The Evolution of State of Emergency in Canadian Legal System

State of emergency is one of the inevitable realities of any political system. The how governments confront with state of emergency and legal framework of this confrontation is an important challenge in Public Law in different countries. Although Iran is subject to natural and abnormal crises, it has no coherent laws in its legal system and Article 79 of the constitution of Iran stipulating the state of emergency is abandoned. This article examines how one of the modern legal systems, especially Canada, confronts with state of emergency as a preliminary studies to predict desirable legal status of that confrontation in Iran. So it is answered in this article that how Canadian government confronts with annoying issues disrupting security, and how legal system of Canada recognize the State of Emergency. This study expresses Canadian emergency regime by a descriptive-analytical view in the historical context. According to a preliminary study of some laws of the Canadian Parliament, it was assumed that in emergencies, Canada would also by enacting and enforcing a parliamentary law declare a state of emergency with a variety of emergencies over a given period of time with limited powers of government.  But the study of historical behavior of Canadian government has shown that the conditions in our hypothesis are in the laws, but not in practice; and other mechanisms such as the suspension of a part of “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and in particular the enacting of "anti-terrorism legislation" have been enforced federally in the post-9/11 period.