How have the courts interpreted the facts in Charter cases?

There is a longstanding principle that constitutional questions should not be decided except upon a full factual record. The rationale for this position was clearly articulated by Cory J. in MacKay v. Manitoba, 1989 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 as follows: 8 Charter cases will frequently be concerned with concepts and principles that are of fundamental importance to Canadian society. In light of the importance and the impact that these decisions may have in the future, the courts have every right to expect and indeed to insist upon the careful preparation and presentation of a factual basis in most Charter cases. The relevant facts put forward may cover a wide spectrum dealing with scientific, social, economic and political aspects. Often expert opinion as to the future impact of the impugned legislation and the result of the possible decisions pertaining to it may be of great assistance to the courts. 9 Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum. To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions. The presentation of facts is not, as stated by the respondent, a mere technicality; rather, it is essential to a proper consideration of Charter issues.