# Canada Charter Rights Design Review Playbook > **Guide Origin**: Community | **ArcKit Version**: [VERSION] `/arckit:ca-charter` generates a Canada Charter Rights Design Review for a federal system that materially engages Charter-protected interests. It identifies which sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are engaged (default for FITAA-class apps: s.2(b), s.2(d), s.7, s.8, s.15), runs the *Oakes* four-step proportionality test against each engaged right, registers risks and mitigations with residual posture, and captures the DOJ counsel sign-off block. Charter review is mandatory for any federal system that limits a Charter-protected interest. *R v Oakes* structures the analysis: any limit must be prescribed by law and demonstrably justified through (1) a pressing and substantial objective, (2) a rational connection between the means and the objective, (3) minimal impairment of the right, and (4) proportional effects. The artefact this command produces is a design-stage instrument — DOJ counsel sign-off remains a delivery gate, not a sign-off formality. --- ## Inputs | Artefact | Purpose | |----------|---------| | Requirements (`ARC--REQ-v1.0.md`) | Engagement surface — speech, association, liberty, search, equality requirements | | Stakeholders (`ARC--STKE-v1.0.md`) | Subject populations, advocacy / journalism / diaspora stakeholders, protected-ground populations | | Privacy Impact Assessment (`ARC--PIA-v1.0.md`) | s.8 reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis grounded in personal-information categories | | FITAA Compliance Assessment (`ARC--FITAA-v1.0.md`) | s.2 expression and association engagement — Charter review is a mandatory companion to FITAA | --- ## Command ```bash /arckit:ca-charter ``` Output: `projects//ARC--CHRT-v1.0.md` --- ## Assessment Structure | Section | Contents | |---------|----------| | Document Control | Canadian classification (UNCLASSIFIED / Protected A–C / CONFIDENTIAL / SECRET / TOP SECRET) | | Revision History | Version, date, author, changes, approvals | | Executive Summary | Engaged Charter sections, headline risks per right, residual posture, DOJ counsel sign-off status | | Charter Engagement Surface | Per-section engagement decision with reasoning; default-engaged for FITAA-class apps: s.2(b), s.2(d), s.7, s.8, s.15 | | s.2 Analysis | Sub-section tables for 2(a) conscience and religion, 2(b) expression, 2(c) peaceful assembly, 2(d) association | | s.7 Analysis | Engagement, deprivation, procedural safeguard, residual; principles of fundamental justice per *Carter* | | s.8 Analysis | Reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis per *Hunter v Southam* and *R v Spencer*; warrant or production-order interface | | s.15 Analysis | Protected grounds, differential impact, substantive-equality test, residual | | Oakes Proportionality Analysis | Four-step test (pressing-and-substantial, rational connection, minimal impairment, proportional effects) for each engaged right | | Mitigation Register | Charter risk, mitigation, owner, status, residual | | DOJ Counsel Sign-Off Block | Departmental Justice counsel and DOJ HQ constitutional advisor where the risk warrants; date and conditions | | External References | Document Register, Citations, Unreferenced | --- ## When to run - A federal system introduces or modifies a registration scheme, surveillance capability, or automated decision-making process that touches Charter-protected interests. - A FITAA-class app is being designed — Charter §2 expression and association analysis is unconditional after `/arckit:ca-fitaa`. - A programme will collect, retain, or disclose personal information in a way that engages s.8 reasonable expectation of privacy — typically after the PIA has scoped the personal-information inventory. - Pre-launch — before service-design sign-off and before any external-facing release of the system or its register. - On material change — to data, decision boundary, disclosure regime, or operating environment that re-opens any of the engaged rights. --- ## Common pitfalls - **Skipping Oakes steps.** Every engaged right requires the full four-step test (pressing-and-substantial, rational connection, minimal impairment, proportional effects). Partial proportionality analysis is the most common review failure and a reliable rejection trigger at DOJ review. - **Treating s.15 as formal equality.** The substantive-equality test asks whether the design creates or perpetuates disadvantage for a protected group, not whether everyone is treated identically. A facially neutral design that lands harder on a protected group is a s.15 problem regardless of intent. - **Under-citing technology-specific jurisprudence.** *R v Spencer* expanded s.8 to digital subscriber identifiers, and the s.8 jurisprudence continues to develop around metadata, cell-tower data, and platform-mediated communications. A Charter review that cites only *Hunter v Southam* without the modern digital line is incomplete. - **Sidelining DOJ counsel.** Anything beyond a routine internal-tooling review requires departmental Justice counsel sign-off; constitutional matters route to DOJ HQ constitutional advisors. A Charter design review without named counsel sign-off is a draft, not an artefact. - **Conflating engagement with limitation.** A Charter section can be engaged without being limited; the proportionality analysis only runs where the design imposes a limit. The engagement surface and the Oakes analysis are separate questions and must be answered separately. --- ## Handoffs - **`ca-fitaa`** — Charter §2 expression and association analysis is a mandatory companion to FITAA; the FITAA artefact references this review and the public-vs-protected severance design feeds the s.2 mitigation register. If `/arckit:ca-fitaa` has been run, `/arckit:ca-charter` is not optional. - **`ca-pia`** — §8 search-and-seizure analysis is grounded in the personal-information categories captured in the Privacy Impact Assessment. The PIA inventory drives the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis; do not duplicate, link. - **`risk`** — Residual Charter risks per right feed the operational risk register with appropriate severity. Carry the Mitigation Register entries forward with the same risk identifiers so the residual posture is traceable. --- ## Statutory currency Charter jurisprudence is fast-moving in digital contexts. Cite the most recent SCC decisions on s.8 (digital privacy, metadata, cell-tower data), s.7 (procedural-fairness in administrative regimes touching liberty), s.15 (substantive-equality methodology), and s.1 (proportionality refinements) at the time of generation, and record the verification date in the Document Register. Section numbers are stable; the binding effect of jurisprudence is not. Treat any pre-2020 case as load-bearing only after checking subsequent SCC treatment, and re-verify before publication.