Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 60
this balancing test in considering the fundamental
justice aspect of s. 7 is both eminently sensible
and perfectly consistent with the aim and import of
that provision, since the notion that individual
rights may, in some circumstances, be subordinated
to substantial and compelling collective interests
is itself a basic tenet of our legal system lying at
or very near the core of our most deeply rooted
juridical convictions. We need look no further than
the Charter itself to be satisfied of this.
Expressed in the language of s. 7, the notion of
balancing individual rights against collective
interests itself reflects what may rightfully be
termed a "principle of fundamental justice" which,
if respected, can serve as the basis for justifying
the state's infringement of an otherwise sacrosanct
constitutional right.
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
Thus, Mr. Young’s right to choose his medication must be
balanced against the CRHC's interests in preserving for their
tenants the peaceful enjoyment of their residences. In my
view, the collective interest that the CRHC is attempting to
protect is "substantial and compelling" and outweighs the
individual interests of Mr. Young in the circumstances of this
case.
[127] I have great sympathy for an individual who must
consume marihuana for alleviation of the symptoms of his
disability. I cannot ignore, however, the interests of the
numerous tenants who were found to have been adversely
affected by the marihuana smoke produced by Mr. Young. The
evidence suggests that the odour has made their suites
virtually unliveable. Whether or not this is actually the