Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

section 1Oakes testsection 1 of the ''Chartersection 1 of the Charterlimitations clauses. 1s.1Section OneSection One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsjustifiable restriction
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed.wikipedia
157 Related Articles

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Charter of Rights and FreedomsCharterCharter of Rights
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed.
Precluding all the freedoms and forming the basis of the Charter, the very first section, known as limitations clause, allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights.

R v Oakes

R. v. OakesOakes'' testOakes
The primary test to determine if the purpose is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society is known as the Oakes test, which takes its name from the essential case R v Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 which was written by Chief Justice Dickson.
R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which established the famous Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice)Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. CanadaLittle Sisters
In Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada, the Supreme Court found that the conduct of a border official in singling out homosexual from heterosexual reading materials was not authorized by any law.
It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.

R v Butler

R. v. Butlera ruling againstButler
This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).
The Court then turned to the question of whether the infringement of section 2 could be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

R v Keegstra

R. v. KeegstrajustifiablyEvil in Clear River
This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).
The Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled that section 319(2) did indeed breach section 2(b) and could not be upheld under section 1 of the Charter.

Vriend v Alberta

Vriend v. Albertacourt ruling onlyVriend
In Vriend v Alberta (1998), it was found that a government action may also be invalidated at this stage if there is no objective at all, but rather just an excuse.
7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Individual’s Rights Protection Act (IRPA) violates s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1.

Canadian federalism

federalismCanadian federalistCanadian federation
In practice, judges have recognized many objectives as sufficient, with the exception, since Big M, of objectives which are in and of themselves discriminatory or antagonistic to fundamental freedoms, or objectives inconsistent with the proper division of powers.
To rationalize how each jurisdiction may use its authority, certain doctrines have been devised by the courts: pith and substance, including the nature of any ancillary powers and the colourability of legislation; double aspect; paramountcy; inter-jurisdictional immunity; the living tree; the purposive approach, and charter compliance (most notably through the Oakes test).

Brian Dickson

Chief Justice DicksonJustice DicksonRobert George Brian Dickson
The primary test to determine if the purpose is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society is known as the Oakes test, which takes its name from the essential case R v Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 which was written by Chief Justice Dickson.
Among his most famous decisions was that of R v Oakes, where he proposed the analytical framework for section 1 of the Charter now known as the "Oakes test".

R v Morgentaler

R. v. MorgentalerR v. Morgentalerin 1988
An example of the rational connection test being failed can be found in R v Morgentaler (1988), in which Dickson was of the opinion that laws against abortion should be struck down partly because of a breach of health rights under section 7 and an irrational connection between the objective (protecting the fetus and the pregnant woman's health), and the process by which therapeutic abortions were granted.
The Court ruled 5 to 2 that the law violated section 7 and could not be saved under section 1.

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.R. v. Big M Drug MartHer Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.
In R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), Dickson asserted that limitations on rights must be motivated by an objective of sufficient importance.
The Lord's Day Act was the first law in Charter jurisprudence to be struck down in its entirety, and some of the section 1 analysis in the decision played a role in developing the "Oakes test" in the later case R v Oakes.

R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.R v Edwards Books LtdR. v. Edwards Books and Art
In R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd (1986), this was changed to "as little as is reasonably possible", thus allowing for more realistic expectations for governments.
However, it could be saved under section 1.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

section 11(d)section 1111(d)
The majority ruled that since automatism could be "easily feigned", the burden of proof must rest with the defense; while this would be a limit on section 11 rights, the majority found section 1 would uphold this because criminal law presumes willing actions.
This was also the case in which the Court developed the primary test for measuring rights limitations under section 1 of the Charter.

Doré v Barreau du Québec

Reasonableness Standard
In Doré v Barreau du Québec (2012), the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Oakes test should not apply to administrative law decisions that impact the Charter rights of a specific individual.
The Court found that the test in R. v. Oakes (which is used to determine whether a law that infringes a section of the Charter is unconstitutional under section 1 of the Charter) does not apply to administrative law decisions, although there is "conceptual harmony" between the review for reasonableness and the Oakes framework.

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

notwithstanding clausesection 33Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The provinces, however, did not find it a sufficiently strong enough recourse and instead insisted on the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause.
Section 33, in conjunction with the limitations clause in section 1, was intended to give provincial legislators more leverage to pass law.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

section 35Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982section 35(1)
Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982, which affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights, is technically not part of the Charter and therefore is not subject to section 1.
Section 35 cannot be limited by section 1 or the notwithstanding clause.

R v Smith (1987)

R. v. SmithR v SmithR. v. Smith (Edward Dewey)
In R. v. Smith (1987), some Supreme Court justices felt section 1 could not apply, although the majority employed section 1.
On applying the section 1 test to the violation, it was found that the provision was rationally connected to the pressing objective of deterring drugs importation, but it failed to be proportional.

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa

Bill of RightsChapter 2Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa
The Bill of Rights entrenched in the Constitution of South Africa in 1996 also contains a clause comparable to the Charter's section 1 and the ECHR's articles 8 to 11.
Section 1 of that Charter, like section 36 of the South African law, states that rights are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Hate speech

incitement to hatredhatehate-speech
This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).

Obscenity

obsceneobscenitiesindecent
This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).

Narcotic

narcoticsdrugsnarcotic drugs
In Oakes (1986), Dickson elaborated on the standard when one David Oakes was accused of selling narcotics.

Discrimination

discriminatoryanti-discriminationdiscriminate
In practice, judges have recognized many objectives as sufficient, with the exception, since Big M, of objectives which are in and of themselves discriminatory or antagonistic to fundamental freedoms, or objectives inconsistent with the proper division of powers.

Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme CourtCanadian Supreme CourtSupreme Court Justice
Specifically, the Supreme Court found an Alberta law unconstitutional because it extended no protection to employees terminated due to sexual orientation, contradicting section 15.

Alberta

Alberta, CanadaABAlberta Transportation
Specifically, the Supreme Court found an Alberta law unconstitutional because it extended no protection to employees terminated due to sexual orientation, contradicting section 15.

Sexual orientation

sexualitysexual preferenceorientation
Specifically, the Supreme Court found an Alberta law unconstitutional because it extended no protection to employees terminated due to sexual orientation, contradicting section 15.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

section 15Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomssection 15(1)
Specifically, the Supreme Court found an Alberta law unconstitutional because it extended no protection to employees terminated due to sexual orientation, contradicting section 15.