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

implementation of the underlying objective must, therefore, be “proportional” to the harmful effectsof the limitation on a constitutionally protected right (Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.,[1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, at pp. 887-88; see also Jamie Cameron,“The Past, Present, and Future ofExpressive Freedom Under the Charter” (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1, at p. 66, cited byBastarache J. in Thomson Newspapers, at para. 125.)[151] In Edwards Books, Dickson C.J. articulated the proportionality requirement as follows:the “effects [of the infringing measure] must not so severely trench on individual or group rights thatthe legislative objective, albeit important, is nevertheless outweighed by the abridgment of rights”(p. 768). (See also Aharon Barak, “Proportional effect: The Israeli Experience” (2007), 57 U.T.L.J.369, at p. 375.)[152] At this proportionality stage, the “comparison is . . . between the loss for thefundamental right, on the one hand, and the gain for the good protected by the law, on the other”(Dieter Grimm, “Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence” (2007), 57U.T.L.J. 383, at p. 393). It engages the following questions:• How deeply is the right infringed?• What is the degree to which the impugned limitation will advance its underlyingobjective?[153] Justice Bastarache wrote in Thomson Newspapers that the deleterious effects of the