Charter Challenges
A Charter challenge occurs when a law, government action, or administrative decision is alleged to violate a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These challenges allow individuals or groups to seek remedies, including striking down laws or obtaining damages.
Key Features of a Charter Challenge
Foundation: Based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982).
Purpose: To protect fundamental rights and freedoms such as:
Freedom of expression (Section 2)
Right to equality (Section 15)
Right to life, liberty, and security of the person (Section 7)
Protection against unreasonable search and seizure (Section 8)
Standing: Individuals or groups must demonstrate direct impact or harm by the law or government action.
Remedies: Courts can:
Strike down the law (declare it invalid)
Read down or interpret the law in a rights-consistent manner
Issue damages or injunctions
Test for Charter Violation
Step 1: Show that the law/action infringes a specific Charter right.
Step 2: Determine if the infringement is justified under Section 1, which allows reasonable limits prescribed by law that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Step 3: Consider remedies.
📚 Detailed Case Laws on Charter Challenges
1. R. v. Oakes (1986)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: 1 (Justification of limits)
Facts:
David Oakes was charged with possession of narcotics and the law presumed intent to traffic based solely on possession. He challenged this presumption as a violation of Section 11(d) and Section 7 of the Charter.
Held:
The Supreme Court created the Oakes test to determine whether a law that limits a Charter right can be justified under Section 1. The test requires:
The law must pursue a pressing and substantial objective.
The means must be proportional: rational connection, minimal impairment, and proportionality of effects.
Significance:
Established the Oakes test, now central to all Section 1 analyses.
Clarified how courts balance rights and government interests.
2. R. v. Morgentaler (1988)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: 7 (Life, liberty, and security)
Facts:
Dr. Henry Morgentaler challenged Canada’s abortion law that criminalized performing abortions unless approved by a hospital committee.
Held:
The law violated Section 7 because it deprived women of liberty and security of person in an arbitrary manner.
The Court struck down the law as unconstitutional.
Significance:
Landmark case for reproductive rights
Demonstrates how Charter challenges can invalidate statutes that violate fundamental freedoms.
3. R. v. Keegstra (1990)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: 2(b) Freedom of Expression, Section 1
Facts:
James Keegstra, a high school teacher, taught antisemitic content and was charged under the Criminal Code for promoting hatred. He challenged the law as infringing freedom of expression.
Held:
The Court held that freedom of expression was infringed.
However, the limitation was justified under Section 1 because the law’s objective (preventing hate speech) was pressing and the means proportionate.
Significance:
Clarified that freedom of expression is not absolute
Introduced proportionality analysis under Section 1
4. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: 2(a) Freedom of Religion
Facts:
Big M Drug Mart was charged for operating on Sundays, violating the Lord’s Day Act. The company argued this violated freedom of religion.
Held:
The law imposed religious observance, violating Section 2(a).
The Court struck down the Act as unconstitutional.
Significance:
Strengthened freedom of religion
Shows that laws based on religious enforcement can be challenged successfully under the Charter
5. R. v. Sparrow (1990)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Aboriginal rights)
Facts:
Sparrow, a member of the Musqueam Band, was charged with fishing with a net that violated federal regulations. He argued this infringed his Aboriginal rights.
Held:
Court recognized that Aboriginal rights are protected under Section 35
Established the Sparrow test to determine if government infringement on Aboriginal rights is justified
Significance:
Provides a framework for balancing government regulation with constitutional rights
Important for Indigenous law and Charter-related challenges
6. R. v. Butler (1992)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: 1, 2(b) Freedom of Expression
Facts:
The case involved the distribution of obscene materials. Butler argued restrictions violated freedom of expression.
Held:
Expression is protected but can be limited to prevent harm
Obscenity laws were upheld as Section 1 justified restrictions
Significance:
Reinforces proportionality principle
Balances freedom of expression with societal protection
7. Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Section: Section 7, Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person
Facts:
Sex workers challenged laws prohibiting brothels and living on the avails of prostitution. They argued it endangered their safety.
Held:
Laws violated Section 7 because they increased risks for sex workers
Struck down provisions as unconstitutional
Significance:
Shows Charter challenges can protect vulnerable populations
Section 7 protects safety and security, not just liberty
✅ Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Charter Section | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R. v. Oakes | 1 | Established Oakes test for limiting rights |
| R. v. Morgentaler | 7 | Abortion law violated liberty & security |
| R. v. Keegstra | 2(b), 1 | Freedom of expression can be limited for hate speech |
| Big M Drug Mart | 2(a) | Freedom of religion; struck down Sunday laws |
| R. v. Sparrow | 35 | Aboriginal rights; established Sparrow test |
| R. v. Butler | 2(b), 1 | Obscenity law as justified limitation |
| Bedford v. Canada | 7 | Protection of safety under Section 7 |
Charter challenges are powerful tools to ensure laws respect fundamental rights, but courts carefully balance rights with societal interests using tests like Oakes and Sparrow.
RELATED Blog
comments