I'll give a charter analysis course 101.
The first test is to examine whether or not the rule as written infringes any constitutional rights. When it came to freedom of expression, I am stopping people from lobbying for at least two years or a year, depending on the circumstances. The courts have said the minute you stop people from being able to speak—it's a very low threshold—the freedom of expression has been breached.
Then when you look at section 1, is it justified? Is there a reason for this and has it been crafted in a way that it minimally impairs charter rights? When the objective is to ensure that we have ethical and transparent lobbying and that lobbyists do not lobby people who have a sense of obligation towards them, the legal opinion says that this objective is clear.
In the way the rule has been crafted, we're not stopping people from doing political work. In fact, we're letting them do it, but if they choose to do so, there might be limits on who they can lobby afterwards. It's only the people that they've helped get elected, and their close associates.
It is also limited in time, and, depending on the facts, the time could be reduced. If somebody is your campaign manager and within a week you realize that it's not working and you let them go, they shouldn't be prohibited from lobbying you for two years.
Some facts will be reviewed. According to the opinion, it was crafted in a way that the court would likely simply say that it's justified.