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

Page: 58by a specific event. This litigation approached the constitutional claims from amuch broader societal perspective. The findings made by the application judgereflect that perspective, as should the review of those findings by this court. Wedo not defer to the application judge‟s findings, but rather assess the record tocome to our own conclusion on the social and legislative facts underlying theapplication judge‟s finding that the respondents‟ security of the person isimpaired by the relevant legislation.[130] In making our own assessment, however, we are assisted by theapplication judge‟s careful review of the voluminous record and her assessmentof the reliability and usefulness of some of the evidence. To the extent that theapplication judge found the evidence of affiants in respect of specific events andoccurrences credible or incredible, we defer to those findings absent somedemonstrated flaw in them. Similarly, to the extent that the application judgefound some of the expert evidence to be tainted by a lack of objectivity or othersimilar concerns, we defer to those findings absent a demonstration of someerror in the reasoning underlying the particular finding.[131] We pause before turning to our assessment of the evidence as it relates tothe respondents‟ security of the person claim to note that the application judgealso made findings underlying her application of the concepts of arbitrariness,overbreadth, and gross disproportionality.Those findings were based onlegislative facts and, to some extent, social facts. When we come to analyse the