According to Hogg, the purpose of this "cautionary provision" was to confirm pre-Charter rights will persist.
[2] A notable case in which section 26 and the Bill of Rights were discussed is Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985).
On one of its websites, the government of Canada claims there was also a more forward-looking purpose for section 26, namely to allow non-Charter rights to continue being created.
Rights not included in the Charter but established in the future by Parliament, a provincial legislature, or in international law, will be valid.
In the case Le Groupe des Eleveurs de Volailles et al. v. Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, the Federal Court ruled that non-Charter rights are not enhanced by section 26, and in R. v. MacAusland, the Prince Edward Island court ruled that non-Charter rights are not constitutionally guaranteed, although they are not limited by the Charter either.