There are only negotiations. No one can predict whether those negotiations will produce an MAI, never mind what the terms of any agreement might be. Nor can anyone predict whether the Government of Canada will choose to sign any such agreement. Relief should not be granted upon mere speculation that a constitutional violation might occur some time in the future. The persons seeking to restrain government action must demonstrate a high degree of probability that the constitutional violation will occur.
Conjecture is no substitute for fact.
1 S.C.R. 441, at 455-459 A related principle is that Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum. In the present case, the Applicants invite the Court to substitute for facts their hypotheses as to what an MAI might provide and as to whether the Government of Canada might sign. The Respondents submit that the Court should decline that invitation. No harm can be suffered unless and until any MAI is given domestic legal force by implementing legislation. Until that happens, if it ever does, the Applicants' challenge is premature.