Page: 17 [50] In Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37 [Figueroa], the Supreme Court stated that “the purpose of s. 3 includes not only the right of each citizen to have and to vote for to play a meaningful role in the electoral process” (at para 25). In describing what is meant by a “meaningful role”, the Court went on to clarify that it signifies the right of each citizen to a certain level of participation in the electoral process (at para 26). Charter Framework and Proportionate Balancing [51] The law is clear that administrative decision-makers must act consistently with the Charter when exercising their statutory discretion. Administrative decision-makers must “always consider fundamental values” when exercising their discretion and are “empowered, and indeed required, to consider Charter values within their scope of discretion” (Doré, at para 35). Therefore, decision-makers must render decisions in accordance with the Charter by considering the Charter values themselves. [52] The Doré framework was recently reaffirmed in Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, at para 57 [TWU], where the Supreme Court states that “...Charter rights are no less robustly protected under an administrative law framework.” The Court went on to explain as follows at paras 58 and 59: [58] Under the precedent established by this Court in Doré and Loyola, the preliminary question is whether the administrative decision engages the Charter by limiting Charter protections — both rights and values (Loyola, at para. 39). If so, the question becomes “whether, in assessing the impact of the relevant Charter protection and given the nature of the decision and the statutory and factual contexts, the decision reflects a proportionate balancing 2019 FC 964 (CanLII) an elected representative in Parliament or a legislative assembly, but also the right of each citizen