Mr. Hamish Stewart at the Justice and Human Rights Committee

On February 14th, 2012. See this statement in context.

February 14th, 2012 / 12:20 p.m.

Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual

I think you're right to say that it would be possible to interpret this clause as prioritizing necessity and proportionality over the other factors listed in proposed subsection 34.(2). I think the clause is open to that interpretation.

I think it would give clearer guidance to trial judges and juries if it were made explicit rather than being left in a list of factors. As Mr. Preston said, in response to a question about reasonableness, none of these concepts is perfectly precise, as law never is. I'm concerned that--

See context to find out what was said next.