canada constitutional-law human-rights
Does the arrivecan app go against the Canadian charter?
<p>I was looking through the Canadian charter, and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220904075741/https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2d" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 6</a> piqued my interest. It states, in subsection 2, that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Doesn't the arrivecan app (and subsequent forceful quarantine, and/or fine) infringe upon this right? Directly after the above subsection, it goes on to say, in subsection 3:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to any laws or practices of general application in force in a  province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on  the basis of province of present or previous residence</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This to me seems to say that only provincial laws can override the aformentioned freedom. Since the arrivecan app is federally run, doesn't this mean that it is not legal?</p>
<p>It seems that the government only chooses to follow Section 6 subsection 1 of the charter</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>by allowing the citizen to still enter if they refuse to use the arrivecan app; however, from what I understand, they breech it by forcing a quarantine and/or fine for not using it.</p>

<p>It is generally understood that governments <strong>do</strong> have the right to quarantine citizens in case of epidemic outbreaks. In nations with a rule of law, the extent of quarantine regulations may be challenged in court.</p>
<p>A challenge against the app <a href="https://torontosun.com/news/national/group-files-constitutional-challenge-of-arrivecan-app-in-federal-court" rel="nofollow noreferrer">has been filed</a>, and trying to second-guess the court by reading sections of the constitution seems to be pointless.</p>
