Charter and Property Rights

Discussion on the absence of charter rights pre-charter.
- Example: Individual does not have a charter right to freedom of expression.
- Implication: Mall owner is not subject to charter obligations.

If the charter existed during proceedings:
- Possible balancing of property rights and labor rights.
- Consideration of section 2 rights (freedom of expression).
- Charter values could guide legal interpretations.
Possibility to challenge legislation (e.g., trespass laws) for charter compliance.

Core issue: Conflict between the right to strike and the mall owner's proprietary rights.
- Historical references: Chief Justices Dixon and Laskin have different interpretations of case law.
- Dixon advocates for strict application of precedent.
- Laskin suggests a foundational approach (first principles analysis).
Highlighting the purpose of trespass laws to protect property control.

Context:
- Michelin Tire Company (trademark and copyright owner) vs. Canadian Auto Workers Union.
- Union created intimidating leaflets using Michelin's trademark without permission to promote unionization at the factory.
Legal claims by Michelin:
- Trademark infringement and copyright infringement.
- Court resolution on trademark infringement: No violation due to the specific use context within the Trademark Act.

Legal question: Should freedom of expression rights override private property rights?
Court ruling:
- Freedom of expression does not grant the right to use private property for expression.
- Judicial quote: "The charter does not infer the right to use private property in the service of freedom of expression."
- Freedom of expression is not extended to utilizing private property as a platform.
Examples of speech limitations: hate speech and other forms of expression that are prohibited.

Court's perspective on alternative expressions:
- Protesters can explore various means for expressions aside from using private materials.
- The presence of other means suggested to lessen legal burden on the property owner.

Counterargument to the property rights prioritization:
- Protest effectiveness might require specific locations (e.g., in front of the employer's premises).
- Restricting where protests can occur may undermine their purpose.
Discussion of real-world implications:
- Other worker protests illustrating tensions with private property rights (e.g., Medieval Times and Amazon unionization attempts).

Comparison of public spaces vs. private property:
- Public space provides broader avenues for protests.
- Legal and ethical considerations for occupying public spaces vs. private property.

Context:
- Protest against wealth disparity by the Occupy Movement using public park space.
- More favorable legal landscape for protests in public spaces, particularly post-charter.
Legal distinctions made about space appropriateness:
- Recommendations on restrictions for camping and long-term occupation leading to exclusion of others.

Differentiation from prior protests:
- Legality of protests on university property akin to quasi-public land.
- Ownership vs. community use rights analyzed through property appropriation lens.
Key observations on university property use:
- Court uses the concept of appropriation regarding exclusion of others from the property.
- Balancing society's need for order and law enforcement with individual rights to protest.
Importance of maintaining public access vs. protester's rights to occupy space.
Court findings on maintaining property control and social order.

Reflection on the rule of law and property ownership:
- Framing property ownership as integral in maintaining social order and freedom.
- Courts must balance rights to avoid chaos that might arise from unrestricted protest freedoms.
Conclusion: Protests must occur within a framework that respects both the rights of demonstrators and property owners.
Invitation for further legal questions and clarifications regarding charter applications and case analyses regarding protests and property rights.