The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that interprovincial mobility is a constitutional right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that Section 6 of the Charter protects the right to move freely within Canada.
The ruling establishes that when the government imposes an interprovincial travel restriction, it must justify that the restriction is reasonable and necessary. The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 6 is not only to protect individual autonomy but also to promote national unity and is foundational to the overall nation-building objective.
The court also considered Canada's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for the fundamental human right to move freely in the entire territory of a state, including all parts of a federal state.
The five-judge majority held that interprovincial travel restrictions violate both the right to remain in Canada under Section 6(1) and the right to move to and take up residence in any province under Section 6(2)(a). The dissenting judges would have held that the right to interprovincial mobility falls into one of the two categories.
The difference can be significant for two reasons. First, Section 6(1) rights are exclusive to Canadian citizens, but Section 6(2) rights extend to permanent residents as well. Second, the government can impose any non-discriminatory limits on Section 6(2) rights but not on Section 6(1) rights.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association welcomed the decision, stating that the ruling affirms that interprovincial mobility is a fundamental human right that facilitates individual autonomy and national unity.
Previous jurisprudence on interprovincial mobility rights focuses on residency and economic activities. This ruling marks the first time the court deliberates on the right to travel within the country alone.