What is the test for reading in?

The constitutional remedy of “reading in” should be used sparingly because of its potential to usurp the role of the legislature in making policy choices within constitutional parameters. In Schachter v. Canada, 1992 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, Lamer C.J.C. cautioned that severance or reading in will be warranted “only in the clearest of cases”. He listed three criteria that must be met: (i) where severance or reading in would further an obvious legislative objective, or constitute a lesser interference with that objective than would striking down; (ii) where severance or reading in would not constitute “an unacceptable intrusion into the legislative domain”; and (iii) where severance or reading in would not involve an intrusion into legislative budgetary decisions so substantial as to change the nature of the legislative scheme in question (p. 718). In Schachter, Lamer C.J.C. also stressed that in determining whether reading in is appropriate, the court must have regard to the twin principles of respect for the role of the legislature and respect for the purposes of the Charter.