s.7: holds that the Charter does apply, and allows court to scrutinize the repeal of the 1994 ALRA, and restriction in LRA, 1995. It holds that s. 3(b) of the 1995 Act violates freedom of association, in that it doesn’t provide agricultural workers with the concrete ability that it needs to form unions and to engage in collective bargaining. The failure cannot be justified under s.1 That silence is made explicit in s. 3(b). BUT this provision says “does not apply”. It doesn’t say agr workers “cannot form a union, are forbidden to strike”. In line with CA in Blainey, and in line with reasoning in Vriend,>when private relations are governed by the CL, it is still possible to get Charter review worked in if we argue that government inaction in not entering into a given area to cure some CL defect is itself unconstitutional, requiring a legislative cure. (determined on a case-by-case basis) “It should be noted that this court’s understanding of state action has matured since DD case and may mature further in light of evolving Charter values”This is area of deficiency which needs to be remedied if freedom of association is going to mean something concretely on the ground, for agricultural workers.