simple, since the murders occurred in the US, Canada could only charge them with planning the crime. The Court rejected their arguments about any violation under section 6. They soon came to a verdict based on the citation of precedent that while extradition may violate section 6, it was permissible under the reasonable limits clause in section 1 of the Charter.
Analysis:
In this case, section 6 of the charter came into play when Burns and Rafay fled to Canada after committing a triple homicide. The two boys argued that their mobility rights were being violated because subsection 1 states that everyone has the right to leave, stay, and remain in Canada. This charter law however, was over ruled by section 1, extradition act. Therefore proving that the Canadian charter right for mobility can be argued and has its restrictions.