ven if we have never been in a courtroom, law shapes our everyday life. When you borrow a book from the library, you enter, probably unthinkingly, into a legal relationship of rights and obligations. You have the right to keep the book for a specified length of time, and the obligation to return it undamaged at the end of that time. Those rights and obligations are set out in the agreement, or contract, that you enter into with the library when you apply for a library card. But you also have a legal relationship with the author of the book that you have borrowed. If you make a copy of the book and sell it, you are interfering with the author's property -- the copyright which gives the author and the publisher the exclusive right to make and sell copies of the book.

Family relationships are also legal relationships -- the law sets out some of the rights and obligations of parents to children, and children to parents, and of spouses to each other. One's legal status affects one's liability to pay taxes and one's eligibility to receive benefits such as health insurance coverage or pensions.

So, law is much more than sensational criminal trials or speed limits on the highway. It is an expression of the common good and the fundamental values of society, and it is one of the tools that the state uses to maintain order in society. The Canadian legal system has evolved as Canada has evolved, and is today one of the unifying elements in a pluralistic society.

hen the judges in Canada's highest court make a decision on a matter before them, they may draw on the three different traditions of law that Canada inherited when it was created in 1867. When the European colonizers claimed the North American continent for their various monarchs, they found the land already inhabited by indigenous societies with their own social structure, culture and laws. English-speaking colonizers brought with them their own legal tradition, the common law. This body of law had evolved from decisions made by the English royal courts of justice since the Norman Conquest (1066) and it applies in most English-speaking countries.

Common law is unenacted, traditional law, often called case law. This is because it is not collected into a single comprehensive and authoritative code, but is drawn instead from the decisions that judges have made in the cases brought before them by individuals. Each time a new situation arises, lawyers and judges look to past, similar cases to guide them in their arguments or judgements. This common-law tradition was imposed first on the indigenous peoples and then, less thoroughly, on the French-speaking inhabitants of what became British North America.

In Quebec, the common law gave way in some areas to French civil law (le droit civil). The fundamental difference between the two traditions of law lies in the authority to which they look to in making decisions. Le droit civil was based on ancient Roman law and French custom, and recorded in a comprehensive Civil Code enacted in Quebec in 1857. The Code contains a general statement of the rules, principles, and ideals that guided the province's private law in its decisions. The Code covers matters such as the status of individuals, relations within families, property rights, wills, contracts, partnerships, and claims for the remedy of (non-criminal) wrongs done by one individual against another. Common Law deals with the same matters, but it uses case law and legislation as its source.

The original enactment of the Quebec Civil Code reflected the basic values of 19th century Quebec. As Quebec society changed, sections were added and the language and organization revised. In 1991, a new Code replaced the much-amended old one.

In both civil-code and common-law provinces, judges continued to recognize some rights based on the legal traditions of the indigenous peoples, particularly in determining inheritance rights of children whose European fathers had married aboriginal women. In the last quarter-century, aboriginal peoples have been arguing for a more general acceptance of the validity of their legal traditions. They also want recognition of rights to land and access to natural resources that stem from their position as prior occupiers of the continent. Their arguments are political as well as legal, and if they can negotiate a political acceptance of their demands for native self-government, they can begin the difficult process of constructing a parallel legal system. This system would reflect a different understanding of property rights, family relationships, and appropriate community responses to actions that harm individuals or the community.

fundamental principle of English common law that seeks to make the law fair and accessible to all is known as the rule of law. It is a concept that implies that everyone should be able to know what the law requires and that the law should apply equally to everyone. The rule of law expresses our belief that no one is above the law, and that those who make and enforce the law must do so in a way that is fair to everyone. The importance of the rule of law is recognized in the Constitution Act of 1982, which contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter opens with the statement: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

Because the common law develops through judges' decisions, it is sometimes called judge-made law. In theory, however, judges do not make law when they decide cases; they merely apply the law that has already been applied in previous, similar cases. These previously-decided cases are called precedents. The doctrine that judges must follow precedent in that they must decide like cases alike -- is called stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning "Let the decision stand." The advantage of following precedents is that people are better able to predict the legal consequences of their actions, and act accordingly.

But the 20th century has brought some changes in judges' understanding of the doctrine of precedent. Gradually there came to be disagreement about what previous cases were similar and therefore relevant. As the number of decisions grew, so did the number of conflicting views. In some cases, judges had to choose which interpretations should prevail. Also, as social and commercial relations became more complex, judges were presented with situations for which they could find no ready similarity or precedent in existing cases. So, most judges accepted that they did have some freedom to stretch existing law to cover new situations, and to refuse to follow precedents that no longer fit everyday notions of fairness or the public good. Thus, determining what is lawful and just is a never-ending process as new decisions affect the principles upon which future cases will be decided.

If the decision of a court is not acceptable, it can be appealed. Each province or territory has appeal courts that may affirm or reverse the trial judge after hearing arguments from lawyers. Trial judges have to follow decisions made by appeal court judges in the same province or territory. Since 1949, the final court of appeal in Canada has been the Supreme Court of Canada, which sits in Ottawa. The power of ultimate interpretation of the Canadian Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rests with this court.

n a federal state such as Canada, in which there are provinces and a central government, there must be some rules for dividing up power between the provincial legislatures and the federal parliament. These rules are part of a country's constitution. In Canada, the basic constitutional framework is set out in the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called the British North American Act). The terms of this Act were negotiated by representatives of the various colonies that joined together to form Canada. The division of powers that was adopted by those colonies that joined to form Canada created two distinct legal systems within the provinces.

In most of those areas of law covered by Quebec's Civil Code, the other provinces and territories were also given law-making power. The federal government was given power over criminal law and over other matters that required uniform treatment across the country, including dealings with other countries. Matters such as the requirements for a valid marriage, granting of divorces, the postal service, banking, defence, the regulation of trade and commerce and relations with aboriginal peoples are all within federal legislative authority. The power to pass laws concerning education was given to the provinces. The provinces and the federal government were given shared jurisdiction over immigration and agriculture.

he term 'common law' can mean more than one thing. It can be used to distinguish the English legal heritage from le droit civil that was brought to Quebec from France. However, people also use the term 'common law' to distinguish the law expressed in decided cases from the law set out in legislation enacted by the country's politicians. These statutes, or Acts, as they are usually called in their titles, give power either to the cabinet or the ministry responsible for the statute to make rules for putting its provisions into effect. These rules are called regulations; regulations and statutes together are called legislation.

Legislation can be used to change the common law, or to deal with areas in which case law is unclear or unlikely to be helpful. Often, when governments pass legislation that changes the common law significantly, they create a new body to administer the legislation, such as an administrative tribunal, board or agency. Some of the provinces have passed legislation creating such tribunals to deal with disputes between landlords and tenants. Other examples of tribunals found in all of the provinces and territories are workers' compensation and employment standards boards, human rights commissions, labour boards, various marketing boards, liquor licensing agencies, film censorship boards, social welfare review boards, and so on. Advantages of a specialized tribunal are that it allows its members to develop decision-making expertise in that area and brings the administration of the law closer to the people.

A law is changed only if the change is politically acceptable to the party in power. The change might be based on the study of a government department, a legislative committee, a Royal Commission, or the suggestion of a lobby group, or member of Parliament or legislative assembly.

e have seen that the meaning of the term 'common law' depends on the context in which it is used. The same is true of the term 'civil law.' In the Canadian legal system, law can be divided by subject matter into three branches: civil, criminal and administrative. In this context, the term 'civil law' does not refer to the distinction between the common law tradition and the Quebec Civil Code. It refers to the distinction between the law that governs relationships between individuals, called private law, and the law that governs the individual's relationship to the state, called public law.

For example, suppose a drunken driver has caused the death of an individual. The police, acting for the state, may arrest and charge the driver. These charges would be laid under the Criminal Code, a statute enacted by the federal Parliament in 1892 and amended frequently since. The Criminal Code, a segment of public law, would apply because the driver's action is regarded as a wrong against the whole community, deserving punishment through the criminal law process. In serious criminal charges, the accused is entitled to ask for a jury trial. If convicted, he or she can be sentenced to pay a fine and/or serve a jail term. The fine would not go to the victim's family, but to the state; the criminal process focuses on punishing the accused, not compensating the victims of crime.

The victim's family could, however, also file a civil action -- a law suit -- for damages. They would be exercising their rights under private law. If the family (called the plaintiff) can prove that the person being sued (the defendant) committed a serious wrong against them, the court can then order that person to pay compensation for any suffering or economic loss the plaintiffs have endured, including the plaintiff's legal costs. In the common-law provinces, jury trials are rare in civil actions for damages and are not permitted under the Quebec Civil Code.

Some provinces have passed legislation so that victims of crime may receive compensation for their losses and suffering without having to bring a civil law suit. Once the accused has been convicted, the victim of the crime may apply to a specialized agency that will assess the damages and award compensation to be paid from government funds. These criminal injury compensation boards are another example of an administrative tribunal and are an extension of public law. As in many areas of administrative law, there are points of dispute between private individuals which are part public and part private. In such cases the state may step in to regulate aspects of the matter.

n a federal state, the constitution sets out the rules for dividing power and responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all legislation passed by either level of government must comply with its requirements. After the American Revolution, the former British colonies drafted a constitution for their new country, and they included a bill of rights to protect individuals against an oppressive state. Following the British tradition, much of our Canadian Constitution was unwritten. In Canada, the rule of law and traditional ideas about the rights of citizens to such things as a fair trial and freedom of the press were part of this unwritten constitution. However, from time to time, various politicians and political thinkers suggested that a mature democracy needed a written bill of rights, enshrined in a formal constitution. Such a bill would set standards against which other legislation could be measured.

After more than a decade of negotiation, the provinces and the federal government agreed on both a new amending formula for the Canadian Constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Extensive political lobbying by First Nations peoples ensured that the new Charter recognized their "existing aboriginal and treaty rights." Women's organizations also lobbied to ensure that the Charter aided them in their fight for equality rights. The new Charter and other constitutional amendments were passed by the Canadian Parliament. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II came to Ottawa to proclaim the revised Constitution Act in a special ceremony on Parliament Hill on 17 April, 1982.

The drafters of the original Constitution Act, 1867, were careful to avoid weaknesses of the American Constitution. In the same way, the American Bill of Rights served as a model for the Charter, with some features to be copied and some to be avoided. The most significant contrast stems from the different systems of government in the two countries. The United States is a republic, having a government with an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure that the President, the Congress and the courts have equal powers. Thus, policies of major importance cannot be enacted and implemented by one branch of government alone. In the American tradition, the courts, on the basis of the Bill of Rights, can strike down legislation that they believe violates fundamental rights. As the language of the Bill is very general, the Supreme Court has the last word on many matters of social and political controversy. One important example was the desegregation of American schools when the Supreme Court found the principle of "separate but equal" to be inherently unequal.

Canada, however, is a constitutional monarchy, with a parliamentary system of government. The checks and balances come from the fact that the executive branch of the government is responsible to the elected majority in the legislature. The Canadian Charter recognizes the legislative supremacy of Parliament with the "notwithstanding clause." When Parliament or any legislature passes legislation, it has the option to state explicitly in the Act that the statute shall operate "notwithstanding" (in other words, in spite of) certain standards set out in the Charter. Legislators have the power to use the notwithstanding clause to protect legislation from review by the courts or to re-enact legislation that the courts consider to be a violation or denial of Charter rights. However, vote-conscious legislators are wary of the political consequences of using the notwithstanding clause, and have done so rarely.

The Charter applies only to actions of the government or government agencies. However, some of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, are rights that an individual can also claim in certain commercial dealings with other individuals. If a person encounters discrimination in renting an apartment or applying for a job, he or she can complain to a human rights tribunal set up under provincial or federal human rights codes. As in many areas of administrative law, there are elements of the dispute which are part public and part private. In such disputes between private individuals, the state steps in to regulate aspects of the matter.

The rights and freedoms that the Charter guarantees are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The Charter guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression. However, laws forbidding the publication of hate propaganda against an identifiable ethnic, racial, or religious group have been upheld. This is a restriction on free speech. But, it is argued that the ban on publishing hate propaganda is justified in order to protect the integrity and right to equality of members of the identified group. And, the protection against self-incrimination does not give an individual the right to refuse to take a breathalyser test.

Despite its limitations, the Charter has profoundly affected the way that Canadians think about law and politics. Increasingly, people expect that the courts, not the elected politicians, will make the final decision on difficult matters. Yet, courts are no more able than politicians to settle moral questions: despite the Supreme Court's declaration that safe and equal access to abortion is, in some circumstances, a woman's right, the legality of abortion continues to be a source of bitter controversy.

ecause the law looms so large in our private and public lives, people often expect it to provide a solution to every problem. But, as we can see from considering the issue of violence against women, passing a law prohibiting certain kinds of conduct is not in itself enough to change how people act. Deliberately inflicting injury on another person, without legal justification, has always been a criminal offence in Canada. The fact that the assailant and the victim are married has never been a legal justification for wife-beating. But in the past, women's economic dependence on their husbands reinforced a general acceptance of the view that men should have authority over women and children. This contributed to a degree of societal acceptance by both sexes of some incidents of assault upon wives by their husbands. Women's greater participation in the labour force and consequent economic independence, among other things, have changed attitudes to wife-beating. That has led to the criminal prohibition being taken more seriously, as demonstrated by more charges and successful convictions for this crime.

Canadian Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie, speaking in 1877 on the question of prohibiting the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages, warned against expecting too much of the law. He said, "To legislate in advance of public opinion is merely to produce anarchy instead of maintaining law and order." But, even if law cannot change individuals' opinions, it can force them to make their behaviour conform to general standards. American civil rights activist Martin Luther King put it this way: laws "may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." Law can articulate our ideals for a humane and civil society, but only collective action can make them a reality.