Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 37right to expect that they may plan their conduct in accordance with the law as laiddown by the Supreme Court. Such an approach to constitutional interpretationyields not a vibrant living tree but a garden of annuals to be regularly uprootedand replaced.[85] For these reasons, it was not open to the application judge to reconsiderwhether s. 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code remains a reasonable limit on thefreedom of expression protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter.Issues 3 and 4: Does the communicating provision (s. 213(1)(c)) infringes. 2(b) of the Charter? If so, is it saved by s. 1?[86] As was the application judge, we are similarly bound by the ProstitutionReference on these questions. We allow the appeal on these issues.Issue 5: Do the challenged provisions deprive the respondents of the rightto life, liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by s. 7 of theCharter?Overview of section 7[87] To repeat, s. 7 of the Charter declares:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of theperson and the right not to be deprived thereof except inaccordance with the principles of fundamental justice.[88] Although the language of the English version of s. 7 might suggestotherwise, the case law has established that s. 7 creates a single constitutionalright: the right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person exceptin accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. There is no freestanding