Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123: adopted a more flexible formula to the minimal impairment test.

Per Dickson C.J.:

The legislative scheme that was eventually implemented and has now been challenged need not be the "perfect" scheme that could be imagined by this Court or any other court. Rather, it is sufficient if it is appropriately and carefully tailored in the context of the infringed right. I find that this legislation meets the test of minimum impairment of the right in question.

In this regard, I find my words in R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, at p. 783, to be applicable:

I should emphasize that it is not the role of this Court to devise legislation that is constitutionally valid, or to pass on the validity of schemes which are not directly before it, or to consider what legislation might be the most desirable. The discussion of alternative legislative schemes that I have undertaken is directed to one end only, that is, to address the issue whether the existing scheme meets the requirements of the second limb of the test for the application of s. 1 of the Charter as set down in Oakes.

| Return to Topic Menu | Return to Main Menu |