COVID-19 restrictions are a reminder that Charter rights have limits

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

Medical face mask. Image credit: Mark König/Unsplash

While the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 heralded a new age in the protection of individual rights in Canada, the rights protected by the Charter are not absolute. One famous expression about the limits of individual rights originated in an American court case; you may be familiar with the saying that the right to freedom of speech would not protect someone from falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. My favourite saying about limits on individual rights is "my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins."

With measures that have been implemented to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, some people feel that their individual rights and liberties are under constant assault. Two recent examples are news stories about the nurse in London, Ontario who was fired from her job, apparently for helping to organize an anti-lockdown rally, and police in Montreal cracking down on religious gatherings.

These incidents (and others like them) raise all manner of interesting questions, such as what the legal outcome might be if cases like this are litigated, and the deeper question of whether it is just, right, or fair to take steps that seem to infringe on individual rights in order to combat COVID-19 (or whether it is just, right, or fair to insist on one's personal liberties in the face of the pandemic, depending on your point of view). I could not begin to answer those questions in a column of this length. However, they do provide an interesting jumping-off point to discuss some of the ways that the Charter itself has built-in limits on the rights it purports to guarantee.

Charter rights typically do not apply to dealings between private parties

Section 32(1) of the Charter provides that the Charter applies "to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament," and "to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province."

In 1986, in the Dolphin Delivery case, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the Charter "was set up to regulate the relationship between the individual and the Government … to restrain government action and to protect the individual … [but] was not intended in the absence of some governmental action to be applied in private litigation." However, as to the question of what would qualify as governmental action sufficient for the Charter to apply, the Court deferred, writing, "It is difficult and probably dangerous to attempt to define with narrow precision that element of government intervention necessary to bring the Charter into play by private litigants in private litigation." 

A lot of cases have considered just how much government involvement is needed for the Charter to apply. Some of the scenarios are fairly obvious; legislation passed by the government is clearly government action that has to comply with the Charter. Other situations are more difficult to predict; for example, in some cases, acts by a hospital have been found to be subject to Charter scrutiny, whereas other cases have found that there was not enough of a connection to government to make a hospital's acts subject to the Charter. 

Charter rights are subject to 'reasonable limits'

Another section of the Charter that limits the rights protected by the Charter is Section 1, which provides that the rights guaranteed by the Charter are subject "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Like the question of whether there is sufficient government involvement in any particular situation so that the Charter applies, the question of whether government action is a "reasonable limit" has been the subject of a good deal of discussion by the courts.

Another 1986 case of the Supreme Court, R. v. Oakes, developed a test to determine if a law that violated a Charter right could be saved by Section 1 of the Charter. In short, for a law to be a "reasonable limit" on a Charter right, it first has to have an objective that addresses a concern that is "pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society." If the law in question meets that standard, then it must have a rational connection to the objective it purports to address, it has to infringe on the affected Charter right as little as possible, and the adverse impact of the law has to be proportionate to the importance of the objective that the law seeks to address. However, if a law can pass that test, the court can determine that it is valid even though it violates a Charter right. 

The government can simply decide to override certain Charter rights

Lastly, Section 33 of the Charter provides that Parliament or a provincial legislature can "expressly declare" that a law will apply notwithstanding that the law infringes on a Charter right. While this section does not apply to all Charter rights, it provides governments with a powerful tool to infringe on many of the rights that people think of when thinking of individual rights, such as the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the rights to be free from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure, among others. This clause provides the provincial and federal governments a strong tool to override many rights that would otherwise be protected by the Charter.

Where does that leave individual rights?

As noted at the outset, individual rights, even those protected by the Charter, are not absolute. Instead, they are subject to the rights and interests of others. The government can seek to limit them to protect some other pressing objective, and can even decide to limit them without providing a rationale by invoking Section 33 of the Charter. As to steps taken by government to address the pandemic, I suspect that if those measures are challenged, governments will likely argue that the measures are reasonable limits on individual rights meant to serve a greater goal (combatting the pandemic). That said, the current environment presents some interesting insights into some of the different points of view that people have about the interaction between their individual rights and the effect on others of exercising those rights.

Michael Hackl is a lawyer with Iler Campbell LLP where he practices civil litigation, providing advice and representation to charities, non-profit organizations and co-operatives on various matters including employment matters, contract disputes and human rights issues.

Pro Bono provides legal information designed to educate and entertain readers. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. While efforts are made to ensure the legal information provided through these columns is useful, we strongly recommend you consult a lawyer for assistance with your particular situation to obtain accurate advice.

Submit requests for future Pro Bono topics to [email protected]. Read past Pro Bono columns here.

Image credit: Mark König/Unsplash

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.