Page: 18 [59] Doré and Loyola are binding precedents of this Court. Our reasons explain why and how the Doré/Loyola framework applies here. Since Charter protections are implicated, the reviewing court must be satisfied that the decision reflects a proportionate balance between the Charter protections at play and the relevant statutory mandate. This is the analysis we adopt. [53] These considerations apply to the CEO in the exercise of his statutory duties pursuant to subsection 56.2(1) under the CEA. In considering the exercise of his statutory discretion, the CEO must undertake a proportional balancing that “gives effect, as fully as possible to the Charter protections at stake given the particular statutory mandate” (TWU at para 35 quoting Loyola at para 40). Balancing requires the CEO to engage in a full consideration of the statutory and factual contexts. [54] In particular, the CEO had to consider if the Applicants’ observance of their religious freedom interferes with their rights to “meaningful participation” in the upcoming general election considering that, because of their religious beliefs, they are prevented from fully participating in the activities in the lead up to election day, and prevented from casting their ballot on election day. [55] However, the CEO’s position as reflected in his communications and the communications of Elections Canada is grounded on the position that the fixed date of October 21, 2019, is immutable. In his responses the CEO emphasizes that the CEA “provides for a general election to be held on a fixed date” and that “Elections Canada does not choose the election date”. He 2019 FC 964 (CanLII) of the Charter protections at play” (Doré, at para. 57; Loyola, at para. 39). The extent of the impact on the Charter protection must be proportionate in light of the statutory objectives.