Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries.

[6] French Canadians, who have been at the centre of unity debates, are able to travel throughout all Canada and receive government and educational services in their own language.

Hence, they are not confined to Quebec (the only province where they form the majority and where most of their population is based), which would polarize the country along regional lines.

According to the Supreme Court in Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson (1998),[3] section 6 is also "rooted in a concern with human rights."

[8] The application of extradition laws to try individuals in countries where constitutional standards are lower or sentences higher remains a controversial practice, and was used by the Canadian government against Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, alleged war criminal Michael Seifert, and marijuana seed vendor Marc Emery, none of whom were convicted of a crime in Canada.

Canadian courts have demonstrated an ongoing lack of willingness to apply constitutional remedies in such cases.

Permanent residents are those described in the 1977 Immigration Act as "a person who (a) has been granted landing, (b) has not become a Canadian citizen..." This definition would exclude corporations.

Allowing for Canadians to be extradited has been legally upheld in Canada since before Confederation; Sir William Buell Richards approved of it in Re Burley in 1865 as a matter of treaty law.

Since Canada v. Schmidt, it is indeed rights to fundamental justice under section 7 that are generally used to evaluate whether a particular case of extradition is fair.

recognized and affirmed laws that limited rights to pursue certain careers for persons who had recently entered the province.

This may be a difficult analysis to perform given that one can pursue work in a number of different ways, but in general a newcomer will be compared with those who have lived in the province for longer.

Laws and regulations that appear neutral on their face, but in fact are meant to allow discrimination in practice or have discriminatory consequences, are also considered to violate section 6.

[13] As the Supreme Court noted in Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson, section 6 is connected with similar provisions in international bills of rights that Canada has recognized.