Canada Case Law

Drover v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Majority (Gomery A.C.J.A. and Harvison Young J.A.): s.7 protects an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy that includes choices of residence; s.24(4) of the Canada Elections Act automatically vacating a returning officer’s office if they cease to reside in the electoral district is overbroad, violates s.7 and is not justified under s.1; declaration under s.52(1) that s.24(4) is of no force or effect. Dissent (Miller J.A.): s.7 is confined to deprivations arising from interactions with the administration of justice and would uphold the residence rule.

Source excerpt

• Charter s.7 liberty
• Principles of fundamental justice
• Residency requirement for public office
• Overbreadth
• Section 1 justification

Read case analysis

Hillier v. Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario failed to demonstrably justify, under s.1 of the Charter, the gathering limits in effect April 17 to May 22, 2021 as they applied to peaceful outdoor assembly; the appropriate remedy is to read down the prohibitions so they do not apply to gatherings for the purpose of peaceful assembly and protest of up to 10 people, because that tailored remedy precisely defines the constitutional defect, preserves the overall statutory scheme, and respects legislative intent, and is therefore preferred to reading in.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of peaceful assembly (s.2(c))
• Section 1 justification
• Remedies: reading down vs reading in
• Regulatory limits on gatherings
• Judicial restraint and tailoring of remedies

Read case analysis

Harjee v. Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the provincial government ceased enforcement and revoked Ont. Reg. 364/20, leaving no practical effect from the declaratory relief sought; nominal damages did not cure mootness and the Borowski discretionary factors (utility and judicial economy, and need for a live, fact‑specific record) weighed against entertaining the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Charter of rights and freedoms
• Mootness
• Section 1 justification
• Freedom of religion
• Vaccine proof/regulation

Read case analysis

Taylor v. Newfoundland and Labrador

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal because the adversarial context was inadequate, judicial economy did not justify expending resources on a past, discontinued order, and sensitivity to the judicial role precluded issuing an advisory ruling about discontinued public health measures; consequently the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Mootness
• Section 6 mobility rights
• Section 7 liberty
• Section 1 justification
• Public health emergency
• Standing

Read case analysis

Gray vs. Nova Scotia (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Section 320.27(1)(c) engages s.10(b) and there was a breach of the right to counsel but the breach is justified under s.1 given the pressing objective of road safety, rational connection, minimal impairment and proportional salutary effects; section 320.27(1) does not infringe s.8 because oral fluid ADSE screening, as regulated and limited, is a reasonable and minimally intrusive roadside search within existing precedent and immediacy allowances for device operation.

Source excerpt

• Roadside screening
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Search and seizure (s.8)
• Section 1 justification
• Approved drug screening equipment
• Immediacy requirement

Read case analysis

Reference re Bill 148, An Act Respecting the Sustainability of Public Services

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court declined to answer because the s.2(d) analysis required a contextual, fact-specific assessment that could not be adequately conducted on a reference: the Record was untested hearsay and opinion, the Unions were barred from adducing probative evidence, and the subject legislation had been effectively rendered moot by exemptions and the expiry of wage restraints; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion not to provide an advisory answer.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of association (s.2(d))
• Reference jurisdiction
• Mootness
• Evidentiary sufficiency
• Wage restraint legislation
• Section 1 justification

Read case analysis

R. v. N.S.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown appeal, set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial because (1) s.286.2 does not engage s.7 as cooperative, shared-cost safety arrangements are not "commercial enterprise" as meant by the statute and immunities in s.286.5 apply where benefits derive from one’s own sexual services; (2) s.286.3 (procuring) is properly read to require a subjective purpose to facilitate the buyer-side offence in s.286.1 and therefore does not capture non‑exploitative cooperative safety arrangements or unpaid advice in the respondent’s hypotheticals; and (3) s.286.4 (adve…

Source excerpt

• Prostitution legislation (pcepa/bill c-36)
• Section 7 security of the person
• Overbreadth and gross disproportionality
• Material benefit (s.286.2)
• Procuring (s.286.3)
• Advertising (s.286.4)

Read case analysis

Beaudoin v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

La Cour d’appel a accueilli en partie la demande d’intervention d’ARPA Canada, en la limitant à des observations sur le pluralisme institutionnel et l’effet intersectionnel des atteintes à l’art. 2.

• Freedom of religion (s.2 charter)
• Section 1 justification
• Section 15 equality
• Intervenor standing/rule 36
• Institutional pluralism
• Judicial review procedure

Read case analysis

LC, EB, KG, VD, MT and CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division found that EI Act provisions limiting extensions of qualifying and benefit periods and capping benefits at 50 weeks create an adverse‑effect distinction based on sex and pregnancy because women who use insurable hours for maternity/parental leave are disproportionately excluded from regular EI when they lose employment; that distinction perpetuates disadvantage (economic dependency and the motherhood penalty); the Commission failed to establish a pressing and substantial objective or justify the impairment under s.1, and the provisions (ss.8(2), 8(5), 10(2), 10(8)(a), 10(…

Source excerpt

• Section 15 equality
• Qualifying period extension
• Benefit period extension
• Maternity and parental benefits
• Discrimination
• Section 1 justification

Read case analysis

Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that denying RCMP job-sharing members full-time pension buy-back rights disproportionately harmed women and breached s. 15(1).

• Section 15 charter equality
• Adverse impact (indirect) discrimination
• Job‑sharing
• Pension buy‑back entitlement
• Section 1 justification
• Analogous grounds (family/parental status)

Read case analysis