1. Canadian province X passes a law that stops almost all non-residents from entering its borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law makes exceptions for individuals with extenuating circumstances and for people permanently moving to province X. Province X states that the decision to ban most non-resident travel was made to protect the health of its residents. In justifying its use of a partial border-closure, province X notes that its health-care services would be quickly overburdened if an outbreak occurs. Jo, a resident of a different Canadian province, attempts to enter province X to attend their mother's funeral. At province X's border, Jo is refused entry under the travel prohibition. What are the rights and freedoms at stake here? Does the province's law fairly balance the competing interests and considerations?

(Questions to think about while making your decision.

Why do we need allow the police or authorities to intervene?

What is the purpose of the law, rule, action? What will it accomplish?

Will it accomplish the goal or objective? What else will it do?

Will anything else be affected?)

(Charter cases often involve balancing the rights of an individual and what is best for a nation. In most Charter cases, someone's rights or freedoms will be violated. It is the courts job to decide what is the best solution. You must make a decision and justify why you decided in favour or against the parties involved. Make sure that you consider the rights and freedoms of all people concerned.)