First off, thanks for going into so much detail, I appreciate it.

It was never all rainbows and open arms. That’s aspirational at best, and the path for immigrants is really, really hard. Sadly, not everyone even thinks that’s a bad thing. I do expect that we will draw a line at some point, though.

From the most recent appeal decision:

A degree of difference as between the legal schemes applicable in the two countries can be tolerated, so long as the American system is not fundamentally unfair.

With respect to gross disproportionality, the question is whether the impugned legislation’s effects on the s. 7 interests are so grossly disproportionate to its purposes that they cannot rationally be supported. Neither a risk of detention with opportunities for release and review nor a risk of medical isolation meets this high threshold. In Canada, as in the United States, these risks are within the mutually held norms accepted by our free and democratic societies.

As of 2023, the US was a liberal democracy, if a really hollowed out one, and there hasn’t been a big, decisive collapse even now. A different case with different rights violations might get a different conclusion, and I have to wonder if they would find the US immigration system fundamentally fair today if this was retried. Probably not; Trump has been far more aggressive this time around and is sending people to forever prisons in El Salvador.

The gender based part would be one of the cases you mentioned that’s still ongoing:

Claims based on s. 15 are not secondary issues only to be reached after all other issues are considered. The Charter should not be treated as if it establishes a hierarchy of rights in which s. 15 occupies a lower tier.