What is the test for triggering a section 7 right under the Charter?

[375] I find that section 7 rights are triggered by the apprehension and I must then follow the analysis employed by Justice L’Heureux-Dubé in Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., supra, where she set out the balancing of three factors to determine whether the triggering of the section 7 right constitutes a violation under the Charter and, if so, whether it conforms to the principles of fundamental justice.

[376] She held that there are three factors to be balanced: (a) The first of these is the seriousness of the interests at stake; in the case at bar, that would involve finding out if the children are harmed and the extent of the harm, as opposed to the interest of the parents in being able to discipline their children without State interference. (b) The second factor is the practical difficulties associated with the law in question; in the case at bar, this means the difficulties of a child protection worker attempting to do her job in conducting an investigation. If the society were unable to conduct an investigation, it would be unable to determine if a child was being harmed. That entails too great a risk. (c) Finally, one must weigh the risks and benefits of the law. Clearly, no matter how traumatic an apprehension may be to the parents and children, the benefit in being able to protect children from harm outweighs the parents’ interest in being able to raise their children and not have them removed. Just as in the case of Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., supra, I find in the case at bar that the parents’ section 7 rights were triggered by the apprehension, but that, in balancing the three factors outlined above, I can conclude that this was done in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.