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

Page: 48the physical cause of a particular consequence as it is part of the factual andsocial context in which events happen and consequences flow.[108] When a court is required to decide whether there is a sufficient connectionbetween crime-creating legislation and an alleged interference with anindividual‟s right to security of the person, the court must examine the effect ofthat legislation in the world in which it actually operates. This assessment is apractical and pragmatic one.[109] The court must first determine what it is that the legislation prohibits orrequires. This is essentially an exercise in statutory interpretation. The courtmust next determine how the statutory prohibition or requirement impacts onthose who claim to have suffered a limitation on their right to security of theperson because of the legislation. Finally, the court must take the impact of thelegislation as it is found to be, and determine whether that impact limits orotherwise interferes with an individual interest protected by the concept ofsecurity of the person.The second and third determinations outlined aboverequire findings of fact. In litigation where the constitutionality of legislation ischallenged, those findings will usually be based on a blending of adjudicativefacts, social or legislative facts, judicial notice and common sense inferences.This record contains all those elements.