Seite - 257 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19
Bild der Seite - 257 -
Text der Seite - 257 -
257Civil
Liberties vs. Public Health
infringes their Charter rights. In Charter jurisprudence, the question
of whether a rights infringement has occurred is separated from
whether that infringement is justifiable. The infringement ques-
tion is asked first, and the burden is on the claimant to show that
an infringement has occurred. At this stage, the guiding principle is
that rights should be given a “large and liberal interpretation at this
stage.22 The rationale for this, partly, is that the onus on Charter claim-
ants should be eased to compensate for government’s vastly superior
legal resources. Under this large and liberal approach, it suffices in
freedom of expression cases, for example, for the claimant to estab-
lish that some content-bearing expressive activity—no matter how
trivial or ignoble—has been interfered with by government. Thus, for
example, cigarette advertising has been found to fall within the right
to free expression.23
If a claimant succeeds at that task, the government then bears
the onus, under s 1, of showing that the infringement is demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society. R v Oakes24 is perhaps the
most important of all Charter decisions, providing the framework for
the application of section 1. The Oakes test specifies that the infringe-
ment of a Charter right will be justified provided:
1. the government’s objective in infringing the right is pressing
and substantial;
2. the infringement is rationally connected with (1);
3. the right is minimally impaired; and
4. the value of the objective, and the actual costs and benefits
associated with pursuing it, are proportionate to the costs of
the infringement.
22. Hunter et al v Southam Inc, [1984] 2 SCR 145, 11 DLR (4th) 641. The scope given
at the infringement stage varies by Charter guarantee. For example, the s 2(a)
protection of freedom of religion has been read broadly to protect against any
non-trivial state interference with activities the claimant sincerely believes are
connected to their faith; SyndicatÂ
Northcrest v Amselem,Â
2004 SCC 47. By contrast,
the courts have circumscribed the s 7 protection of “life, liberty and security of
the person” to activities of a deeply personal nature (for example, the decision
to have an abortion) as opposed to less-integral lifestyle choices (for example,
recreational marijuana use); see, respectively, R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30,
44 DLR (4th) 385 and R v Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74; R v Caine,Â
2003 SCC 74.
23. RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, 111 DLR (4th)
385.
24. [1986] 1 SCR 103, 26 DLR (4th) 200.
VULNERABLE
The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19
- Titel
- VULNERABLE
- Untertitel
- The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19
- Autoren
- Vanessa MacDonnell
- Jane Philpott
- Sophie Thériault
- Sridhar Venkatapuram
- Verlag
- Ottawa Press
- Datum
- 2020
- Sprache
- englisch
- Lizenz
- CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
- ISBN
- 9780776636429
- Abmessungen
- 15.2 x 22.8 cm
- Seiten
- 648
- Kategorien
- Coronavirus
- International