document_title: List of NBA franchise post-season droughts

question_text: when's the last time the timberwolves made the playoffs

question_tokens: when 's the last time the timberwolves made the playoffs

root

text: Active droughts[edit]

text: NBA Playoffs appearance droughts[edit]

text:
^
Longest drought in team history

tag: table

text:
Seasons
Team
Last earned appearance
in NBA playoffs
Reference

12
Sacramento Kings ^
2006 First Round
[5]

8
Phoenix Suns ^
2010 Western Finals
[6]

6
Orlando Magic ^
2012 First Round
[7]

5
Los Angeles Lakers ^
2013 First Round
[8]

5
Denver Nuggets
2013 First Round
[9]

5
New York Knicks
2013 Eastern Semifinals
[10]

3
Brooklyn Nets
2015 First Round
[11]

2
Charlotte Hornets
2016 First Round
[12]

2
Detroit Pistons
2016 First Round
[13]

2
Dallas Mavericks
2016 First Round
[14]

1
Chicago Bulls
2017 First Round
[15]

1
Memphis Grizzlies
2017 First Round
[16]

1
Atlanta Hawks
2017 First Round
[17]

1
Los Angeles Clippers
2017 First Round
[18]

2018 Playoff teams

–
Indiana Pacers
2018 First Round
[19]

–
Miami Heat
2018 First Round
[20]

–
Washington Wizards
2018 First Round
[21]

–
Milwaukee Bucks
2018 First Round
[22]

–
Portland Trail Blazers
2018 First Round
[23]

–
Oklahoma City Thunder
2018 First Round
[24]

–
San Antonio Spurs
2018 First Round
[25]

–
Minnesota Timberwolves
2018 First Round
[26]

–
Philadelphia 76ers
2018 Eastern Semifinals
[27]

–
Toronto Raptors
2018 Eastern Semifinals
[28]

–
New Orleans Pelicans
2018 Western Semifinals
[29]

–
Utah Jazz
2018 Western Semifinals
[30]

–
Boston Celtics
2018 Eastern Finals
[31]

–
Houston Rockets
2018 Western Finals
[32]

–
Golden State Warriors
2018 NBA Finals
[33]

–
Cleveland Cavaliers
2018 NBA Finals
[34]

text: NBA Playoffs series win droughts[edit]

text:
0^0
Longest drought in team history

0†0
Tied for Longest drought in team history

0♦0
Most consecutive series losses in team history

0♣ ♣0
Most consecutive losses in NBA history

text:
Current Playoff series loss streak

Team
Last series win
in NBA Playoffs
Seasons
since win
Losing
streak
Series losses – teams
Ref

Milwaukee Bucks ^
2001 Eastern Semifinals
17
9 ♣♣
2001 Philadelphia
2003 New Jersey Nets 00
2004 Detroit
2006 Detroit
2010 Atlanta
2013 Miami
2015 Chicago
2017 Toronto
2018 Boston
[22]

Charlotte Hornets ^
2002 Eastern First Round
14[a]
4 ♦
2002 New Jersey Nets
2010 Orlando
2014 Miami
2016 Miami
[12]

Sacramento Kings
2004 Western First Round
14
3
2004 Minnesota
2005 Seattle
2006 San Antonio
[5]

Minnesota Timberwolves †
2004 Western Semifinals
14
2
2004 Los Angeles Lakers
2018 Houston
[26]

Detroit Pistons
2008 Eastern Semifinals
10
3
2008 Boston
2009 Cleveland
2016 Cleveland
[13]

Denver Nuggets
2009 Western Semifinals
9
5
2009 Los Angeles Lakers
2010 Utah
2011 Oklahoma City
2012 Los Angeles Lakers
2013 Golden State
[9]

Orlando Magic
2010 Eastern Semifinals
8
3
2010 Boston
2011 Atlanta
2012 Indiana
[7]

Phoenix Suns ^
2010 Western Semifinals
8
1
2010 Los Angeles Lakers
[6]

Dallas Mavericks
2011 Finals
7
4 ♦
2012 Oklahoma City
2014 San Antonio
2015 Houston
2016 Oklahoma City
[14]

Los Angeles Lakers ^
2012 Western First Round
6
2
2012 Oklahoma City
2013 San Antonio
[8]

New York Knicks
2013 Eastern First Round
5
1
2013 Indiana
[10]

Brooklyn Nets
2014 Eastern First Round
4
2
2014 Miami
2015 Atlanta
[11]

Indiana Pacers
2014 Eastern Semifinals
4
4
2014 Miami
2016 Toronto
2017 Cleveland
2018 Cleveland
[19]

Chicago Bulls
2015 Eastern First Round
3
2
2015 Cleveland
2017 Boston
[15]

Memphis Grizzlies
2015 Western First Round
3
2
2015 Golden State
2016 San Antonio Spurs
2017 San Antonio Spurs
[16]

Los Angeles Clippers
2015 Western First Round
3
3
2015 Houston
2016 Portland
2017 Utah
[18]

Atlanta Hawks
2016 Eastern First Round
2
2
2016 Cleveland
2017 Washington
[17]

Portland Trail Blazers
2016 Western First Round
2
3
2016 Golden State
2017 Golden State
2018 New Orleans
[23]

Miami Heat
2016 Eastern First Round
2
2
2016 Toronto
2018 Philadelphia
[20]

Oklahoma City Thunder
2016 Western Semifinals
2
3
2016 Golden State
2017 Houston
2018 Utah
[25]

Washington Wizards
2017 Eastern First Round
1
2
2017 Boston
2018 Toronto
[21]

San Antonio Spurs
2017 Western Semifinals
1
2
2017 Golden State
2018 Golden State
[25]

z
30002018 Playoff Series
0 Winners
3000
3000

Toronto Raptors
2018 Eastern First Round
—
1
2018 Cleveland
[28]

Philadelphia 76ers
2018 Eastern First Round
—
1
2018 Boston
[27]

New Orleans Pelicans
2018 Western First Round
—
1
2018 Golden State
[29]

Utah Jazz
2018 Western First Round
—
1
2018 Houston
[30]

Boston Celtics
2018 Eastern Semifinals
—
1
2018 Cleveland
[31]

Houston Rockets
2018 Western Semifinals
—
1
2018 Golden State
[32]

Cleveland Cavaliers
2018 Eastern Finals
—
0
3 series win streak
[34]

Golden State Warriors
2018 Western Finals
—
0
7 series win streak
[33]

Team
Last series win
in NBA Playoffs
Seasons
Since win
Losing
Streak
Series Losses – Teams
Ref

text: a Charlotte was inactive for two years following the 2001–02 season.

tag: p

text: NBA Division Championship droughts[edit]

text: Updated through the 2017-18 regular season.

text:
0^0
Longest drought in team history

0♦0
2017–18 Division Champion

text:
Left click once on Seasons since win column heading then once on Division column heading
to show teams listed in order of division championships.

text:
Franchise
Most recent title
Division
Seasons since win

Charlotte Hornets ^
1  !None
East !Southeast
28

Memphis Grizzlies ^
1.1  !None
West !Southwest
23

Philadelphia 76ers ^
2000–01
East !Atlantic
17

Milwaukee Bucks ^
2000–01
East !Central
17

Sacramento Kings
2002–03
West !Pacific
15

Minnesota Timberwolves
2003–04
West !Northwest
14

Brooklyn Nets
2005–06
East !Atlantic
12

Phoenix Suns
2006–07
West !Pacific
11

New Orleans Pelicans ^
2007–08
West !Southwest
10

Detroit Pistons
2007–08
East !Central
10

Orlando Magic
2009–10
East !Southeast
8

Dallas Mavericks
2009–10
West !Southwest
8

Denver Nuggets
2009–10
West !Northwest
8

Los Angeles Lakers
2011–12
West !Pacific
6

Chicago Bulls
2011–12
East !Central
6

New York Knicks
2012–13
East !Atlantic
5

Indiana Pacers
2013–14
East !Central
4

Los Angeles Clippers
2013–14
West !Pacific
4

Atlanta Hawks
2014–15
East !Southeast
3

Oklahoma City Thunder
2015–16
West !Northwest
2

Boston Celtics
2016–17
East !Atlantic
1

San Antonio Spurs
2016–17
West !Southwest
1

Utah Jazz
2016–17
West !Northwest
1

Washington Wizards
2016–17
East !Southeast
1

Miami Heat ♦
2017–18
East !Southeast
-

Portland Trail Blazers ♦
2017–18
West !Northwest
-

Toronto Raptors ♦
2017–18
East !Atlantic
—

Cleveland Cavaliers ♦
2017–18
East !Central
—

Golden State Warriors ♦
2017–18
West !Pacific
—

Houston Rockets ♦
2017–18
West !Southwest
—

text: NBA Conference Finals appearance droughts[edit]

text:
^
Longest drought in team history

†
Tied for longest drought in team history

text:
Seasons
Team
Last appearance
in Conference Finals
Result
Reference

48
Los Angeles Clippers ^
Never
z —
[18]

39
Washington Wizards ^[c]
1979
Won vs. San Antonio
[21]

28
Charlotte Hornets ^
Never
z —
[12]

18
Portland Trail Blazers ^
2000
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[23]

18
New York Knicks
2000
Lost vs. Indiana
[10]

17
Milwaukee Bucks ^
2001
Lost vs. Phil0Lost vs. Philadelphia0
[22]

17
Philadelphia 76ers ^
2001
Won vs. Milwaukee
[27]

16
Sacramento Kings
2002
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[5]

16
New Orleans Pelicans ^
Never
z —
[29]

15
Brooklyn Nets [d]
2003
Won vs. Detroit
[11]

14
Minnesota Timberwolves †
2004
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[26]

11
Utah Jazz
2007
Lost vs. San Antonio
[30]

10
Detroit Pistons
2008
Lost vs. Boston
[13]

9
Denver Nuggets
2009
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[9]

8
Orlando Magic
2010
Lost vs. Boston
[7]

8
Phoenix Suns
2010
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[6]

8
Los Angeles Lakers †
2010
Won vs. Phoenix
[8]

7
Chicago Bulls
2011
Lost vs. Miami
[15]

7
Dallas Mavericks
2011
Won vs. Oklahoma0Won vs. Oklahoma City0
[14]

5
Memphis Grizzlies
2013
Lost vs. San Antonio
[16]

4
Miami Heat
2014
Won vs. Indiana
[20]

4
Indiana Pacers
2014
Lost vs. Miami
[19]

3
Atlanta Hawks
2015
Lost vs. Cleveland
[17]

2
Toronto Raptors
2016
Lost vs. Cleveland
[28]

2
Oklahoma City Thunder
2016
Lost vs. Golden State
[24]

1
San Antonio Spurs
2017
Lost vs. Golden State
[25]

.85
Z2018 Conference Finalists
2017.5
zzz

0
Cleveland Cavaliers
2018
Won vs. Boston
[34]

0
Boston Celtics
2018
Lost vs. Cleveland
[31]

0
Houston Rockets
2018
Lost vs. Golden State
[32]

0
Golden State Warriors
2018
Won vs. Houston
[33]

text: NBA Finals appearance droughts[edit]

text:
Seasons
Team
Last appearance
in NBA Finals
Result
Reference

68
Sacramento Kings[a]
1951
Won vs. New York
[5]

58
Atlanta Hawks[b]
1961
Lost vs. Boston
[17]

48
Los Angeles Clippers
Never
yyyy —
[18]

44
Milwaukee Bucks
1974
Lost vs. Boston
[22]

42
Denver Nuggets
Never
yyyy—
[9]

39
Washington Wizards[c]
1979
Lost vs. Seattle
[21]

29
Minnesota Timberwolves
Never
yyyy—
[26]

28
Charlotte Hornets
Never
yyyy—
[12]

26
Portland Trail Blazers
1992
Lost vs. Chicago
[23]

25
Phoenix Suns
1993
Lost vs. Chicago
[6]

23
Toronto Raptors
Never
yyyy—
[28]

23
Houston Rockets
1995
Won vs. Orlando
[32]

23
Memphis Grizzlies
Never
yyyy—
[16]

20
Utah Jazz
1998
Lost vs. Chicago
[30]

20
Chicago Bulls
1998
Won vs. Utah
[15]

19
New York Knicks
1999
Lost vs. San Antonio
[10]

18
Indiana Pacers
2000
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[19]

17
Philadelphia 76ers
2001
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[27]

16
New Orleans Pelicans
Never
yyyy—
[29]

15
Brooklyn Nets[d]
2003
Lost vs. San Antonio
[11]

13
Detroit Pistons
2005
Lost vs. San Antonio
[13]

9
Orlando Magic
2009
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[7]

8
Boston Celtics
2010
Lost vs. Los Angeles Lakers
[31]

8
Los Angeles Lakers
2010
Won vs. Boston
[8]

7
Dallas Mavericks
2011
Won vs. Miami
[14]

6
Oklahoma City Thunder
2012
Lost vs. Miami
[24]

4
Miami Heat
2014.5 2014
Lost vs. San Antonio
[20]

4
San Antonio Spurs
2014.52014
Won vs. Miami
[25]

0
Z2018 Finalists
2017.5
zzz

0
Cleveland Cavaliers
2018
TBD
[34]

0
Golden State Warriors
2018
TBD
[33]

text:
a The Sacramento Kings last appeared in the 1951 NBA Finals as the Rochester Royals.
b The Atlanta Hawks last appeared in the 1961 NBA Finals as the St. Louis Hawks.
c The Washington Wizards last appeared in the 1979 Conference Finals and NBA Finals as the Washington Bullets.
d The Brooklyn Nets last appeared in the 2003 Conference Finals and NBA Finals as the New Jersey Nets.

tag: ul

text: NBA championship title droughts[edit]

text:
Seasons
Team
Last NBA championship
Reference

68
Sacramento Kings[a]
1951
[5]

61
Atlanta Hawks[b]
1958
[17]

50
Phoenix Suns
Never
[6]

48
Los Angeles Clippers
Never
[18]

47
Milwaukee Bucks
1971
[22]

45
New York Knicks
1973
[10]

44
Utah Jazz
Never
[30]

42
Denver Nuggets
Never
[9]

42
Brooklyn Nets
Never
[11]

42
Indiana Pacers
Never
[19]

41
Portland Trail Blazers
1977
[23]

40
Washington Wizards[c]
1978
[21]

39
Oklahoma City Thunder[d]
1979
[24]

35
Philadelphia 76ers
1983
[27]

29
Orlando Magic
Never
[7]

29
Minnesota Timberwolves
Never
[26]

28
Charlotte Hornets
Never
[12]

23
Houston Rockets
1995
[32]

23
Memphis Grizzlies
Never
[16]

23
Toronto Raptors
Never
[28]

20
Chicago Bulls
1998
[15]

16
New Orleans Pelicans
Never
[29]

14
Detroit Pistons
2004
[13]

10
Boston Celtics
2008
[31]

8
Los Angeles Lakers
2010
[8]

7
Dallas Mavericks
2011
[14]

5
Miami Heat
2013
[20]

4
San Antonio Spurs
2014
[25]

2
Cleveland Cavaliers
2016
[34]

Defending NBA champion

0
Golden State Warriors
2017
[33]

text:
a The Sacramento Kings last won an NBA championship in 1951 as the Rochester Royals.
b The Atlanta Hawks last won an NBA championship in 1958 as the St. Louis Hawks.
c The Washington Wizards last won an NBA championship in 1978 as the Washington Bullets.
d The Oklahoma City Thunder last won an NBA championship in 1979 as the Seattle SuperSonics.

text: All-time droughts[edit]

text: Closest approaches without winning[edit]

text: Updated through the 2018 playoffs.

text:
Last team to leave list - Cleveland Cavaliers 2016

Team
Conference Quarter-Final appearances
Conference Semi-Final appearances
Conference Final appearances
NBA Final appearances
Fewest wins short of NBA Championship

Brooklyn Nets
19
7
2
2
02 wins short : 2003

Indiana Pacers
25
10
8
1
02 wins short : 2000

Phoenix Suns
26
18
9
2
02 wins short : 1976, 1993

Utah Jazz
27
16
6
2
02 wins short : 1997, 1998

Orlando Magic
14
5
4
2
03 wins short : 2009

Toronto Raptors
10
4
1

6 wins short : 2016

Minnesota Timberwolves
9
1
1

06 wins short : 2004

Denver Nuggets
22
8
3

06 wins short : 1978, 2009

Memphis Grizzlies
10
3
1

08 wins short : 2013

Los Angeles Clippers
11
7

9 wins short : 1975, 2006, 2015

New Orleans Pelicans
7
2

9 wins short : 2008

Charlotte Hornets
10
4

11 wins short : 2002

text: Longest post-season droughts in team history[edit]

text: Updated through the 2018 playoffs.

text:
0^0
Denotes active drought

text:
Team
Longest streak with
no post-season appearances
Seasons

Los Angeles Clippers
1976–77 through 1990–91
15

Minnesota Timberwolves
2004–05 through 2016–17
13

Golden State Warriors
1994–95 through 2005–06
12

Sacramento Kings ^
2006–07 through 2017–18
12

Dallas Mavericks
1990–91 through 1999–2000
10

Utah Jazz
1974–75 through 1982–83
9

Washington Wizards
1988–89 through 1995–96
8

Memphis Grizzlies
1995–96 through 2002–03
8

Denver Nuggets
1995–96 through 2002–03
8

Atlanta Hawks
1999–2000 through 2006–07
8

Phoenix Suns ^
2010–11 through 2017–18
8

New York Knicks
1959–60 through 1965–66
7

Oklahoma City Thunder
1967–68 through 1973–74
7

Milwaukee Bucks
1991–92 through 1997–98
7

Philadelphia 76ers
1991–92 through 1997–98
7

Cleveland Cavaliers
1998–99 through 2004–05
7

Portland Trail Blazers
1970–71 through 1975–76
6

Detroit Pistons
1977–78 through 1982–83
2009–10 through 2014–15
6

Boston Celtics
1995–96 through 2000–01
6

Chicago Bulls
1998–99 through 2003–04
6

Orlando Magic ^
2012–13 through 2017–18
6

Houston Rockets
1969–70 through 1973–74
5

Indiana Pacers
1981–82 through 1985–86
5

Brooklyn Nets
1986–87 through 1990–91 &
2007–08 through 2011–12
5

Charlotte Hornets
2004–05 through 2008–09
5

Toronto Raptors
2008–09 through 2012–13
5

Los Angeles Lakers ^
2013–14 through 2017–18
5

Miami Heat
1988–89 through 1990–91
3

New Orleans Pelicans
2004–05 through 2006–07
2011–12 through 2013–14
3

San Antonio Spurs
1983–84
1986–87
1988–89
1996–97
1

Team
Longest streak with
no post-season series wins
Seasons

Los Angeles Clippers
1976–77 through 2004–05
29

Washington Wizards
1982–83 through 2003–04
22

Sacramento Kings
1981–82 through 1999–2000
19

Indiana Pacers
1976–77 through 1992–93
17

Brooklyn Nets
1984–85 through 2000–01
17

Milwaukee Bucks ^
2001–02 through 2017–18
17

New York Knicks
1953–54 through 1967–68
15

Cleveland Cavaliers
1976–77 through 1990–91
15

Golden State Warriors
1991–92 through 2005–06
15

Memphis Grizzlies
1995–96 through 2009–10
15

Minnesota Timberwolves
1989–90 through 2002–03
14

Denver Nuggets
1994–95 through 2007–08
14

Toronto Raptors
2001–02 through 2014–15
14

Charlotte Hornets ^
2004–05 through 2017–18
14

Detroit Pistons
1962–63 through 1974–75
13

Portland Trail Blazers
2000–01 through 2012–13
13

Dallas Mavericks
1988–89 through 1999–2000
12

Orlando Magic
1996–97 through 2006–07
11

Houston Rockets
1997–98 through 2007–08
11

Utah Jazz
1974–75 through 1982–83
9

Boston Celtics
1992–93 through 2000–01
9

Atlanta Hawks
1999–2000 through 2007–08
9

New Orleans Pelicans
2008–09 through 2016–17
9

Philadelphia 76ers
1968–69 through 1975–76 &
2003–04 through 2010–11
8

Miami Heat
1988–89 through 1995–96
8

Chicago Bulls
1998–99 through 2005–06
8

Phoenix Suns
2010–11 through 2017–18
8

Oklahoma City Thunder
1967–68 through 1973–74
7

San Antonio Spurs
1983–84 through 1988–89
6

Los Angeles Lakers ^
2012–13 through 2017–18
6

text: Longest NBA Playoffs appearance droughts[edit]

text:
^
Denotes active drought

text:
Streak
Team
NBA Playoffs
appearance droughts
Reference

7001150000000000000♠15 seasons
Los Angeles Clippers[a]
1977–1991
[18]

7001130000000000000♠13 seasons
Minnesota TimberwolvesMinnesota Timberwolves
2005–2017
[26]

7001120000000000000♠12 seasons
Golden State Warriors
1995–2006
[33]

7001120000000000000♠12 seasons
Sacramento Kings ^
2007–2018
[5]

7001100000000000000♠10 seasons
Dallas Mavericks
1991–2000
[14]

7000900000000000000♠9 seasons
Utah Jazz[b]
1975–1983
[30]

7000900000000000000♠9 seasons
Golden State Warriors
1978–1986
[33]

7000900000000000000♠9 seasons
Sacramento Kings
1987–1995
[5]

7000800000000000000♠8 seasons
Washington Bullets
1989–1996
[21]

7000800000000000000♠8 seasons
Denver Nuggets
1996–2003
[9]

7000800000000000000♠8 seasons
Memphis Grizzlies[c]
1996–2003
[16]

7000800000000000000♠8 seasons
Los Angeles Clippers
1998–2005
[18]

7000800000000000000♠8 seasons
Atlanta Hawks
2000–2007
[17]

7000800000000000000♠8 seasons
Phoenix Suns
2011–2018
[6]

text:
a Streak included Buffalo Braves 1977–78 seasons, and San Diego Clippers 1979–84 seasons.
b Streak included New Orleans Jazz 1975–79 seasons.
c Streak included Vancouver Grizzlies 1996–2001 seasons.

text: Longest Conference finals droughts[edit]

text:
^
Denotes active drought

†
Year the team joined the NBA

text:
Seasons
Team
NBA Conference Finals
appearance droughts
Subsequent appearance
in Conference Finals
Reference

48
Los Angeles Clippers ^ [a]
001971 †0– 2018
Active drought
[18]

44
Atlanta Hawks
1971 – 2014
2015
[17]

38
Golden State Warriors
1977 – 2014
2015
[33]

39
Washington Wizards ^[b]
1980 – 2018
Active drought
[21]

28
Charlotte Hornets ^ [c]
001989 †0– 2018
Active drought
[12]

25
New Jersey Nets [d]
001977 †0– 2001
2002
[11]

23
Denver Nuggets
1986 – 2008
2009
[9]

20
Toronto Raptors
01996 † – 2015
2016
[28]

20
Sacramento Kings [e]
1982 – 2001
2002
[5]

text:
a Streak includes seasons as Buffalo Braves and San Diego Clippers.
b Team last qualified for the Conference Finals as Washington Bullets.
c Franchise inactive for two seasons between 2002 and 2004.
d Current Brooklyn Nets; includes one season as New York Nets.
e Includes four seasons as Kansas City Kings.

text: Finals droughts[edit]

text: NBA Finals in which neither team had previously won a championship[edit]

text: In these instances, the matchup ensured that one team would win the first NBA championship in its history.

text:
0*0
Both Teams in 1st NBA Finals appearance

text:
Season
Won
Lost
Number of years till
drought ended

2006*
Miami Heat
Dallas Mavericks
5

1978
Washington Bullets
Seattle SuperSonics (OKC)
1

1971*
Milwaukee Bucks
Baltimore Bullets (WSH)
7

1957*
Boston Celtics
St. Louis Hawks (ATL)
1

1955
Syracuse Nationals (PHI)
Fort Wayne Pistons (DET)^
34

1951*
Rochester Royals (SAC)^
New York Knicks
19

1949*
Minneapolis Lakers (LAL)^
Washington Capitols†
defunct 2 years later

1947*
Philadelphia Warriors (GSW)
Chicago Stags†
defunct 3 years later

text:
^- Team had previously appeared in the National Basketball League finals before said league was merged for the NBA's formation.
†- Defunct franchise.
Abbreviation in parentheses – Current location of NBA franchise.

text: NBA Finals in which neither franchise had won a championship in 20-plus seasons[edit]

text: Teams that had never won the NBA championship are included, even if they were less than 20 seasons old at the time.

text:
Season
Won
Drought (seasons)
Lost
Drought (seasons)

2015
Golden State Warriors
39
Cleveland Cavaliers
44*

2006
Miami Heat
17*
Dallas Mavericks
25*

1999
San Antonio Spurs
22*
New York Knicks
25

1994
Houston Rockets
26*
New York Knicks
20

1978
Washington Bullets
16*
Seattle SuperSonics
10*

1971
Milwaukee Bucks
2*
Baltimore Bullets
9*

1957
Boston Celtics
10*
St. Louis Hawks
7*

1955
Syracuse Nationals
5*
Fort Wayne Pistons
6*

1951
Rochester Royals
2*
New York Knicks
4*

1949*
Minneapolis Lakers
0*
Washington Capitols
2*

1947
Philadelphia Warriors
0*
Chicago Stags
0*

text: Numbers marked with * indicates that the number is counted from either the franchise's first year in the NBA or the first year of the league (1946, then known as the BAA).

text: Teams awaiting their first NBA championship[edit]

text: This list includes teams within the current NBA that have never won an NBA championship—sorted by the number of seasons played in the NBA.

text:
Last team to leave list: Cleveland, 2016

Total seasons
(NBA)
Franchise
Last NBA Finals
appearance

7001500000000000000♠50 seasons
Phoenix Suns (1969–2018)
1993

7001480000000000000♠48 seasons
Los Angeles Clippers§ (1971–2018)
—

7001440000000000000♠44 seasons
Utah Jazz§ (1975–2018)
1998

7001420000000000000♠42 seasons
Denver Nuggets (1977–2018)
—

7001420000000000000♠42 seasons
Indiana Pacers‡ (1977–2018)
2000

7001420000000000000♠42 seasons
Brooklyn Nets§‡ (1977–2018)
2003

7001290000000000000♠29 seasons
Minnesota Timberwolves (1990–2018)
—

7001290000000000000♠29 seasons
Orlando Magic (1990–2018)
2009

7001280000000000000♠28 seasons
Charlotte Hornets† (1989–2002; 2005–2018)
—

7001230000000000000♠23 seasons
Toronto Raptors (1996–2018)
—

7001230000000000000♠23 seasons
Memphis Grizzlies§ (1996–2018)
—

7001160000000000000♠16 seasons
New Orleans Pelicans† (2003–2018)
—

text:
§ NBA teams that have relocated from their original city(s).
† NBA teams that have re-branded to/from their original concept.
‡ NBA teams that have won an ABA championship.

text: Cities awaiting first NBA championship[edit]

text: Listed according to seasons waited. Current NBA cities/regions only.

text:
Last city to leave list: Cleveland, 2016

City
Seasons waited
Conference Title(s)
NBA Team(s)

Phoenix
50
1976, 1993
Phoenix Suns (1969–present)

Atlanta
50
None
Atlanta Hawks (1969–present)

Denver
42
None
Denver Nuggets (1977–present)

Indianapolis
42
2000
Indiana Pacers (1977–present)

Salt Lake City
39
1997, 1998
Utah Jazz (1980–present)

Sacramento
33
None
Sacramento Kings (1986–present)

Orlando
29
1995, 2009
Orlando Magic (1990–present)

Charlotte
28
None
Charlotte Hornets (1989–2002; 2015–present)
Charlotte Bobcats (2005–2014)

Toronto
24
None
1 Toronto Huskies season (1947)
23 Toronto Raptors seasons (1996–present)

New Orleans
21
None
New Orleans Jazz (1974-1979)
New Orleans Hornets (2003–2013)
New Orleans Pelicans (2014–present)

Memphis
17
None
Memphis Grizzlies (2002–present)

Oklahoma City
12
2012
2 New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets seasons (2006–2007)
10 Oklahoma City Thunder seasons (2008–present)


document_title: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

question_text: who has final authority of interpretation of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms

text: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

text: Features[edit]

text:
Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms

Part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Preamble

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1

Fundamental Freedoms

2

Democratic Rights

3, 4, 5

Mobility Rights

6

Legal Rights

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Equality Rights

15

Official Languages of Canada

16, 16.1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Minority Language Education Rights

23

Enforcement

24

General

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

Application of Charter

32, 33

Citation

34

v
t
e

text: Under the Charter, people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person (the Charter does not define the corporation as a "legal person"),[3] but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to citizens of Canada. The rights are enforceable by the courts through section 24 of the Charter, which allows courts discretion to award remedies to those whose rights have been denied. This section also allows courts to exclude evidence in trials if the evidence was acquired in a way that conflicts with the Charter and might damage the reputation of the justice system. Section 32 confirms that the Charter is binding on the federal government, the territories under its authority, and the provincial governments. The rights and freedoms enshrined in 34 sections of the Charter include:

text: Exceptions[edit]

text: Precluding all the freedoms and forming the basis of the Charter, the very first section, known as limitations clause, allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights. Every case in which a court discovers a violation of the Charter would therefore require a section 1 analysis to determine if the law can still be upheld. Infringements are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified." Section 1 has thus been used to uphold laws against objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R. v. Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R. v. Butler). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed.

text: In addition, some of these rights are also subjected to the notwithstanding clause (section 33). The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, and some have speculated that its use would be politically costly.[4] In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec (which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless). The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage,[5] respectively. (Note that Alberta's use of the notwithstanding clause is of no force or effect, since the definition of marriage is federal not provincial jurisdiction.)[6] The territory of Yukon also passed legislation once that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.[7]

text: Fundamental freedoms[edit]

text: Democratic rights[edit]

text: Generally, the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic form of government are protected:

text: Mobility rights[edit]

text: Legal rights[edit]

text: Rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected, namely:

text: Equality rights[edit]

text: Language rights[edit]

text: Generally, people have the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada's federal government and certain provincial governments. Specifically, the language laws in the Charter include:

text: Minority language education rights[edit]

text: Other sections[edit]

text: Various provisions help to clarify how the Charter works in practice. These include,

text: Finally, Section 34: states that Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, containing the first 34 sections of the Act, may be collectively referred to as the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

text: History[edit]

text: Many of the rights and freedoms that are protected under the Charter, including the rights to freedom of speech, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence,[8] have their roots in a set of Canadian laws and legal precedents[9] sometimes known as the Implied Bill of Rights. Many of these rights were also included in the Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Canadian Parliament enacted in 1960. However, the Canadian Bill of Rights had a number of shortcomings. Unlike the Charter, it was an ordinary Act of Parliament, which could be amended by a simple majority of Parliament, and it was applicable only to the federal government. The courts also chose to interpret the Bill of Rights conservatively, only on rare occasions applying it to find a contrary law inoperative. The Bill of Rights did not contain all of the rights that are now included in the Charter, omitting, for instance, the right to vote[10] and freedom of movement within Canada.[11]

text: The centennial of Canadian Confederation in 1967 aroused greater interest within the government in constitutional reform. Said reforms would include improving safeguards of rights, as well as patriation of the Constitution, meaning the British Parliament would no longer have to approve constitutional amendments. Subsequently, Attorney General Pierre Trudeau appointed law professor Barry Strayer to research a potential bill of rights. While writing his report, Strayer consulted with a number of notable legal scholars, including Walter Tarnopolsky. Strayer's report advocated a number of ideas that were later incorporated into the Charter, including protection for language rights. Strayer also advocated excluding economic rights. Finally, he recommended allowing for limits on rights. Such limits are included in the Charter's limitation and notwithstanding clauses.[12] In 1968, Strayer was made the Director of the Constitutional Law Division of the Privy Council Office and in 1974, he became Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice. During those years, Strayer played a role in writing the bill that was ultimately adopted.

text: Meanwhile, Trudeau, who had become Liberal leader and prime minister in 1968, still very much wanted a constitutional bill of rights. The federal government and the provinces discussed creating one during negotiations for patriation, which resulted in the Victoria Charter in 1971. This never came to be implemented. However, Trudeau continued with his efforts to patriate the Constitution, and promised constitutional change during the 1980 Quebec referendum. He would succeed in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act 1982. This enacted the Constitution Act, 1982.

text: The inclusion of a charter of rights in the Constitution Act was a much-debated issue. Trudeau spoke on television in October 1980,[13] and announced his intention to constitutionalize a bill of rights that would include fundamental freedoms, democratic guarantees, freedom of movement, legal rights, equality and language rights.[14] He did not want a notwithstanding clause. While his proposal gained popular support,[15] provincial leaders opposed the potential limits on their powers. The federal Progressive Conservative opposition feared liberal bias among judges, should courts be called upon to enforce rights.[16] Additionally, the British Parliament cited their right to uphold Canada's old form of government.[17] At a suggestion of the Conservatives, Trudeau's government thus agreed to a committee of Senators and MPs to further examine the bill of rights as well as the patriation plan. During this time, 90 hours were spent on the bill of rights alone, all filmed for television,[15] while civil rights experts and advocacy groups put forward their perceptions on the Charter's flaws and omissions and how to remedy them.[15] As Canada had a parliamentary system of government, and as judges were perceived not to have enforced rights well in the past, it was questioned whether the courts should be named as the enforcers of the Charter, as Trudeau wanted. Conservatives argued that elected politicians should be trusted instead. It was eventually decided that the responsibility should go to the courts. At the urging of civil libertarians, judges could even now exclude evidence in trials if acquired in breach of Charter rights in certain circumstances, something the Charter was not originally going to provide for. As the process continued, more features were added to the Charter, including equality rights for people with disabilities, more sex equality guarantees and recognition of Canada's multiculturalism. The limitations clause was also reworded to focus less on the importance of parliamentary government and more on justifiability of limits in free societies; the latter logic was more in line with rights developments around the world after World War II.[18]

text: In its decision in the Patriation Reference (1981), the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled there was a tradition that some provincial approval should be sought for constitutional reform. As the provinces still had doubts about the Charter's merits, Trudeau was forced to accept the notwithstanding clause to allow governments to opt out of certain obligations. The notwithstanding clause was accepted as part of a deal called the Kitchen Accord, negotiated by the federal Attorney General Jean Chrétien, Ontario's justice minister Roy McMurtry and Saskatchewan's justice minister Roy Romanow. Pressure from provincial governments (which in Canada have jurisdiction over property) and from the country's left wing, especially the New Democratic Party, also prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property.[19]

text: Nevertheless, Quebec did not support the Charter (or the Canada Act 1982), with "conflicting interpretations" as to why. The opposition could have owed to the Parti Québécois leadership being allegedly uncooperative, because it was more committed to gaining sovereignty for Quebec. It could have owed to Quebec leaders being excluded from the negotiation of the Kitchen Accord, which they saw as being too centralist. It could have owed to provincial leaders' objections to the Accord's provisions relating to the process of future constitutional amendment.[20] They also opposed the inclusion of mobility rights and minority language education rights.[21] The Charter is still applicable in Quebec because all provinces are bound by the Constitution. However, Quebec's opposition to the 1982 patriation package has led to two failed attempts to amend the Constitution (the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord) which were designed primarily to obtain Quebec's political approval of the Canadian constitutional order.

text: While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985 that the main provisions regarding equality rights (section 15) came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review pre-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.

text: The typography of the physical document pictured here, and still distributed today, was typeset by Ottawa's David Berman intentionally in Carl Dair's Cartier typeface: at the time the most prominent Canadian typeface, having been commissioned by the Governor-General as a celebration of Canada's centenary in 1967.

text: The Charter has been amended since its enactment. Section 25 was amended in 1983 to explicitly recognize more rights regarding Aboriginal land claims, and section 16.1 was added in 1993. There have also been a number of unsuccessful attempts to amend the Charter, including the failed Charlottetown Accord of 1992. The Charlottetown Accord would have specifically required the Charter to be interpreted in a manner respectful of Quebec's distinct society, and would have added further statements to the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding racial and sexual equality and collective rights, and about minority language communities. Though the Accord was negotiated among many interest groups, the resulting provisions were so vague that Trudeau, then out of office, feared they would actually conflict with and undermine the Charter's individual rights. He felt judicial review of the rights might be undermined if courts had to favour the policies of provincial governments, as governments would be given responsibility over linguistic minorities. Trudeau thus played a prominent role in leading the popular opposition to the Accord.[22]

text: Interpretation and enforcement[edit]

text: The task of interpreting and enforcing the Charter falls to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate authority on the matter.

text: With the Charter's supremacy confirmed by section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts continued their practice of striking down unconstitutional statutes or parts of statutes as they had with earlier case law regarding federalism. However, under section 24 of the Charter, courts also gained new powers to enforce creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials. Courts have since made many important decisions, including R. v. Morgentaler (1988), which struck down Canada's abortion law, and Vriend v. Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court found the province's exclusion of homosexuals from protection against discrimination violated section 15. In the latter case, the Court then read the protection into the law.

text: Courts may receive Charter questions in a number of ways. Rights claimants could be prosecuted under a criminal law that they argue is unconstitutional. Others may feel government services and policies are not being dispensed in accordance with the Charter, and apply to lower-level courts for injunctions against the government (as was the case in Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)). A government may also raise questions of rights by submitting reference questions to higher-level courts; for example, Prime Minister Paul Martin's government approached the Supreme Court with Charter questions as well as federalism concerns in the case Re Same-Sex Marriage (2004). Provinces may also do this with their superior courts. The government of Prince Edward Island initiated the Provincial Judges Reference by asking its provincial Supreme Court a question on judicial independence under section 11.

text: In several important cases, judges developed various tests and precedents for interpreting specific provisions of the Charter. These include the Oakes test for section 1, set out in the case R. v. Oakes (1986), and the (now defunct[23]) Law test for section 15, developed in Law v. Canada (1999). Since Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985), various approaches to defining and expanding the scope of fundamental justice (the Canadian name for natural justice or due process) under section 7 have been adopted. (For more information, see the articles on each Charter section).

text: In general, courts have embraced a purposive interpretation of Charter rights.[24] This means that since early cases like Hunter v. Southam (1984) and R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), they have concentrated not on the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the Charter was adopted in 1982, but rather on changing the scope of rights as appropriate to fit their broader purpose.[24] This is tied to the generous interpretation of rights, as the purpose of the Charter provisions is assumed to be to increase rights and freedoms of people in a variety of circumstances, at the expense of the government powers.[24] Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has approved of the generous approach in some cases, although for others he argues the purpose of the provisions was not to achieve a set of rights as broad as courts have imagined.[24] Indeed, this approach has not been without its critics. Alberta politician Ted Morton and political scientist Rainer Knopff have been very critical of this phenomenon. Although they feel the basis for the approach, the living tree doctrine (the classical name for generous interpretations of the Canadian Constitution), is sound, they argue Charter case law has been more radical. When the living tree doctrine is applied right, the authors claim, "The elm remained an elm; it grew new branches but did not transform itself into an oak or a willow." The doctrine can be used, for example, so a right is upheld even when a government threatens to violate it with new technology, as long as the essential right remains the same; but the authors claim that the courts have used the doctrine to "create new rights." As an example, the authors note that the Charter right against self-incrimination has been extended to cover scenarios in the justice system that had previously been unregulated by self-incrimination rights in other Canadian laws.[25]

text: Another general approach to interpreting Charter rights is to consider international legal precedents with countries that have specific rights protections, such as the United States Bill of Rights (an influence on aspects of the Charter) and the Constitution of South Africa. However, international precedent is only of guiding value, and is not binding. For example, the Supreme Court has referred to the Charter and the American Bill of Rights as being "born to different countries in different ages and in different circumstances."[26]

text: Public interest groups frequently intervene in cases to make arguments on how to interpret the Charter. Some examples are the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), and REAL Women of Canada. The purpose of such interventions is to assist the court and to attempt to influence the court to render a decision favourable to the legal interests of the group.

text: A further approach to the Charter, taken by the courts, is the dialogue principle, which involves greater participation by elected governments. This approach involves governments drafting legislation in response to court rulings and courts acknowledging the effort if the new legislation is challenged.

text: Comparisons with other human rights documents[edit]

text: Some Canadian Members of Parliament saw the movement to entrench a charter as contrary to the British model of Parliamentary supremacy. Others would say that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has now limited British parliamentary power to a greater degree than the Canadian Charter limited the power of the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures. Hogg has speculated that the British adopted the Human Rights Act 1998, which allows the ECHR to be enforced directly in domestic courts, partly because they were inspired by the similar Canadian Charter.[27]

text: The Canadian Charter bears a number of similarities to the European Convention, specifically in relation to the limitations clauses contained in the European document.[28] Because of this similarity with European human rights law, the Supreme Court of Canada turns not only to the Constitution of the United States case law in interpreting the Charter, but also to European Court of Human Rights cases.

text: The core distinction between the United States Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter is the existence of the limitations and notwithstanding clauses. Canadian courts have consequently interpreted each right more expansively.[29] However, due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right.[29] In contrast, rights under the US Bill of Rights are absolute and so a violation will not be found until there has been sufficient encroachment on those rights. The sum effect is that both constitutions provide comparable protection of many rights.[29] Fundamental justice (in section 7 of the Canadian Charter) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than due process, which is its US equivalent. Freedom of expression in section 2 also has a more wide-ranging scope than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's freedom of speech.[29] In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1986), the Canadian Supreme Court considered picketing of the kind the US First Amendment did not permit, as it was disruptive conduct (though there was some speech involved that the First Amendment might otherwise protect). The Supreme Court, however, ruled the picketing, including the disruptive conduct, were fully protected under section 2 of the Charter. The Court then relied on section 1 to find the injunction against the picketing was just.[30] The limitations clause has also allowed governments to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional in the US. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld some of Quebec's limits on the use of English on signs and has upheld publication bans that prohibit media from mentioning the names of juvenile criminals.

text: Section 28 of the Charter performs a function similar to that of the unratified Equal Rights Amendment in the US. While that proposed amendment had many critics, there was no comparable opposition to the Charter's section 28.[31] Still, Canadian feminists had to stage large protests to demonstrate support for the inclusion of the section which had not been part of the original draft of the charter.[32][33]

text: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has several parallels with the Canadian Charter, but in some cases the Covenant goes further with regard to rights in its text. For example, a right to legal aid has been read into section 10 of the Charter (the right to counsel), but the Covenant explicitly guarantees the accused need not pay "if he does not have sufficient means."[34]

text: The Canadian Charter has little to say, explicitly at least, about economic and social rights. On this point, it stands in marked contrast with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are some who feel economic rights ought to be read into section 7 rights to security of the person and section 15 equality rights to make the Charter similar to the Covenant.[32] The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent standard of living and can help the civil rights flourish in a livable environment.[32] Canadian courts, however, have been hesitant in this area, stating that economic rights are political questions and adding that as positive rights, economic rights are of questionable legitimacy.[32]

text: The Charter itself influenced the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa.[32] The limitations clause under section 36 of the South African law has been compared to section 1 of that Charter.[28]

text: Jamaica's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms was also influenced, in part, by the Canadian charter.[35][36]

text: The Charter and national values[edit]

text: The Charter was intended to be a source for Canadian values and national unity. As Professor Alan Cairns noted, "The initial federal government premise was on developing a pan-Canadian identity."[27] Trudeau himself later wrote in his Memoirs that "Canada itself" could now be defined as a "society where all people are equal and where they share some fundamental values based upon freedom", and that all Canadians could identify with the values of liberty and equality.[37]

text: The Charter's unifying purpose was particularly important to the mobility and language rights. According to author Rand Dyck, some scholars believe section 23, with its minority language education rights, "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned".[38] Through the mobility and language rights, French Canadians, who have been at the centre of unity debates, are able to travel throughout all Canada and receive government and educational services in their own language. Hence, they are not confined to Quebec (the only province where they form the majority and where most of their population is based), which would polarize the country along regional lines. The Charter was also supposed to standardize previously diverse laws throughout the country and gear them towards a single principle of liberty.[39]

text: Former premier of Ontario Bob Rae has stated that the Charter "functions as a symbol for all Canadians" in practice because it represents the core value of freedom.[27] Academic Peter Russell has been more skeptical of the Charter's value in this field. Cairns, who feels the Charter is the most important constitutional document to many Canadians, and that the Charter was meant to shape the Canadian identity, has also expressed concern that groups within society see certain provisions as belonging to them alone rather than to all Canadians.[27] It has also been noted that issues like abortion and pornography, raised by the Charter, tend to be controversial.[39] Still, opinion polls in 2002 showed Canadians felt the Charter significantly represented Canada, although many were unaware of the document's actual contents.[40]

text: The only values mentioned by the Charter's preamble are recognition for the supremacy of God and the rule of law, but these have been controversial and of minor legal consequence. In 1999, MP Svend Robinson brought forward a failed proposal before the Canadian House of Commons that would have amended the Charter by removing the mention of God, as he felt it did not reflect Canada's diversity.

text: Section 27 also recognizes a value of multiculturalism. In 2002, polls found 86% of Canadians approved of this section.[41]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: While the Charter has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, with 82% of Canadians describing it as a good thing in opinion polls in 1987 and 1999,[27] the document has also been subject to published criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum. One left-wing critic is Professor Michael Mandel, who wrote that in comparison to politicians, judges do not have to be as sensitive to the will of the electorate, nor do they have to make sure their decisions are easily understandable to the average Canadian citizen. This, in Mandel's view, limits democracy.[42] Mandel has also asserted that the Charter makes Canada more like the United States, especially by serving corporate rights and individual rights rather than group rights and social rights.[42] He has argued that there are several things that should be included in the Charter, such as a right to health care and a basic right to free education. Hence, the perceived Americanization of Canadian politics is seen as coming at the expense of values more important for Canadians.[42] The union movement has been disappointed in the reluctance of the courts to use the Charter to support various forms of union activity, such as the "right to strike".

text: Right-wing critics Morton and Knopff have raised several concerns about the Charter, notably by alleging that the federal government has used it to limit provincial powers by allying with various rights claimants and interest groups. In their book The Charter Revolution & the Court Party, Morton and Knopff express their suspicions of this alliance in detail, accusing the Trudeau and Chrétien governments of funding litigious groups. For example, these governments used the Court Challenges Program to support minority language educational rights claims. Morton and Knopff also assert that crown counsel has intentionally lost cases in which the government was taken to court for allegedly violating rights, particularly gay rights and women's rights.[43]

text: Political scientist Rand Dyck, in observing these criticisms, notes that while judges have had their scope of review widened, they have still upheld most laws challenged on Charter grounds. With regard to litigious interest groups, Dyck points out that "the record is not as clear as Morton and Knopff imply. All such groups have experienced wins and losses."[44]

text: The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has criticized the Charter for contributing to the fragmentation of the country, at both the individual and group levels. In encouraging discourse based upon rights, the Charter is said to inject an adversarial spirit into Canadian politics, making it difficult to realize the common good. Blattberg also claims that the Charter undercuts the Canadian political community since it is ultimately a cosmopolitan document. Finally, he argues that people would be more motivated to uphold individual liberties if they were expressed with terms that are much "thicker" (less abstract) than rights.[45]


document_title: List of retired Atlantic hurricane names

question_text: when did they start naming hurricanes with male names

text: Background[edit]

text: By 1947, tropical cyclones developing in the North Atlantic Ocean were named by the United States Army Air Forces in private communications between weather centres and aircraft using the Phonetic alphabet.[1][2] This practice continued until September 1950, when the names started to be used publicly after three hurricanes (Baker, Dog, Easy) had occurred simultaneously and caused confusion within the media and the public.[1] Over the next 2 years the public use of the phonetic alphabet to name systems continued before at the 1953 Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference it was decided to start using a new list of female names during that season, as a second phonetic alphabet had been developed.[1][3][4] During the active but mild 1953 Atlantic hurricane season, the names were readily used in the press with few objections recorded; as a result, the same names were reused during the next year with only one change: Gilda for Gail. Over the next 6 years a new list of names was developed ahead of each season, before in 1960 forecasters developed four alphabetical sets and repeated them every four years.[5] These new sets followed the example of the typhoon names and excluded names beginning with the letters Q, U, X, Y, and Z, and keeping them to female names only.[5]

text: In 1955, it was decided to start retiring the names of significant tropical cyclones for 10 years after which they might be reintroduced, with the names Carol and Edna reintroduced ahead of the 1965 and 1968 hurricane seasons respectively.[1] At the 1969 Interdepartmental hurricane conference the naming lists were revised after it was decided that the names Carol, Edna and Hazel, would be permanently retired because of their importance to the research community.[1][6] It was also decided that any significant hurricane in the future would also be permanently retired.[1][6] Ahead of the 1971 Atlantic hurricane season, 10 lists of hurricane names were inaugurated, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In 1977 it was decided that the World Meteorological Organization's Hurricane Committee (WMO) would control the names used, who subsequently decided that six lists of names would be used in the Atlantic Ocean from 1979 onwards with male names included.[1] Since 1979 the same six lists have been used by the United States National Hurricane Center (NHC) to name systems, with names of significant tropical cyclones retired from the lists permanently and replaced with new names as required at the following year's hurricane committee meeting.[1]

text: At present, the name of any tropical cyclone may be retired or withdrawn from the list of names at the request of a member state, if it acquires notoriety for various reasons including the number of deaths, amount of damages or other impacts.[7] The committee subsequently discuss the proposal and either through building consensus or a majority vote decides if the name should be retired or withdrawn. In March 2017, members of the British Caribbean Territories proposed that a third retirement criterion be added: the tropical cyclone must have sustained winds of at least 96 mph (154 km/h). This came in light of the retirement of Tropical Storm Erika in 2015 which caused catastrophic flooding and mudslides in Dominica without producing sustained tropical storm-force winds on the island. No action has been taken on this proposal yet.[8]

text: Names retired in the 1950s[edit]

text: Between 1954 and 1959, eight names were deemed significant enough to be retired for 10 years due to their impact, before being permanently retired after 1969. There were no names retired after the 1956, 1958, and 1959 seasons.[7][9][10] Collectively, these storms resulted in at least 2090 fatalities and over 7009205500000000000♠$2.06 billion in damage. The deadliest hurricane was Hurricane Hazel, which killed at least 701 people, while the costliest was Hurricane Diane, which caused 7008856000000000000♠US$856 million in damage.

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Carol
540825 !August 25 –
September 1, 1954
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
955 !955 hPa (28.20 inHg)
Northeastern United States, Canada
7001600000000000000♠60
7008462000000000000♠$462 million
[11][12][13]

Edna
540902 !September 5 – 11, 1954
Category 3 hurricane
125 !125 mph (205 km/h)
943 !943 hPa (27.85 inHg)
New England, Atlantic Canada
7001210000000000000♠21
7007420000000000000♠$42 million
[14][15]

Hazel
541005 !October 5 – 15, 1954
Category 4 hurricane
130 !130 mph (210 km/h)
938 !938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
The Caribbean, Eastern United States, Canada
7002581000000000000♠581
7008381500000000000♠$382 million
[16][17][18]

Connie
550803 !August 3 – 15, 1955
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
944 !944 hPa (27.88 inHg)
Mid-Atlantic states, New England
7001250000000000000♠25
7007400000000000000♠$40 million
[11][19]

Diane
550807 !August 7 – 21, 1955
Category 2 hurricane
105 !105 mph (165 km/h)
969 !969 hPa (28.61 inHg)
Mid-Atlantic states, New England
7002184000000000000♠184
7008831000000000000♠$831 million
[11][12]

Ione
550910 !September 10 – 21, 1955
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
938 !938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
North Carolina
7000700000000000000♠7
7007880000000000000♠$88 million
[16][19]

Janet
550921 !September 21 – 30, 1955
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
914 !914 hPa (26.99 inHg)
Lesser Antilles, Central America
1,023
7007478000000000000♠$47.8 million
[19]

Audrey
570625 !June 25 – 29, 1957
Category 3 hurricane
125 !125 mph (205 km/h)
946 !946 hPa (27.94 inHg)
Southern United States
7002416000000000000♠416
7008150000000000000♠$150 million
[11][20]

8 names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
2112
7009204080000000000♠$2.04 billion

text: Names retired in the 1960s[edit]

text: In 1960, four rotating lists of names were developed to avoid having to create new lists each year, while the practice of retiring any particularly damaging storm names for 10 years continued, with 11 names deemed significant enough to be retired during the decade.[1][22] At the 1969 Hurricane Warning Conference, the National Hurricane Center requested that Carol, Edna, Hazel, and Inez be permanently retired due to their importance to the research community.[1][23] This request was subsequently accepted and led to today's practice of retiring names of significant tropical cyclones permanently.[1][6] There were no names retired after the 1962 and the 1968 seasons.[nb 2] Collectively, the 11 systems were responsible for over 9000 fatalities and in excess of 7009441000000000000♠US$4.41 billion in damage.

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Donna
600829 !August 29 –
September 14, 1960
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
930 !930 hPa (27.46 inHg)
The Caribbean, Eastern United States
7002164000000000000♠164
7008400000000000000♠$400 million
[24]

Carla
610903 !September 3 – 16, 1961
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
931 !931 hPa (27.49 inHg)
Texas, Louisiana
Midwestern United States
7001460000000000000♠46
7008408000000000000♠$408 million
[11][16]

Hattie
611027 !October 27 –
November 1, 1961
Category 5 hurricane
160 !160 mph (260 km/h)
920 hPa (27.17 inHg)
Central America
7002319000000000000♠319
7007603000000000000♠$60.3 million
[25][26]

Flora
630926 !September 26 –
October 12, 1963
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
940 !940 hPa (27.76 inHg)
The Caribbean
7003719300000000000♠7,193
7008528550000000000♠$529 million
[27]

Cleo
640820 !August 20 –
September 5, 1964
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
950 !950 hPa (28.06 inHg)
The Caribbean, Southeastern United States
7002217000000000000♠217
7008198000000000000♠$198 million
[28]

Dora
640828 !August 28 –
September 14, 1964
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
942 hPa (27.82 inHg)
Southeastern United States
7000500000000000000♠5
7008250000000000000♠$250 million
[28]

Hilda
640928 !September 28 –
October 4, 1964
Category 4 hurricane
150 !150 mph (240 km/h)
941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
Southern United States
7001380000000000000♠38
7008125000000000000♠$125 million
[11][29]

Betsy
650827 !August 27 –
September 14, 1965
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
Bahamas, Southeastern United States
7001750000000000000♠75
7009142000000000000♠$1.42 billion
[11][30]

Inez
660921 !September 21 –
October 11, 1966
Category 4 hurricane
150 !150 mph (240 km/h)
929 hPa (27.43 inHg)
The Caribbean, Florida, Mexico
7002710000000000000♠710
7008615500000000000♠$616 million
[31]

Beulah
670905 !September 5 – 22, 1967
Category 5 hurricane
160 !160 mph (260 km/h)
921 hPa (27.20 inHg)
The Caribbean, Mexico, Texas
7001590000000000000♠59
7008207650000000000♠$208 million
[32]

Camille
690814 !August 14 – 22, 1969
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
900 hPa (26.58 inHg)
Cuba, United States Gulf Coast
7002256000000000000♠256
7009142000000000000♠$1.42 billion
[11][30][33]

11 names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
9082
7009441080000000000♠$4.41 billion

text: Names retired in the 1970s[edit]

text: Starting in 1979, the World Meteorological Organization began assigning both male and female names to tropical cyclones.[1] This decade featured hurricanes David and Frederic, the first male Atlantic hurricane names to be retired. During this decade, 9 storms were deemed significant enough to have their names retired. Together these 9 systems caused at least 7009940800000000000♠$9.41 billion in damage, while more than 10,500 people lost their lives. No names were retired by the Hurricane Committee after the 1971, 1973, or 1976 seasons.

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Celia
700731 !July 31 – August 5, 1970
Category 3 hurricane
125 !125 mph (205 km/h)
945 !945 hPa (27.91 inHg)
Cuba, United States Gulf Coast
7001200000000000000♠20
7008930000000000000♠$930 million
[34][35]

Agnes
720614 !June 14 – 23, 1972
Category 1 hurricane
085 !85 mph (140 km/h)
977 !977 hPa (28.85 inHg)
Mexico, Cuba, Eastern United States
7002124000000000000♠124
7009210000000000000♠$2.1 billion
[30][36]

Carmen
740829 !August 29 – September 10, 1974
Category 4 hurricane
150 !150 mph (240 km/h)
928 !928 hPa (27.40 inHg)
Central America, Mexico
United States Gulf Coast
7000800000000000000♠8
7008162000000000000♠$162 million
[37][38]

Fifi
740914 !September 14 – 24, 1974
Category 2 hurricane
110 !110 mph (180 km/h)
971 !971 hPa (28.67 inHg)
Jamaica, Central America, Mexico
7003820000000000000♠8,200
7009180000000000000♠$1.8 billion
[39][40]

Eloise
750913 !September 13 – 24, 1975
Category 3 hurricane
125 !125 mph (205 km/h)
955 !955 hPa (28.20 inHg)
The Caribbean, Yucatán Peninsula, Florida
7001800000000000000♠80
7008550000000000000♠$550 million
[41]

Anita
770829 !August 29 – September 4, 1977
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
926 !926 hPa (27.34 inHg)
Mexico
7001100000000000000♠10
7000100000000000000♠ Extensive
[42]

Greta
780913 !September 13 – 23, 1978
Category 4 hurricane
130 !130 mph (215 km/h)
947 !947 hPa (27.96 inHg
The Caribbean, Central America, Mexico
7000500000000000000♠5
7007260000000000000♠$26 million
[nb 4][43]

David
790825 !August 25 – September 8, 1979
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
924 !924 hPa (27.29 inHg)
The Caribbean, United States East coast
7003206800000000000♠2,068
7009154000000000000♠$1.54 billion
[43][44]

Frederic
790829 !August 29 – September 15, 1979
Category 4 hurricane
130 !130 mph (215 km/h)
943 !943 hPa (27.85 inHg)
The Caribbean, Southeastern United States
7001120000000000000♠12
7009230000000000000♠$2.3 billion
[44]

9 names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
>7004105270000000000♠10,527
7009940800000000000♠$9.41 billion

text: Names retired in the 1980s[edit]

text: After control of the naming scheme was turned over to the World Meteorological Organization's Hurricane Committee during the mid-1970s, the 1980s marked the least prolific decade in terms of the number of retired storms with 7 names warranting removal. Between them the 7 systems caused over 7010208876000000000♠$20.9 billion in damage while over 893 people lost their lives. Hurricane Gilbert was the most intense tropical cyclone during the decade by pressure, with a minimum value of 888 hPa (26.22 inHg). This was the lowest recorded pressure in a North Atlantic hurricane until Hurricane Wilma surpassed it during 2005.[45] In addition, Hurricane Allen was the most intense tropical cyclone during the decade by wind speed, with maximum 1–minute sustained winds of 190 mph (305 km/h). This remains the highest sustained wind speed of any Atlantic hurricane on record.[46] No names were retired by the Hurricane Committee after the 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, or 1987 seasons, which was the most of any decade since the introduction of the practice of retiring hurricane names.

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Allen
800731 !July 31 – August 11, 1980
Category 5 hurricane
190 !190 mph (305 km/h)
899 !899 hPa (26.55 inHg)
The Caribbean, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, South Texas
7002269000000000000♠269
7009123760000000000♠$1.24 billion
[43][47][48]

Alicia
830815 !August 15 – 21, 1983
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
963 !963 hPa (28.44 inHg)
Eastern Texas, Louisiana
7001210000000000000♠21
7009200000000000000♠$2 billion
[49]

Elena
850828 !August 28 – September 4, 1985
Category 3 hurricane
125 !125 mph (205 km/h)
953 !953 hPa (28.14 inHg)
Cuba, United States Gulf Coast
9
7009125000000000000♠$1.25 billion
[50][51]

Gloria
850916 !September 16 – October 2, 1985
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
919 !919 hPa (27.14 inHg)
United States East Coast, Atlantic Canada
7000900000000000000♠9
7008900000000000000♠$900 million
[50]

Gilbert
880908 !September 8 – 19, 1988
Category 5 hurricane
185 !185 mph (295 km/h)
888 !888 hPa (26.22 inHg)
Jamaica, Venezuela, Central America, Hispaniola, Mexico
7002318000000000000♠318
7009500000000000000♠$5 billion
[35][52]

Joan
881011 !October 11 – November 2, 1988
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
932 !932 hPa (27.52 inHg)
Lesser Antilles, Colombia, Venezuela, Central America
7002216000000000000♠216
7009200000000000000♠$2 billion
[52]

Hugo
890909 !September 9 – 25, 1989
Category 5 hurricane
160 !160 mph (260 km/h)
918 !918 hPa (27.11 inHg)
The Caribbean, United States East Coast
7001560000000000000♠56
7009850000000000000♠$8.5 billion
[30][53]

7 Names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
893
7010208876000000000♠$20.9 billion

text: Names retired in the 1990s[edit]

text: During the 1990s, the Atlantic Ocean moved into its active era, which led to more tropical cyclones forming during the hurricane seasons. The decade featured Hurricane Andrew which at the time was the costliest hurricane on record, and also Hurricane Mitch which is considered to be the deadliest tropical cyclone to have its name retired killing over 11,000 people in Central America. A total of 15 names were retired in this decade, with seven of those during the 1995 and 1996 seasons. There were no names retired after the 1993, 1994 and 1997 seasons.

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Diana
900804 !August 4 – 9, 1990
Category 2 hurricane
100 !100 mph (165 km/h)
980 hPa (28.94 inHg)
Yucatán Peninsula, Central Mexico
7001960000000000000♠96
$90 million
[54]

Klaus
901003 !October 3 – 9, 1990
Category 1 hurricane
080 !80 mph (130 km/h)
985 hPa (29.09 inHg)
Lesser Antilles, The Bahamas, Southeast United States
7001110000000000000♠11
7006100000000000000♠$1 million
[54][55]

Bob
910816 !August 16 – 20, 1991
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
950 !950 hPa (28.06 inHg)
United States East Coast, Canada
7001170000000000000♠17
7009150000000000000♠$1.5 billion
[56]

Andrew
920816 !August 16 – 28, 1992
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
922 !922 hPa (27.23 inHg)
The Bahamas, Florida, United States Gulf Coast
7001650000000000000♠65
7010265000000000000♠$26.5 billion
[30][57]

Luis
950827 !August 27 – September 11, 1995
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
935 !935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico, Bermuda
7001190000000000000♠19
7009250000000000000♠$2.5 billion
[58]

Marilyn
950912 !September 12 – 22, 1995
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
949 hPa (28.02 inHg)
The Caribbean, Bermuda
7000800000000000000♠8
7009150000000000000♠$1.5 billion
[30][58]

Opal
950927 !September 27 – October 6, 1995
Category 4 hurricane
150 !150 mph (240 km/h)
916 hPa (27.05 inHg)
Guatemala, Yucatán Peninsula, Eastern United States
7001590000000000000♠59
7009510000000000000♠$5.1 billion
[59]

Roxanne
951007 !October 7 – 21, 1995
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
956 hPa (28.23 inHg)
Mexico
7001140000000000000♠14
7009150000000000000♠$1.5 billion
[58]

Cesar
960624 !July 24 – 29, 1996
Category 1 hurricane
085 !85 mph (140 km/h)
985 hPa (29.09 inHg)
Central America, Mexico
7002113000000000000♠113
7008202960000000000♠$203 million
[43][60][61][62][63]

Fran
960823 !August 23 – September 8, 1996
Category 3 hurricane
120 !120 mph (195 km/h)
946 hPa (27.94 inHg)
Eastern United States, Toronto
7001260000000000000♠26
7009416000000000000♠$4.16 billion
[11][30]

Hortense
960903 !September 3 – 16, 1996
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
935 !935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
The Caribbean, Puerto Rico, Atlantic Canada
7001390000000000000♠39
7008158000000000000♠$158 million
[64][65][66]

Georges
980915 !September 15 – October 1, 1998
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
937 !937 hPa (27.67 inHg)
The Caribbean, United States Gulf Coast
7002604000000000000♠604
7009972360049500000♠$9.72 billion
[67][68][69][70][71]

Mitch
981022 !October 22 – November 5, 1998
Category 5 hurricane
180 !180 mph (285 km/h)
905 hPa (26.72 inHg)
Central America, Yucatán Peninsula, South Florida
7004110000000000000♠11,000
7009620000000000000♠$6.2 billion
[72][73][74]

Floyd
990907 !September 7 – 19, 1999
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
921 !921 hPa (27.20 inHg)
The Bahamas, Eastern United States, Atlantic Canada
7001570000000000000♠57
7009690000000000000♠$6.9 billion
[75]

Lenny
991113 !November 13 – 23, 1999
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
933 !933 hPa (27.55 inHg)
Colombia, Puerto Rico, Leeward Islands
7001170000000000000♠17
7008685800000000000♠$686 million
[76][77][78][79][80][81]

15 Names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
7004121440000000000♠12,144
7010620455604950000♠$62 billion

text: Names retired in the 2000s[edit]

text: After the Atlantic basin had moved into the warm phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation during the mid-1990s, the 2000s marked the most prolific decade in terms of the number of retired storms, with 24 names warranting removal.[nb 2] The decade featured one of the costliest tropical cyclones on record, Hurricane Katrina, which inflicted roughly 7011108000000000000♠US$108 billion in damage across the Gulf Coast of the United States.[30] Katrina was also the deadliest hurricane to strike the United States since the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane.[11] After causing approximately 7009900000000000000♠US$9 billion in damage, Tropical Storm Allison became the first tropical storm in this basin to have its name retired, while subtropical storms started to be named during 2002.[82][83] Hurricane Jeanne was the deadliest storm during the decade and was responsible for over 3000 deaths, when it impacted Haiti and other parts of the Caribbean as a tropical storm and minimal hurricane.[84] During October 2005, Hurricane Wilma became the most intense tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin on record, with a central pressure of 882 hPa (26.05 inHg).[45] There were no retired names after the 2006 and 2009 hurricane seasons.[10] Collectively, the 24 systems were responsible for nearly 7,900 fatalities and in excess of 7011280247700000000♠US$280 billion in damage.

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Keith
000928 !September 28 – October 6, 2000
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
939 !939 hPa (27.73 inHg)
Central America
7001560000000000000♠56
7008318700000000000♠$319 million
[43][85][86][87]

Allison
010604 !June 4 – 18, 2001
0 !Tropical storm
060 !60 mph (95 km/h)
999 !1000 hPa (29.53 inHg)
Texas, Louisiana, Southern United States
7001500000000000000♠50
7009900000000000000♠$9 billion
[88]

Iris
011004 !October 4 – 9, 2001
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
948 !948 hPa (27.99 inHg)
Hispaniola, Jamaica, Belize, Guatemala, Mexico
7001310000000000000♠31
7008140000000000000♠$140 million
[89][90]

Michelle
011029 !October 29 – November 6, 2001
Category 4 hurricane
140 !140 mph (220 km/h)
933 !933 hPa (27.55 inHg)
Central America, Jamaica, Cuba, Bahamas
7001170000000000000♠17
7009200000000000000♠$2 billion
[69][89]

Isidore
020914 !September 14 – 27, 2002
Category 3 hurricane
125 !125 mph (205 km/h)
934 !934 hPa (27.58 inHg)
Cuba, Yucatán Peninsula, Louisiana
7001170000000000000♠17
7009130000000000000♠$1.3 billion
[91][92]

Lili
020921 !September 21 – October 4, 2002
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
938 !938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
Windward Islands, Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, Louisiana
7001150000000000000♠15
7008925000000000000♠$925 million
[93]

Fabian
030825 !August 25 – September 8, 2003
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
939 !939 hPa (27.73 inHg)
Bermuda
7000400000000000000♠4
7008300000000000000♠$300 million
[94]

Isabel
030906 !September 6 – 20, 2003
Category 5 hurricane
165 !165 mph (270 km/h)
915 !915 hPa (27.02 inHg)
Greater Antilles, Bahamas, Eastern United States, Ontario
7001500000000000000♠50
7009537000000000000♠$5.37 billion
[95]

Juan
030924 !September 24 – 29, 2003
Category 2 hurricane
105 !105 mph (170 km/h)
969 !969 hPa (28.61 inHg)
Atlantic Canada
7000500000000000000♠5
7008200000000000000♠$200 million
[94][96]

Charley
040809 !August 9 – 15, 2004
Category 4 hurricane
150 !150 mph (240 km/h)
941 !941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Florida, The Carolinas
7001400000000000000♠40
7010151130000000000♠$15.1 billion
[97]

Frances
040824 !August 24 – September 10, 2004
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
935 !935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
The Caribbean, Eastern United States, Ontario
7001500000000000000♠50
7009985200000000000♠$9.85 billion
[98][99][100]

Ivan
040902 !September 2 – 24, 2004
Category 5 hurricane
165 !165 mph (270 km/h)
910 !910 hPa (26.87 inHg)
The Caribbean, Venezuela, United States Gulf Coast
7002124000000000000♠124
7010232800000000000♠$23.3 billion
[99][101]

Jeanne
040913 !September 13 – 28, 2004
Category 3 hurricane
120 !120 mph (195 km/h)
950 !950 hPa (28.05 inHg)
The Caribbean, Eastern United States
7003303500000000000♠3,035
7009766000000000000♠$7.66 billion
[43][84][99]

Dennis
050704 !July 4 – 13, 2005
Category 4 hurricane
150 !150 mph (240 km/h)
930 !930 hPa (27.46 inHg)
Greater Antilles, Southeastern United States
7001890000000000000♠89
7009397000000000000♠$3.97 billion
[102][103]

Katrina
050823 !August 23 – 30, 2005
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
902 !902 hPa (26.64 inHg)
Bahamas, United States Gulf Coast
7003183600000000000♠1,836
7011108000000000000♠$108 billion
[104]

Rita
050918 !September 18 – 26, 2005
Category 5 hurricane
180 !180 mph (290 km/h)
895 !895 hPa (26.43 inHg)
Cuba, United States Gulf Coast
7001620000000000000♠62
7010120370000000000♠$12 billion
[105]

Stan
051001 !October 1 – 5, 2005
Category 1 hurricane
080 !80 mph (130 km/h)
977 !977 hPa (28.85 inHg)
Mexico, Central America
7003166800000000000♠1,668
7009396400000000000♠$3.96 billion
[43][106]

Wilma
051015 !October 15 – 26, 2005
Category 5 hurricane
185 !185 mph (295 km/h)
882 !882 hPa (26.05 inHg)
Greater Antilles, Central America, Yucatán Peninsula, Florida
7001230000000000000♠23
7010290000000000000♠>$29 billion
[107][108][109][110]

Dean
070813 !August 13 – 23, 2007
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
905 !905 hPa (26.72 inHg)
The Caribbean, Central America
7001450000000000000♠45
7009177800000000000♠$1.78 billion
[43][111]

Felix
070813 !August 31 – September 5, 2007
Category 5 hurricane
175 !175 mph (280 km/h)
929 !929 hPa (27.43 inHg)
Nicaragua, Honduras
7002130000000000000♠130
7008720000000000000♠$720 million
[111][112][113][114]

Noel
071028 !October 28 – November 2, 2007
Category 1 hurricane
080 !80 mph (130 km/h)
980 !980 hPa (28.94 inHg)
Greater Antilles, Eastern United States, Atlantic Canada
7002163000000000000♠163
7008580000000000000♠$580 million
[111]

Gustav
080825 !August 25 – September 4, 2008
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
941 !941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
Greater Antilles, Cayman Islands, United States Gulf Coast
7002153000000000000♠153
7009661000000000000♠$6.61 billion
[115][116]

Ike
080901 !September 1 – 14, 2008
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
935 !935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
Greater Antilles, Texas, Louisiana, Midwestern United States
7002195000000000000♠195
7010375000000000000♠$37.5 billion
[30][117][118]

Paloma
081105 !November 5 – 10, 2008
Category 4 hurricane
145 !145 mph (230 km/h)
944 !944 hPa (27.88 inHg)
Cayman Islands, Cuba
7000100000000000000♠1
7008300000000000000♠$300 million
[117][119]

24 names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
7003787500000000000♠7,875
7011280247700000000♠$280 billion

text: Names retired in the 2010s[edit]

text: So far during the current decade, nine tropical cyclone names have been retired.[nb 2] Collectively, these systems killed at least 1117 people and caused at least 7011109537350000000♠$110 billion worth of damage. So far, Hurricane Igor is the most intense tropical cyclone during the decade whose name has been retired by pressure, with a minimum value of 924 hPa (27.29 inHg). In addition, Hurricane Matthew is the deadliest and most intense tropical cyclone by wind speed during the decade, with over 600 deaths and maximum 1–minute sustained winds of 165 mph (270 km/h), respectively. Hurricane Sandy is currently the costliest Atlantic hurricane in the 2010s as well as the third-costliest in history, with 7010750000000000000♠US$75 billion in damage attributed to it. 2014 saw no retired names.[10]

text:
Name
Dates active
Peak classification
Sustained
wind speeds
Pressure
Areas affected
Deaths
Damage
(USD)
Refs

Igor
100908 !September 8 – 21, 2010
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
924 !924 hPa (27.29 inHg)
Bermuda, Newfoundland
7000400000000000000♠4
7008200000000000000♠$200 million
[120]

Tomas
101029 !October 29 – November 7, 2010
Category 2 hurricane
100 !100 mph (155 km/h)
982 !982 hPa (29.00 inHg)
Caribbean
7001440000000000000♠44
7008347950000000000♠$348 million
[121]

Irene
110820 !August 21 – 28, 2011
Category 3 hurricane
120 !120 mph (195 km/h)
942 !942 hPa (27.82 inHg)
Caribbean, Bahamas, United States East Coast, Eastern Canada
7001560000000000000♠56
7010165000000000000♠$16.5 billion
[43][122][123]

Sandy
121022 !October 22 – 29, 2012
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
940 !940 hPa (27.76 inHg)
Caribbean, Bahamas, United States East Coast, Eastern Canada
7002234000000000000♠234
7010750000000000000♠$75 billion
[124][125]

Ingrid
130912 !September 12 – 17, 2013
Category 1 hurricane
085 !85 mph (140 km/h)
983 !983 hPa (29.03 inHg)
Mexico
7001320000000000000♠32
7009150000000000000♠$1.5 billion
[43][126]

Erika
150824 !August 24 – 28, 2015
Tropical storm
050 !50 mph (85 km/h)
1001 !1001 hPa (29.56 inHg)
Lesser Antilles, Hispaniola
7001350000000000000♠35
7008511400000000000♠$511 million
[127]

Joaquin
150928 !September 28 – October 8, 2015
Category 4 hurricane
155 !155 mph (250 km/h)
931 !931 hPa (27.49 inHg)
Bahamas, Bermuda
7001340000000000000♠34
7008200000000000000♠$200 million
[127]

Matthew
160928 !September 28 – October 9, 2016
Category 5 hurricane
165 !165 mph (270 km/h)
934 !934 hPa (27.58 inHg)
Antilles, Southeastern United States
7002603000000000000♠603
7010150880000000000♠$15.1 billion
[128]

Otto
161120 !November 20 – 26, 2016
Category 3 hurricane
115 !115 mph (185 km/h)
975 !975 hPa (28.79 inHg)
Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua
7001230000000000000♠23
7008190000000000000♠$190 million
[128]

9 Names
References:[nb 2][nb 3]
≥7003111700000000000♠1,117
7011109537350000000♠$110 billion