They always expect the court decisions to be consistent with the objectives on social and economic policies. However, in any given case, the Supreme Court is persistent as to the inherent uncertainty of any result. Although the public's opinion is correct, the Supreme Court has the right and duty to uphold its unbiased decision. Another question that may arise is - "Is the Charter applicable only to Canadian citizens?" In reference to Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedom, the Supreme Court implied that Section 7 is not limited to the citizens of Canada but is applicable to all persons who are physically present in the country. A person who is not a citizen of Canada may enjoy such protection of the law in a way that a Canadian citizen may benefit the same while on another country. This is because of the many treaties between countries regarding the governance of their citizens while in a foreign land. Of course, these rights are not intended to mean the same rights being enjoyed by citizens such as the right to vote and the right to run in government office. The right we are talking here is the right to due process of law. Again, although "due process" is not expressly stated in the Charter, it is meant to be the same as the fundamental justice.

As in the case of Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh, a number of petitions were received that he was deprived of his right of due process during the deportation review and he claimed that he was a victim of arbitrary detention. Because Suresh was not able to exercise his right to habeas corpus, the petitioner maintained that the Canadian government has failed to ensure the equal protection before the law. Despite these petitions, Suresh was deported back to Sri Lanka. Since Suresh was an alleged member a terrorist organization, Canada took into consideration the overall security as a precautionary measure.

As regards the rights to life, abortion takes an impediment position on cases where the

The Code states that abortion is an offence, but is subject to defense in Section 251(4). As soon as the requirements to validate an abortion is complied, then it is being authorized. There comes the issue on the sanctity of life. When a pregnant woman's life is at stake, it is her personal right to choose whether she wants to continue her pregnancy or not. According to Judge Wilson, if the state interferes with the decision, the pregnant woman's right to liberty is impeded. On the other hand, if the pregnant woman is forced t to continue her pregnancy, her rights to personal security is obstructed. Considering the rights of the fetus to life, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that a fetus is not a person. Therefore, it does not have the rights to enjoy under the Quebec Charter.
According to Justice Sopinca, in determining the principles of fundamental justice, the consideration is not just focused on the individual but on the state's interest. It is true that there must be a consensus in the society. In case there is a breach in the rights of life, liberty, and security of a person, a balance test is taken, weighing the importance of the individual as against the welfare of the majority. Therefore, if the breach of the said rights does not enhance the state's interest, then there is a breach of the fundamental justice.

Just like in any other countries, Canada's fundamental justice is confined with upholding the value of every person - his or her life, liberty and security. There may be conflicts that may arise in the exercise of particular rights as against the application of other existing laws, but, let us always keep in mind that the government has the obligation to ensure the overall security of Canadians. As reported by the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act, the government will protect the civil liberties as a basis of a democratic society -- be it an international or domestic law, all rights are of equal value.