▁to ▁be ▁not ▁only ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁section ▁ 2 ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter ▁( fre edom ▁of ▁religion ), ▁but ▁also ▁outside ▁Parliament ' s ▁criminal ▁law ▁authority ▁under ▁the ▁division ▁of ▁powers , ▁despite ▁earlier ▁find ings ▁that ▁mor ality ▁could ▁guide ▁the ▁definition ▁of ▁criminal ▁law . ▁As ▁the ▁lower ▁court ▁argued , ▁the ▁circumstances ▁and ▁values ▁of ▁the ▁day ▁no ▁longer ▁supported ▁the ▁view ▁that ▁Christian ity ▁can ▁guide ▁what ▁constit utes ▁valid ▁criminal ▁law . ▁ ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al , ▁however , ▁over turn ed ▁the ▁finding ▁on ▁the ▁division ▁of ▁powers . ▁ ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁finding ▁that ▁new ▁circumstances ▁and ▁values ▁limited ▁the ▁scope ▁of ▁criminal ▁law ▁constit uted ▁" a ▁red ist ribution ▁of ▁legisl ative ▁powers ▁in ▁Canada " ▁that ▁section ▁ 3 1 ▁gu ards ▁against . ▁ ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁added ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁also ▁the ▁intention ▁that ▁the ▁Char ter ▁would ▁not ▁affect ▁the ▁division ▁of ▁powers , ▁and ▁went ▁on ▁to ▁spec ulate ▁that ▁otherwise ▁the ▁Char ter ▁would ▁create ▁an ▁" odd " ▁situation ▁in ▁which ▁a ▁legisl ative ▁body ▁could ▁un il ater ally ▁change ▁the ▁distribution ▁of ▁powers ▁by ▁rec laim ing ▁the ▁powers ▁it ▁had ▁lost ▁under ▁the ▁Char ter , ▁by ▁inv oking ▁the ▁not with standing ▁clause . ▁ ▁In ▁ 2 0 0 1 , ▁the ▁Federal ▁Court ▁decided ▁against ▁claims ▁that ▁section ▁ 3 0 ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter