Charter rights are not absolute though. This one will probably head to the courts to be decided, but don't be surprised if it is allowed.
Quote:
Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter rights
Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The Charter and the courts recognize that governments can make laws in the broader public interest, even if a law violates the Charter. In such a case, Canada’s Parliament or a provincial legislature can try to justify the violation—under section 1—as a reasonable limit on the right. Section 1 says that a reasonable limit must be prescribed by law and demonstrably (clearly) justified in a free and democratic society. If a government tries to use section 1, a court can then decide if the government has justified the Charter violation. If so, the court may allow the violation.
But section 1 applies only to written laws, not to government action, because it requires any limit on a Charter right to be “prescribed by law”. So when government action—not a written law—violates the Charter, section 1 does not let the government try to justify the violation. The action is unconstitutional. Lawyers call it a Charter breach.
The essential questions courts must decide under section 1 are whether the law has an important objective and whether the government chose a proportionate way to meet that objective—a way that interferes as little as possible with Charter rights. For example, could the government achieve its objective in another way, without violating Charter rights? Does the law do more harm than good?
|
https://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public...our-Rights/230