When the case reached the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that section 6(1) should be interpreted in the way it was meant, namely to guard against arbitrary exile and not extradition, which may not be a permanent removal and does not terminate Canadian citizenship. Hansard from 1981, just before the implentation of the "Charter", was cited to reinforce this point. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court majority decision, written by Gerard La Forest, cited "Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act" (1985) to say the framers' intent was not binding in "Charter" case law. Rights can be given generous, liberal interpretations, and the right considered in this case was deemed to be important enough that limits would have to be justified.