Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 38right to life, liberty and security of the person: Canada (Minister of Employmentand Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; Cunningham v. Canada,[1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v.Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; Malmo-Levine;Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44,[2011] 3 S.C.R. 134; R. v. Parker (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.); and P.W.Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., looseleaf (Toronto: Carswell,1996), at para. 47.20. Legislation that limits the right to life, liberty and security ofthe person will attract s. 7 scrutiny. It will, however, survive that scrutiny andavoid judicial nullification unless it is shown to be contrary to the principles offundamental justice.[89] An applicant alleging a breach of s. 7 must demonstrate on the balance ofprobabilities that: (1) the challenged legislation interferes with or limits theapplicant‟s right to life, or the right to liberty, or the right to security of the person;and (2) that the interference or limitation is not in accordance with the principlesof fundamental justice.While non-compliance with s. 7 can theoretically bejustified under s. 1 of the Charter, in reality s. 1 will rarely, if ever, trump a s. 7infringement: R. v. D.B., 2008 SCC 25, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 89.[90] Criminal Code sections which create crimes, like those challenged on thisapplication, interfere with the liberty interest in that they are potentiallypunishable by imprisonment. Consequently, the outcome of a s. 7 challenge to