Law, Rule Of Law And Jurisdiction

Three separate terms but linked closely to each other. One cannot explain one in the absence of the other. Laws are rules made by the government that forbid certain actions and are enforced by the courts. Government of Canada, Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/02.html) very aptly describes it when it says; Laws apply to everyone equally. If you break a law, you may have to pay a fine, pay for the damage you have done, or go to jail. Rule of law on the other hand has been described as (https://www.un.org) “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated”. The third term jurisdiction in a sense completes it as being the power or right of a legal or political agency to exercise its authority over a person, subject matter, or territory.

Law can be both civil and criminal. Civil law deals with behaviour that constitutes an injury to an individual or other private party, such as a corporation. Whereas criminal law deals with behaviour that is or can be construed as an offense against the public, society, or the state.

One of the prominent civil cases of 2019 has been Frank v. Canada (Attorney General) where the Supreme Court of Canada (https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2019/36645-eng.aspx) ruled that a rule preventing citizens from voting in federal elections if they had been living outside Canada for more than five years was unconstitutional. The case had been brought about by two Canadian citizens, Dr Frank and Mr Duong, who were not allowed to vote in the Canadian federal election in 2011. This was because they had been living outside of Canada for more than five years. Though a landmark judgement from the Supreme Court I believe in a sense it is something which cannot be justified as if you allow non-residents Canadians to vote why stop the Permanent Residents who have been living in the country with their families, paying taxes and generally doing their bit in taking Canada forward. Permanent Residents are not even allowed to vote in the municipal elections which I find highly discriminatory. Why allow non-resident Canadians to vote when they would have no intention of returning. How do you prove the intent of returning?

Prime example of criminal case would be the high profile case of Rohinie Bisesar who was found not criminally responsible for a 2015 deadly stabbing of a stranger in a Toronto downtown drug store, due to schizophrenia. Ontario Superior Court Justice John McMahon ruled Bisesar’s mental illness contributed to the killing of Rosemarie Junor in a Shoppers Drug Mart in December, 2015. (https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/rohinie-bisesar-toronto-stabbing)

It’s another case which I find travesty of justice, clearing a woman who had clearly killed another in cold blood. The defence and crown lawyers requested the court to find Bisesar not guilty due to schizophrenia. If at the end of trial Bisesar could plead not guilty, the court in my opinion had no reason to find her innocent. Where was the justice done to the victim and her family?

Going forward the above cases describe how the rule of law were applied in these situations. Courts stepping up and taking up the petitions of Dr Frank and Mr Duong and delivering a verdict allowing people to vote. In case of Bisesar the fact that she was brought to trial meant it law applied to everyone in equal measure. Be it Bisesar or any other person found guilty of criminal activity.

What the judges and courts exercised in these above cases was jurisdiction and when they did they handed out judgements. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University breaks jurisdiction down into three components: jurisdiction over a person, jurisdiction over the subject matter, and jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought. In these above two cases all three criteria were met.

As I said in the beginning all the three terms; law, rule of law and jurisdiction are related and cannot be seen in isolation. With law in place rule of law ensures no person can claim to be above law. It ensures adherence of principles of natural justice like: giving reasonable opportunity, impartiality of decision, etc. It leads to fairness, both substantive and procedural. The trifecta is completed by jurisdiction ensuring that we have a system in place which ensures laws are followed and rule of law enforced for just and equitable society.