When Canadian politicians drafted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, they included a "reasonable limits" clause, the likes of which does not exist under the American constitution. Section 1 of the Charter essentially acts as an "out" for the courts, allowing them to declare that a piece of legislation infringes upon a Charter-protected right, but that infringement is "reasonable" in a free and democratic society.

The text of Section 1 states that "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The meaning of this phrase was determined in the case of R. v. Oakes, where the Supreme Court of Canada articulated the test for what constitutes a reasonable limit that a free and democratic society can tolerate.

The court ruled that in order to limit a Charter right under Section 1, the government must demonstrate that they have a "valid objective" in mind, and that the law in question is carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. In addition, a reasonable limit on a Charter right should infringe upon that right "as little as possible." Finally, the government must demonstrate that the benefits of the legislation are sufficient or proportional to the ramifications for individuals whose Charter rights have been infringed.

This three-part process, known as the " Oakes test " has often been used to impose supposedly "reasonable" limits on freedom of expression which do not exist in the United States. Hate speech laws, for example, have been declared a reasonable limit on freedom of expression, as have laws against pornography and advertising to young children.

Democratic Rights, on the other hand, and specifically the right to vote in provincial and federal elections, enjoy broad constitutional protection in Canada, pursuant to Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section states that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

Interestingly, unlike freedom of expression which has been relatively limited in Canada due to Section 1 of the Charter, Canadian courts have interpreted Section 3 as being virtually immune to "reasonable limits." This is demonstrated by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), where it was determined that even convicted criminals serving prison sentences had a right to vote in elections.

The court determined that a prohibition on voting by incarcerated criminals did not deter crime or serve any other "valid objective", and may actually further disenfranchise individuals who are already marginalized in society.

The Supreme Court of Canada's broad attitude to Section 3 of the Charter, especially when viewed alongside the myriad of supposedly "reasonable" restrictions that have been placed on freedom of expression, suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada is more concerned with the safeguarding the concept of a "democratic society" than that of a "free society".