/docs/guides/ca-charter.md

Canada Charter Rights Design Review Playbook

Guide Origin: Community | ArcKit Version: [VERSION]

/arckit:ca-charter generates a Canada Charter Rights Design Review for a federal system that materially engages Charter-protected interests. It identifies which sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are engaged (default for FITAA-class apps: s.2(b), s.2(d), s.7, s.8, s.15), runs the Oakes four-step proportionality test against each engaged right, registers risks and mitigations with residual posture, and captures the DOJ counsel sign-off block.

Charter review is mandatory for any federal system that limits a Charter-protected interest. R v Oakes structures the analysis: any limit must be prescribed by law and demonstrably justified through (1) a pressing and substantial objective, (2) a rational connection between the means and the objective, (3) minimal impairment of the right, and (4) proportional effects. The artefact this command produces is a design-stage instrument — DOJ counsel sign-off remains a delivery gate, not a sign-off formality.

---

Inputs

Artefact	Purpose
Requirements (ARC-<id>-REQ-v1.0.md)	Engagement surface — speech, association, liberty, search, equality requirements
Stakeholders (ARC-<id>-STKE-v1.0.md)	Subject populations, advocacy / journalism / diaspora stakeholders, protected-ground populations
Privacy Impact Assessment (ARC-<id>-PIA-v1.0.md)	s.8 reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis grounded in personal-information categories
FITAA Compliance Assessment (ARC-<id>-FITAA-v1.0.md)	s.2 expression and association engagement — Charter review is a mandatory companion to FITAA

---

Command

/arckit:ca-charter <project ID or service description>

Output: projects/<id>/ARC-<id>-CHRT-v1.0.md

---

Assessment Structure

Section	Contents
Document Control	Canadian classification (UNCLASSIFIED / Protected A–C / CONFIDENTIAL / SECRET / TOP SECRET)
Revision History	Version, date, author, changes, approvals
Executive Summary	Engaged Charter sections, headline risks per right, residual posture, DOJ counsel sign-off status
Charter Engagement Surface	Per-section engagement decision with reasoning; default-engaged for FITAA-class apps: s.2(b), s.2(d), s.7, s.8, s.15
s.2 Analysis	Sub-section tables for 2(a) conscience and religion, 2(b) expression, 2(c) peaceful assembly, 2(d) association
s.7 Analysis	Engagement, deprivation, procedural safeguard, residual; principles of fundamental justice per Carter
s.8 Analysis	Reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis per Hunter v Southam and R v Spencer; warrant or production-order interface
s.15 Analysis	Protected grounds, differential impact, substantive-equality test, residual
Oakes Proportionality Analysis	Four-step test (pressing-and-substantial, rational connection, minimal impairment, proportional effects) for each engaged right
Mitigation Register	Charter risk, mitigation, owner, status, residual
DOJ Counsel Sign-Off Block	Departmental Justice counsel and DOJ HQ constitutional advisor where the risk warrants; date and conditions
External References	Document Register, Citations, Unreferenced

---

When to run

• A federal system introduces or modifies a registration scheme, surveillance capability, or automated decision-making process that touches Charter-protected interests.
• A FITAA-class app is being designed — Charter §2 expression and association analysis is unconditional after /arckit:ca-fitaa.
• A programme will collect, retain, or disclose personal information in a way that engages s.8 reasonable expectation of privacy — typically after the PIA has scoped the personal-information inventory.
• Pre-launch — before service-design sign-off and before any external-facing release of the system or its register.
• On material change — to data, decision boundary, disclosure regime, or operating environment that re-opens any of the engaged rights.

---

Common pitfalls

• Skipping Oakes steps. Every engaged right requires the full four-step test (pressing-and-substantial, rational connection, minimal impairment, proportional effects). Partial proportionality analysis is the most common review failure and a reliable rejection trigger at DOJ review.
• Treating s.15 as formal equality. The substantive-equality test asks whether the design creates or perpetuates disadvantage for a protected group, not whether everyone is treated identically. A facially neutral design that lands harder on a protected group is a s.15 problem regardless of intent.
• Under-citing technology-specific jurisprudence. R v Spencer expanded s.8 to digital subscriber identifiers, and the s.8 jurisprudence continues to develop around metadata, cell-tower data, and platform-mediated communications. A Charter review that cites only Hunter v Southam without the modern digital line is incomplete.
• Sidelining DOJ counsel. Anything beyond a routine internal-tooling review requires departmental Justice counsel sign-off; constitutional matters route to DOJ HQ constitutional advisors. A Charter design review without named counsel sign-off is a draft, not an artefact.
• Conflating engagement with limitation. A Charter section can be engaged without being limited; the proportionality analysis only runs where the design imposes a limit. The engagement surface and the Oakes analysis are separate questions and must be answered separately.

---

Handoffs

• ca-fitaa — Charter §2 expression and association analysis is a mandatory companion to FITAA; the FITAA artefact references this review and the public-vs-protected severance design feeds the s.2 mitigation register. If /arckit:ca-fitaa has been run, /arckit:ca-charter is not optional.
• ca-pia — §8 search-and-seizure analysis is grounded in the personal-information categories captured in the Privacy Impact Assessment. The PIA inventory drives the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis; do not duplicate, link.
• risk — Residual Charter risks per right feed the operational risk register with appropriate severity. Carry the Mitigation Register entries forward with the same risk identifiers so the residual posture is traceable.

---

Statutory currency

Charter jurisprudence is fast-moving in digital contexts. Cite the most recent SCC decisions on s.8 (digital privacy, metadata, cell-tower data), s.7 (procedural-fairness in administrative regimes touching liberty), s.15 (substantive-equality methodology), and s.1 (proportionality refinements) at the time of generation, and record the verification date in the Document Register. Section numbers are stable; the binding effect of jurisprudence is not. Treat any pre-2020 case as load-bearing only after checking subsequent SCC treatment, and re-verify before publication.