[1] The Supreme Court of Canada also narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, showing reluctance to declare laws inoperative.

[a] Between 1960 and 1982, only five of the thirty-five cases concerning the Bill of Rights that were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada resulted in a successful outcome for claimants.

These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's parent country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy.

If a court finds that a Charter right has been infringed, it conducts an analysis under section 1 by applying the Oakes test, a form of proportionality review.

[3] The Supreme Court of Canada has applied the Oakes test to uphold laws against hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).

The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7 through 15 for up to five years, subject to renewal.

The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage,[5][b] respectively.

Moreover, the courts chose to interpret the Bill of Rights only sparingly, and only on rare occasions applied it to find a contrary law inoperative.

Subsequently, Attorney General Pierre Trudeau appointed law professor Barry Strayer to research a potential bill of rights.

[14] In 1968, Strayer was made the director of the Constitutional Law Division of the Privy Council Office, followed in 1974 by his appointment as assistant deputy Minister of Justice.

[16]: 272  At a suggestion of the Conservatives, Trudeau's government thus agreed to a committee of senators and members of Parliament (MPs) to further examine the bill as well as the patriation plan.

As the provinces still had doubts about the Charter's merits, Trudeau was forced to accept the notwithstanding clause to allow governments to opt out of certain obligations.

The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review pre-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.

The Charlottetown Accord would have specifically required the Charter to be interpreted in a manner respectful of Quebec's distinct society, and would have added further statements to the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding racial and sexual equality and collective rights, and about minority language communities.

Though the Accord was negotiated among many interest groups, the resulting provisions were so vague that Trudeau, then out of office, feared they would actually conflict with and undermine the Charter's individual rights.

This means that since early cases, such as Hunter v Southam Inc (1984) and R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), they have concentrated less on the traditional, limited understanding of what each right meant when the Charter was adopted in 1982.

Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg (2003) has approved of the generous approach in some cases, although for others he argues the purpose of the provisions was not to achieve a set of rights as broad as courts have imagined.

Although they believe in the validity of the living tree doctrine, which is the basis for the approach (and the tradition term for generous interpretations of the Canadian Constitution), they argue Charter case law has been more radical.

The un-ratified Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S., which garnered many critics when proposed, performs a similar function to that of the Charter section 28, which received no comparable opposition.

[27] Still, Canadian feminists had to stage large protests to demonstrate support for the inclusion of section 28, which had not been part of the original draft of the Charter.

According to author Rand Dyck (2000), some scholars believe section 23, with its minority language education rights, "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned".

[2]: 704–5 Former premier of Ontario Bob Rae has stated that the Charter "functions as a symbol for all Canadians" in practice because it represents the core value of freedom.

[2]: 704–5  Still, opinion polls in 2002 showed Canadians felt the Charter significantly represented Canada, although many were unaware of the document's actual contents.

[35] The only values mentioned by the Charter's preamble are recognition of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, but these have been controversial and of minor legal consequence.

[36] While the Charter has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, with 82 percent of Canadians describing it as a good thing in opinion polls in 1987 and 1999,[24] the document has also been subject to published criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum.

[37] One left-wing critic is professor Michael Mandel (1989),[f] who wrote that, in comparison to politicians, judges do not have to be as sensitive to the will of the electorate, nor do they have to make sure their decisions are easily understandable to the average Canadian citizen.

[needs update] Conservative critics Morton and Knopff (2000) have raised several concerns about the Charter, notably by alleging that the federal government has used it to limit provincial powers by allying with various rights claimants and interest groups.

In their book The Charter Revolution & the Court Party (2000), Morton and Knopff express their suspicions of this alliance in detail, accusing the Pierre Trudeau and Chrétien governments of funding litigious groups.

[23]: 95 Political scientist Rand Dyck (2000), in observing these criticisms, notes that while judges have had their scope of review widened, they have still upheld most laws challenged on Charter grounds.

In encouraging discourse based upon rights, Blattberg claims the Charter injects an adversarial spirit into Canadian politics, making it difficult to realize the common good.