Careful consideration and consultation are good practices that assist governments in making the right decision in many cases, but in the end a government's action either violates the charter or it doesn't. Violations of the Charter are not saved by "good intentions" or "inclusive consultations". They are only saved by s. 1, and the decision of the court found that they weren't saved in this case.So one Judge that chaired the emergencies act hearing concluded it was justified, and another then said it was NOT justified. So there will be an appeal. I think the fact that 2 senior judges disagreed makes its use at least plausable. Its not easy being the PM and making the right decision all the time and have others second guess your decision. Trudeau erred on the side of caution, and I think his decision was not taken without careful consideration and consultation. So all the judicial decisions will be added to the data on what consitutes an emergency to assist future govts in deciding if emergency powers need to be used. Bottomline: If two senior judges disagree, how the FUCK can you expect the PM to make such a decison unerringly.
When you are elected to and assume the responsibilities of government, you are expected to make difficult decisions and you are expected to get them right. If you create a track record of getting things wrong, and in particular getting important decisions wrong, the voters SHOULD replace you.