To start, no, it's absolutely clear that the minister's discretion is not absolute, and it must be exercised within the constraints imposed by the law and the charter. But it may also be worth noting that the Supreme Court did say, at paragraph 151, that their decision “...does not fetter the Minister’s discretion with respect to future applications for exemptions, whether for other premises, or for Insite”. I think, at a very basic level, this process will at least allow the minister to be informed of whether circumstances have changed, which is possible and conceivable. If circumstances have changed, the factors are different, the minister, in his or her discretion, may decide that a different response is appropriate—the reason for not grandfathering anybody, if you like, and requiring an application each time.
On October 27th, 2014. See this statement in context.