Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.Subsection 24(1) must be distinguished from subsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Among other things, section 24 seems to give judges the power to place positive obligations upon a government,[2] as well as to enforce more imaginative remedies.
3, as the claimants challenged the Nova Scotia government's delay in building French language schools as a breach of their section 23 rights.
The "appropriate and just" limit was defined in this case as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what is appropriate and just (although they should keep in mind traditional common law limits on judicial power; in this case it was denied that functus officio was violated), and also as requiring courts to remember that section 24 is itself a part of the constitution and allows judges to carry out their function of enforcing rights.
[8] Overall, section 24's "competent jurisdiction" limit on which courts may award remedies, in R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. (2001), was taken as meaning that while Charter rights are generous, they exist within a framework set up by Parliament and the provincial governments.
Canada has taken a middle ground, sometimes allowing for the exclusion of evidence, whenever its use threatens to bring the "administration of justice" into "disrepute.