View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 8615(1)(c) of the CHRA and the objectives of the legislation. I will do so, however, in case areviewing Court takes a different view of the minimal impairment issue.vii) Proportionality between the Effects of the Legislation and its Objectives[327] In R. v. Edwards Books, the Supreme Court described this final element of theproportionality component of the Oakes test as requiring the Court to determine whether the effectsof the legislation “so severely trench on individual or group rights that the legislative objective,albeit important, is nevertheless outweighed by the abridgment of rights”: at para.117.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[328] There was criticism of this formulation, which was viewed by some as simply duplicatingwhat had already been accomplished through the first two elements of the proportionality analysis.More recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has reformulated this component of the Oakes test so as“to give it a distinct scope and function”: see Thomson Newspapers Co., at paras.123-124.[329] The Supreme Court observed in Thomson Newspapers that the focus of the first two steps ofthe Oakes proportionality analysis “is not the relationship between the measures and the Charterright in question, but rather the relationship between the ends of the legislation and the meansemployed”. In contrast, this last stage of the proportionality analysis allows the Court to “assess, inlight of the practical and contextual details which are elucidated in the first and second stages,whether the benefits which accrue from the limitation are proportional to its deleterious effects asmeasured by the values underlying the Charter”: at para.125.