The principles of fundamental justice have significantly evolved since the birth of the Initially, the principles of fundamental justice were thought to Charter. refer narrowly to principles of natural justice that define procedural fairness. In the this Court held otherwise: Motor Vehicle Reference, . . . it would be wrong to interpret the term justice” as “fundamental being synonymous with natural justice . . . . To do so would strip the protected interests of much, if not most, of their content and leave the to life, liberty and security of the person in a sorely emaciated “right” state. Such a result would be inconsistent with the broad, affirmative language in which those rights are expressed and equally inconsistent with the approach adopted by this Court toward the interpretation of rights in [1984] 1 Charter Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, S.C.R. 357, Estey J., and [pp. 501-2] per Hunter v. Southam Inc., supra. The recognized that the principles of Motor Vehicle Reference fundamental justice are about the basic values underpinning our constitutional order. The s. 7 analysis is concerned with capturing inherently bad laws: that is, laws that take away life, liberty, or security of the person in a way that runs afoul of our basic values. The principles of fundamental justice are an attempt to capture those values. Over the years, the jurisprudence has given shape to the content of these basic values. In this case, we are concerned with the basic values against arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality. The concepts of arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality evolved organically as courts were faced with novel claims. Charter
The principles of fundamental justice have significantly evolved since the birth of the Charter. Initially, the principles of fundamental justice were thought to refer narrowly to principles of natural justice that define procedural fairness. In the Motor Vehicle Reference, this Court held otherwise: . . . it would be wrong to interpret the term “fundamental justice” as being synonymous with natural justice . . . . To do so would strip the protected interests of much, if not most, of their content and leave the “right” to life, liberty and security of the person in a sorely emaciated state. Such a result would be inconsistent with the broad, affirmative language in which those rights are expressed and equally inconsistent with the approach adopted by this Court toward the interpretation of Charter rights in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, per Estey J., and Hunter v. Southam Inc., supra. [pp. 501-2] The Motor Vehicle Reference recognized that the principles of fundamental justice are about the basic values underpinning our constitutional order. The s. 7 analysis is concerned with capturing inherently bad laws: that is, laws that take away life, liberty, or security of the person in a way that runs afoul of our basic values. The principles of fundamental justice are an attempt to capture those values. Over the years, the jurisprudence has given shape to the content of these basic values. In this case, we are concerned with the basic values against arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality. The concepts of arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality evolved organically as courts were faced with novel Charter claims.