Yes. The way the charter is set up is that indeed one can have an infringement of a right, but those infringements can be justified under section 1 of the charter. A limitation on a right that's “reasonable...in a free and democratic society” is the language of section 1.
I can think of a potential justification, which might be that it simply.... We don't have the data to support this, and this is why it's so important to collect data. However, one could take the position that it is not possible to safely do the assessments that are required to distinguish between those who satisfy the criteria and those who do not, for example. That might be one justification.
I don't think we have the evidence that would support that argument at this point. We have lots of speculation that this is the case, but we don't have.... We have a lot of people saying, “We do these kinds of assessments of capacity in very high-consequence contexts with mental disorder already—the refusal of necessary treatment with fatal consequences—and so we can do capacity assessment.”
We don't exclude people who are vulnerable and marginalized from making decisions that might have fatal consequences. So it becomes really hard to justify the exclusion in this context when it's tolerated in a whole range of other contexts.