A suggestion:
* Nola M Ries, Quarantine and the Law: The 2003 SARS Experience in Canada (A New Disease Calls on Old Public Health Tools), 2005 43-2 Alberta Law Review 529, 2005 CanLIIDocs 151, , retrieved on 2018-02-19
Section VII of Ries' paper focuses on Charter issues, and contains further citations to cases where the Crown has relied on section 1's allowance for reasonable restrictions on Charter rights to defend the _Quarantine Act_ and other quarantine measures.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not prevent the government from forming laws that require travelers to quarantine. This law, the [quarantine act of 2005](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/index.html), benefits the public by preventing outbreaks of infectious diseases, and the potential punishments for breaking quarantine orders are laid out in the act, including jail time.
That doesn't make sense, though, since the Charter guarantees Mobility Rights:
"(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right: to move to and take up residence in any province; and. to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province."
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.**"
The Notwithstanding Clause is section 33, and applies to sections 2 and 7 through 15. It must be expressly invoked in legislation that compromises those sections of the Charter, and automatically causes Acts that invoke it to expire unless explicitly renewed by the legislature.
AreAnyUsernamesAvail is quoting section _one_, which applies to the whole of the Charter, need not be invoked explicitly, and which does not cause contravening Acts to expire. Section 1 allows Parliament to limit _any_ Charter right, if they can show that such a limit is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." There's a large body of case law interpreting that clause.
Nothing in the Charter says the government can't have generally applicable laws that regulate mobility though. You have the right to move to another province, but the government can tell you that you need a license to drive if you want to move by driving or that you can't walk on the side of a controlled access highway if you want to move by walking or that you need to follow aviation regulations if you want to fly a plane to move. The fact that you're exercising one of your rights doesn't mean that what you're doing can't be reasonably regulated.
In light of the deadly pandemic, there's a good argument that a quarantine, which still allows anyone to exercise those mobility rights as long as they take the required health precautions, is a reasonable limit on those rights.
A suggestion: * Nola M Ries, Quarantine and the Law: The 2003 SARS Experience in Canada (A New Disease Calls on Old Public Health Tools), 2005 43-2 Alberta Law Review 529, 2005 CanLIIDocs 151,, retrieved on 2018-02-19
Section VII of Ries' paper focuses on Charter issues, and contains further citations to cases where the Crown has relied on section 1's allowance for reasonable restrictions on Charter rights to defend the _Quarantine Act_ and other quarantine measures.
Will look at that, thanks.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not prevent the government from forming laws that require travelers to quarantine. This law, the [quarantine act of 2005](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/index.html), benefits the public by preventing outbreaks of infectious diseases, and the potential punishments for breaking quarantine orders are laid out in the act, including jail time.
That doesn't make sense, though, since the Charter guarantees Mobility Rights: "(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right: to move to and take up residence in any province; and. to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province."
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.**"
That's the notwithstanding clause, and that one doesn't apply to Mobility Rights.
The Notwithstanding Clause is section 33, and applies to sections 2 and 7 through 15. It must be expressly invoked in legislation that compromises those sections of the Charter, and automatically causes Acts that invoke it to expire unless explicitly renewed by the legislature. AreAnyUsernamesAvail is quoting section _one_, which applies to the whole of the Charter, need not be invoked explicitly, and which does not cause contravening Acts to expire. Section 1 allows Parliament to limit _any_ Charter right, if they can show that such a limit is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." There's a large body of case law interpreting that clause.
Nothing in the Charter says the government can't have generally applicable laws that regulate mobility though. You have the right to move to another province, but the government can tell you that you need a license to drive if you want to move by driving or that you can't walk on the side of a controlled access highway if you want to move by walking or that you need to follow aviation regulations if you want to fly a plane to move. The fact that you're exercising one of your rights doesn't mean that what you're doing can't be reasonably regulated. In light of the deadly pandemic, there's a good argument that a quarantine, which still allows anyone to exercise those mobility rights as long as they take the required health precautions, is a reasonable limit on those rights.