Why this guide

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a working document. It is read against more than four decades of jurisprudence. This guide walks through the four most-tested sections — 1, 7, 15 and 24 — in the order you would usually meet them in a Charter analysis.

Read this guide end-to-end before exam season. Use the linked cases to anchor each step.

How a Charter analysis runs

Most Charter analyses follow a five-step path:

Identify the impugned state action — legislation, government conduct, or executive decision.
Identify the right(s) potentially engaged.
Determine whether there has been a prima facie infringement of the right.
If yes, ask whether s.1 saves the limit (proportionality).
If the limit is unjustified, identify the appropriate remedy under s.24 or s.52.

The structure is the same whether the right is a fundamental freedom (s.2), a legal right (ss.7-14), an equality right (s.15), or a language right (ss.16-23).

Section 1 — Reasonable Limits

The text:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Two threshold questions:

Prescribed by law. Statute, regulation, or common-law rule. Sufficiently precise to permit citizens to regulate their conduct.
Burden. The party seeking to uphold the limit (usually the government) bears the burden on a balance of probabilities.

Then the Oakes proportionality test (R v Oakes 1986):

Pressing and substantial objective.
Rational connection.
Minimal impairment.
Proportionality of effects (salutary vs deleterious).

The third step (proportionality of effects) does substantial work in modern cases (Carter 2015, Frank v Canada 2019).

Section 7 — Life, Liberty, Security

Two-stage analysis:

Has the state caused a deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person?
Was the deprivation in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice?

The principles of fundamental justice that anchor modern challenges are:

Arbitrariness — no rational connection between the law's effect and its objective.
Overbreadth — the law captures conduct unrelated to its objective.
Gross disproportionality — the law's effects are completely out of proportion to its objective.

Bedford (2013) and Carter (2015) anchor the modern framework. Section 1 is theoretically available but rarely saves a s.7 breach because the analyses overlap.

Stare decisis under Bedford/Carter: the Court may revisit precedent where (a) a new legal issue is raised, or (b) there is a significant change in the circumstances or evidence that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate.

Section 15 — Equality

Andrews v Law Society of BC (1989) anchors the substantive-equality framework. The current two-step analysis (Withler, Kapp, Kahkewistahaw):

Does the impugned law create a distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds?
Does the distinction perpetuate disadvantage or stereotype the affected group?

Analogous grounds include sexual orientation (Egan), marital status (Miron), and Aboriginal identity living off reserve (Corbiere).

Vriend (1998) recognises that legislative omission can violate s.15 and that reading-in is an available remedy where it best respects the legislative purpose.

Quebec v A (2013) illustrates the contested terrain at the boundary between formal autonomy (choice to marry) and substantive equality (vulnerability of de facto partners).

Section 24 — Remedies

Section 24(1) provides for any remedy a court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. Section 24(2) provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights, where admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

R v Grant (2009) restates the s.24(2) analysis. Three factors:

Seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct.
Impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused.
Society's interest in adjudication of the case on its merits.

The analysis focuses on the long-term repute of the administration of justice, not short-term outcome optics.

Section 52 — Constitutional Remedies

Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 declares the Constitution the supreme law of Canada and any law inconsistent with it of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

Available remedies under s.52:

Strike down (full or partial).
Reading down — interpret the law in a constitutional way.
Reading in — add words to cure under-inclusiveness (Vriend).
Suspended declaration of invalidity — delay the effect of striking to give the legislature time to respond (Manitoba Language Reference, Bedford).

The choice depends on what best respects the legislative purpose and avoids legal vacuum.

Putting it together

A complete Charter analysis identifies the action, identifies the right, finds the breach, applies s.1, and selects the remedy. The exam structure is the same whether the analysis is one paragraph or twenty.

Cases to know

R v Oakes — section 1 framework.
Hunter v Southam — purposive interpretation; s.8 framework.
R v Big M Drug Mart — purpose-or-effect test; s.2(a).
Andrews v Law Society of BC — s.15 substantive equality.
Vriend v Alberta — under-inclusion; reading-in.
R v Morgentaler — s.7; security of the person.
Carter v Canada — s.7; revisiting Rodriguez.
Canada v Bedford — s.7; arbitrariness, overbreadth, gross disproportionality.
R v Grant — s.24(2) framework.
Reference re Manitoba Language Rights — s.52; suspended declaration; rule of law.