What is the test for reviewing substantive legislation?

In applying that test, I have referred to the part of the reasons of Scheibel J. in Grain v. Couture headed “(b) The standard of fundamental justice”, at pp. 505-515, and to the authorities to which Scheibel J. referred. I note particularly this passage from the reasons of Scheibel J. at p. 510: Several themes recur in these cases that are possibly yardsticks for reviewing substantive legislation. These are: the historical development of rights protected by the common law, the legislative tradition in Canada as found in an analogous existing legislation, and community standards or the “living tradition”. There is also reference to the need for compelling factors to justify placing the collective interests of society ahead of the rights of the individual.