Its much worse than that. The Canadian law that informs its jurisprudence is...well, its hard to find the words. I read the following earlier today on Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, from Coercing Virtue, by Robert H. Bork, pages 86 to 87: (My bold.) Those crazy Canadians They "could'a been contendas".
Where it says government discrimination into Canada's Charter of Rights doe-- Oh wait, there is nothing in the section you specified. I'm against judicial activism like any normal citizen, but it appears that Bork is very narrow-minded and hypocritical in his views on judicial activism. He has problems with judicial activism when it comes to rulings that leftists would likely be more favorable to, but when it comes to rulings that favor to conservatives, he appears to be hunky dory with it. Not to mention he doesn't even come close to being accurate on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it is considered by a few to be a Canadian version of the United States Bill Rights with key differences. The core distinction between the United States Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter is the existence of the limitations and notwithstanding clauses. Canadian courts have consequently interpreted each right more expansively. However, due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right. In contrast, rights under the US Bill of Rights are absolute and so a violation will not be found until there has been sufficient encroachment on those rights. The sum effect is that both constitutions provide comparable protection of many rights.Fundamental justice (in section 7 of the Canadian Charter) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than due process, which is its US equivalent. Freedom of expression in section 2 also has a more wide-ranging scope than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's freedom of speech. In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1986), the Canadian Supreme Court considered picketing of the kind the US First Amendment did not permit, as it was disruptive conduct (though there was some speech involved that the First Amendment might otherwise protect). The Supreme Court, however, ruled the picketing, including the disruptive conduct, were fully protected under section 2 of the Charter. The Court then relied on section 1 to find the injunction against the picketing was just. The limitations clause has also allowed governments to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional in the US. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld some of Quebec's limits on the use of English on signs and has upheld publication bans that prohibit media from mentioning the names of juvenile criminals. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/840689?uid=3739472&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21102564196057
