The judge, after swimming about in an ocean of fact evidence, ruled that the change was “arbitrary” and “grossly disproportionate” in its likely effects, and that it violated the rights to life and to security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was, on its face, radical new ground for a Canadian court to explore. The classical view of the Charter, confirmed by the plain language therein, is that it exists to enforce “negative rights”: it’s a list of coercive things the state cannot do, rather than a list of goodies that the state is positively required to provide or fund.