Although both the United States and Canada have succeeded in their federal participation, Canada`s Parliamentary Confederation has structured the justice system very differently – something we will discuss shortly. The Islamic legal system, consisting of Sharia (Islamic law) and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), is the most widespread religious legal system and one of the three most common legal systems in the world, along with common law and civil law. [22] It is based both on divine law derived from the hadith of the Qur`an and the Sunnah and on the judgments of ulema (jurists) who use the methods of ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogous conclusion), ijtihad (research) and urf (general practice) to derive fatwā (legal opinion). An ulema had to qualify for an ijazah (doctorate in law) in a madrasa (law school or college) before he could issue Fatwā. [23] During the Islamic Golden Age, classical Islamic law may have had an influence on the development of the common law[6] and several civil law institutions. [24] Sharia law regulates a number of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, although most countries only use Sharia law in addition to national legislation. It can refer to all aspects of civil law, including property rights, contracts and public law. Other areas of law are provincial. All provinces follow a system based on British common law, with the exception of Quebec, which has a civil law system inspired by the French. There are few conflicts between provincial and federal jurisdictions. With regard to the theory of “sources of law” in the Guatemalan legal system, the “Ley del Organismo Judicial” recognizes “law” as the main source of law (within the meaning of legal texts), although it also establishes “jurisprudence” as an additional source. Although case law technically refers to judicial decisions in general, in practice it tends to be confused and identified with the concept of “jurisprudence”, which is a series of qualified identical decisions in similar cases pronounced by higher courts (the Constitutional Court acts as the “Tribunal de Amparo” and the Supreme Court as the “Tribunal de Casación”), whose theses become binding on the lower courts. Canada and the United States are similar in many ways.
Such a similarity can be found in our criminal justice systems, both of which have their roots in the English common law system. However, there are many notable differences. Of course, the way the courts are set up will be different from these different ways of binding the country through existing laws. While the structure in the U.S. can be confusing due to fundamental jurisdictional issues between states and federal courts – which could essentially hear any type of case – in Canada, there is a more unified structure that mimics a pyramid structure. In Canada, every provincial court will hear every minor lawsuit — there are rarely site purchases — to ensure that enforcement in that province meets a standard of consistency. [v] There are courts that deal with smaller civil and criminal cases, while the supreme courts of each province deal with the most serious crimes. Each province has its courts of first instance, a court of appeal (not an appellate court) designed to correct “simple errors” that occur at lower levels. [vi] And although Canada has created a “federal” judicial system, these federal courts with limited jurisdiction remain much less important than the courts in the basic [provincial] structure described above. [vii] This simplistic structure of Canadian courts leaves it to the Supreme Court of Canada to be much more influential in the provinces, giving them the opportunity to promote federalism between the provinces; further promote consistency between applicable laws. [viii] Despite the usefulness of different classifications, each legal system has its own individual identity.
The following are groups of legal systems classified according to their geographical location. Despite Canada`s physical and cultural proximity to the United States, Canadians are quick to point out more important cultural differences such as free health care in Canada, our penchant for politeness, and our rainbow-colored currency. But many Canadians who grew up with a regime of American movies and TELEVISION shows do not know that our legal systems are very different. Although both the American and Canadian legal systems are based on British common law, there are significant differences in practice. The most important difference between political influences is that Canada is a single federal penal code. [ii] Canada uses its federalism to have a universal penal code that maintains a coherent shell of laws to govern Canada. This is likely to help the Canadian legal system function, as it is realistically easier in a country with a population of about 35 million, compared to the 326 million Americans[iv]. It is also at the heart of the creation of the United States of America that states retain a kind of independence, which was compromised in the creation of Canada.
3 There is a Canadian Bill of Rights, but it is unconstitutional and less legally relevant. Specialists in comparative law and economists who promote the theory of legal origins generally divide civil law into four distinct groups: civil law (also known as roman law) and customary law can be considered the most widely used in the world: civil law, as it is most widespread by the landmass and by the population as a whole, and customary law, because it is applied by the greatest number of people compared to a single civil law system. [2] [3] [4] Although there are two distinct and functional federal and state judicial systems in the United States of America, often closely related to the cases they hear. Each state has the ability to implement its own type of state legal systems, and there will always be clashes between federalism and state powers, the United States has figured out how to operate successfully in both systems and with their overlapping jurisdictions. Another interesting difference between the Canadian and U.S. criminal justice systems is whether someone who testifies has to answer a question. The U.S. Constitution contains the Fifth Amendment, which allows a person to refuse to testify so as not to incriminate himself. This rejection is commonly referred to as a “plea for the fifth.” You cannot “plead for the fifth” in Canada. If a subpoena is summoned, a witness must appear in court and testify. During testimony, a witness must answer all questions put to him or her and must not refuse to give an answer.
In fact, a witness who refuses to give an answer may be detained until he or she is ready to answer the question. Since the witness is legally obliged to give an answer, the answer cannot be used against him later. On the other hand, an accused is not required to testify in his own trial, but may testify as part of his defence. Since an accused is not compelled to testify, the answers can be used to incriminate him. However, questions put to a defendant may be limited to specific areas related to the specific allegations against him, but in general, once a defendant takes a position, he must provide answers to all questions. Whether or not to testify is one of the most important decisions an accused will make during the criminal trial. It should not be taken lightly. If you have an upcoming trial, it is highly recommended that you consult a lawyer to fully understand the consequences of this decision that the loser pays, that is, the losing party in a case or claim usually pays most of the costs of the other party, that is, the lawyer`s fees.
The term “civil law” is used to refer to two very different things that can be a little confusing at first for people trying to understand the justice system. Sometimes, unlike the common law, the term is used to refer to the legal system based on a civil code such as the Justinian Code or the Civil Code of Quebec.