What is the test for interlocutory relief in the context of religious freedom and religious freedom?

The Attorney-General disagrees with the defendants’ assertion that such interlocutory relief would interfere with their freedoms of religion, expression and assembly as provided for by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Alternatively, she submits that any infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Counsel for the Attorney-General emphasize that the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter are not absolute and that the ambit of a right or freedom must be defined in the context of the particular activity in question, as set out in Young v. Young (1993), 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), 108 D.L.R. (4th) 193, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, 18 C.R.R. (2d) 41, per McLachlin J. at p. 276, and per L’Heureux-Dubé J. at pp. 256-7, and in R. v. Edwards Books & Art Ltd. (1986), 1986 CanLII 12 (SCC), 35 D.L.R. (4th) 1 at pp. 34-5, 30 C.C.C. (3d) 385, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713.