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

Page: 41Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6, atpara. 46: “The ability to generate business revenue by one‟s chosen means isnot a right that is protected under s. 7 of the Charter.”Does the legislation interfere with the respondents’ security of the person?(1) Should we address security of the person?[95] Interference with any one of the rights to life, liberty or security of theperson is sufficient to engage s. 7 and requires an assessment of the legislationagainst the applicable principles of fundamental justice. Given that all partiesaccept that the right to liberty is limited by the challenged provisions, it may seemunnecessary to decide whether the provisions also interfere with therespondents‟ security of the person.[96] However, we are satisfied that we should address the security of theperson claim for two reasons. First, the respondents placed significant, indeedparamount, emphasis on their security of the person claim. Their complaint withthe legislation is not only that they risk incarceration should they fail to complywith the provisions, but that they risk serious harm, or even death, if they docomply with them. Second, the specific nature of the right or rights interferedwith, and the nature of that interference, are relevant to the arbitrariness andgross disproportionality analyses. The nature and extent of the interference with