Which type of remedy can be awarded when charter breaches cause inconvenience?

When considering remedies awarded for breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, costs can indeed be an appropriate remedy under specific circumstances. Costs typically refer to the financial compensation that a party may be required to pay to another party following a legal action. In the context of Charter breaches, if a court finds that a government's action has violated an individual's rights and that violation has caused inconvenience or harm, the court may award costs to the affected party. This serves as a means to recognize the financial burden incurred due to the infringement of rights.

Choosing costs as a remedy also reflects the court's intention to deter future Charter violations by requiring parties that breach rights to compensate those affected. This approach aligns with the principle of accountability in governance within a constitutional framework.

In contrast, while remedies such as injunctions, declaratory relief, and exclusion of evidence may also arise from rights violations, they serve distinct purposes. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping ongoing violations or future harm. Declaratory relief provides a formal statement by the court regarding the rights of the parties involved, without necessarily providing a remedy for inconvenience. Exclusion of evidence is utilized in the context of ensuring fairness in legal proceedings, particularly to uphold the integrity of the judicial system by excluding improperly obtained evidence