What is the case law on compensation controls in the context of inflationary controls?

Policy makers were faced with a daunting task: an evolving, far-ranging and unpredictable financial world, a multitude of competing interests and demands, an urgent need for a timely and effective response. I agree "[c]rafting legislative solutions to complex problems is necessarily a complex task". [See Note 97 below] In Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, Dickson C.J.C. wrote: . . . courts must exercise considerable caution when confronted with difficult questions of economic policy. It is not our judicial role to assess the effectiveness or wisdom of various government strategies for solving pressing economic problems . . . A high degree of deference ought properly to be accorded to the government's choice of strategy in combating this complex problem . . . The role of the judiciary in such situations lies primarily in ensuring that the selected legislative strategy is fairly implemented with as little interference as is reasonably possible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Thus, in the present case, I am prepared to accept the [Attorney General's] submission that compensation controls, even if limited to a select class of employees, could reasonably have expected to have a positive, albeit partial and indirect, impact on combating inflation in the economy in general. I am also prepared to accept that the temporary suspension of collective bargaining on compensation issues was a justifiable infringement of freedom of association having regard to the third limb of the proportionality test. [See Note 98 below] (Emphasis added)