Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[1] It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings and in the adjudicative context, and has in certain circumstances touched upon major national policy issues such as entitlement to social assistance[2] and public health care.

The Criminal Code provision imposing a blanket ban on assisted suicide was struck down for overbreadth, as it also impacted those with the capacity to provide legitimate consent.

The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal".

In the 1995 Supreme Court decision B (R) v Children’s Aid Society, in which two parents attempted to block a certain treatment for their child on religious grounds, it was argued that the personal choice aspect of liberty guaranteed family privacy.

v. The Queen (1992), the Supreme Court stressed the individual nature of section 7 to deny unions had a right to strike as part of the members' liberty.

However, in R v Levkovic, 2013 SCC 25, the Supreme Court found that "security of the person" could not be used to justify a mother's failure to report a stillbirth.

In Operation Dismantle v The Queen (1985), cruise missile testing was unsuccessfully challenged as violating security of the person for risking nuclear war.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that, "The ability to generate business revenue by one's chosen means is not a right that is protected under s. 7 of the Charter.

"[11] In 2004, Blair JA, writing for the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Mussani v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario noted that "the weight of authority is that there is no constitutional right to practise a profession unfettered by the applicable rules which and standards which regulate that profession", before going on to conclude that the revocation of Mr. Mussani's licence to practice medicine did not deprive him of life, liberty or the security of his person.

[12] The courts have also held that "salary or compensation (in whatever form they may take), are in my view a purely economic right, and are not protected by section 7".

(Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG)) The "Principles of Fundamental Justice" require laws to have a clear and understandable interpretation so as to properly define the rule or offence.

(Ontario v Canadian Pacific Ltd, 1995) In R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, for example, a statute which made it illegal to "unduly" prevent or lessen competition was upheld.

Although the wording was undeniably open-ended and uncertain, the concept of undue interference with competition was deemed sufficient to enable legal debate on the subject.

(R v Heywood at para 49) Gross disproportionality describes state actions or legislative responses to a problem that are so extreme as to be disproportionate to any legitimate government interest (R v Malmo-Levine at para 143) The principles of fundamental justice require that criminal offences that have sentences involving prison must have a mens rea element, namely intent to commit a crime.

(Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, R v Vaillancourt) For more serious crimes such as murder that impose a stigma as part of the conviction, the mental element must be proven on a "subjective" level.

(R v Martineau) Where an individual is criminally charged under an exceptionally complex or difficult to understand statute (such as the Income Tax Act), a mistaken interpretation of the law may serve to negate the requisite mens rea.

In determining what would shock the conscience, the Court said some elements of fundamental justice in Canada, such as the presumption of innocence, could be seen as "finicky" and thus irrelevant to extradition.

The case arose in the content of federal money laundering legislation which required lawyers to retain information on certain financial transactions.

Even though solicitor-client privilege could be declared, the Court held that the law nonetheless undermined the public's confidence in lawyers' duty of commitment by requiring them to collect and retain significantly more information than what is needed for ethical and effective client representation.

In September 1982, after the Charter had been enacted, the government of British Columbia approved of an unsuccessful amendment to section 7 that would protect property rights.