Canadian constitutional law is esoteric and insanely complicated so the bill of rights you cited is not actually part of the constitution at all but can sometimes maybe be used since it's still in effect even if it's been superceded by the charter of rights (that is actually part of the constitution). The bill of rights preceded the charter by 2 decades, and didn't have the problematic clauses that makes it completely neuter itself.
>Although the Bill of Rights remains in effect, many of its provisions were superseded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. And unlike the Bill of Rights, the Charter is part of the Constitution — the highest law of the land.
>The Charter can be limited by the notwithstanding clause, also known as the override clause. Section 33 permits federal, provincial and territorial governments to temporarily bypass Charter rights in section 2 and sections 7 to 15.
Section 1 (probably what would make almost any emergency measure stand in court since "reasonable limits" is almost always judged in favor of what the state deems is reasonable) says:
>1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
Section 33 (Not-withstanding clause, not used in this case but just goes to show how worthless the charter is as a bill of rights) :
>33. Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 [those sections make up for most of the core basic human rights]
