Section Three

Real-World Examples

Your rights are shaped by how they’re applied — not just how they’re written.

From pandemic restrictions to digital censorship and medical mandates, recent events have shown how rights can be restricted in times of crisis. We'll explore key legal cases and rulings that reveal how the Charter is interpreted in the real world — and where gray areas create vulnerability for citizens.

Recent legal cases in Canada reveal how fundamental rights have been tested, often under the guise of public safety or administrative necessity. These examples underscore the importance of vigilance in protecting our freedoms.

Expanded Right Column Text:

​

 1. Challenge to the Emergencies Act Invocation (2022–2024)

​

In response to the 2022 "Freedom Convoy" protests, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time, granting itself broad powers, including freezing bank accounts and restricting public assembly.

​

In January 2024, the Federal Court ruled that this invocation was unreasonable and unconstitutional, violating sections 2(b) (freedom of expression) and 8 (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) of the Charter. The court emphasized that the threshold for such emergency powers had not been met and that existing laws were sufficient to address the situation. 

​

The government has appealed this decision, raising concerns about the balance between state power and individual rights.

​

2. Sheila Lewis Case: Medical Autonomy and Access to Healthcare

​

Sheila Annette Lewis, a terminally ill woman in Alberta, was removed from the organ transplant waiting list because she declined the COVID-19 vaccine, citing personal beliefs.

She challenged this decision, arguing it violated her Charter rights.

Both the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against her, stating that the Charter did not apply to the clinical decisions of medical professionals in this context. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear her appeal. 

​

Lewis passed away in August 2023, bringing attention to the complex interplay between public health policies and individual rights.

​

3. Hansman v. Neufeld — Anti-SLAPP Law Turned on Its Head

​

The Hansman v. Neufeld decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is a striking example of how anti-SLAPP legislation — designed to protect individuals from powerful institutions — was weaponized in the opposite direction.

Barry Neufeld, a school board trustee in British Columbia, publicly expressed concerns over SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) curriculum in public schools. In response, Glen Hansman, then-president of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (a well-funded and powerful union), publicly denounced Neufeld, labeling his views as hateful and transphobic.

Neufeld sued Hansman for defamation, arguing that his personal reputation and ability to serve in public office had been seriously damaged. However, Hansman invoked British Columbia’s anti-SLAPP legislation — laws originally intended to protect individuals from lawsuits brought by large corporations or institutions to silence public dissent.

In a controversial 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada sided with Hansman, holding that the public interest in counter-speech outweighed Neufeld’s right to defend his reputation. But critics argue this decision flipped the intent of anti-SLAPP laws on its head — empowering a large union and public figure to silence a private individual’s ability to seek legal redress.

Procedural Bias & Denial of Standing

​

Adding further concern, during Supreme Court proceedings, virtually all organizations or individuals who sought intervener status in support of Neufeld were denied standing, while a large number of advocacy groups aligned with Hansman’s position were granted full standing. This has raised serious questions about bias, judicial impartiality, and the weaponization of procedure to limit fair legal defense.

​

This case illustrates a broader trend: when legal frameworks meant to protect free expression are selectively applied or politically weaponized, they become tools of suppression — not safeguards of liberty.

​​

4. Concerns Over Judicial Impartiality: Chief Justice Wagner's Comments

​

During the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests, Chief Justice Richard Wagner made public comments characterizing the protests as "the beginning of anarchy" and suggesting that participants sought to bypass the political system.

These remarks led to a formal complaint by a group of lawyers to the Canadian Judicial Council, arguing that such statements could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality, especially if related cases were to come before the Supreme Court.

​

 5. Judicial Deference and the Erosion of Legal Protections

Recent trends in Canadian jurisprudence indicate a growing deference by courts to governmental decisions, especially during emergencies. This includes:

​

• Increased use of Section 1 of the Charter to justify rights limitations without rigorous scrutiny.

• Dismissal of cases as "moot", avoiding substantive rulings on rights infringements.

• Denial of standing to individuals or groups challenging government actions.

• Reliance on "judicial notice", accepting government assertions without requiring evidence.

•  

These practices have raised concerns about the diminishing role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights and the potential erosion of the Rule of Law in Canada.