SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Alberta v. Hutterian ...

[133] Section 1 of the Charter states:The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedomsset out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can bedemonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.[134] It is against the scope of the particular constitutional right that the government has theonus of demonstrating that a limit is justified under s. 1 in accordance with the Oakes test. Thepurpose of the Oakes analysis is to balance the benefits of the objective with the harmful effects ofthe infringement. The stages of the Oakes test are not watertight compartments: the principle ofproportionality guides the analysis at each step. This ensures that at every stage, the importance ofthe objective and the harm to the right are weighed.[135] Dickson C.J. stressed in Oakes that the evidence necessary to prove the constituentelements of the s. 1 inquiry “should be cogent and persuasive and make clear to the Court theconsequences of imposing or not imposing the limit” (p. 138).[136] Where, as here, the benefit to the state of the infringing measure is of limited value andthe infringement is a deeply harmful one, the overall requirement of proportionality is not met.Pressing and Substantial Objective[137] At the first stage of the analysis, the government must demonstrate that it has a “pressingand substantial” objective that justifies the infringement of the right. In RJR- MacDonald Inc. v.Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, McLachlin J. cautioned that “[C]are must be