You might want to read some of the legal analysis written about the R. v. NS ruling. It's simply not a broadly applicable precedent, other than that the court established a test concerning the applicability of a Charter exception in relation to conflicts intersecting with the rights of those facing criminal charges. The more applicable Canadian legal precedent is R. v. Keegstra, where it was determined that a fundamental Charter right (in that case freedom of expression - perhaps the most important right in a democracy) could be infringed for the purposes of balancing competing rights and interests and enforcing broader social objectives, which I believe is almost perfectly analogous to the ECHR's decision on the Belgian veil ban. We've already pried open the Pandora's Box of Section 1 exceptionalism where Charter infringements are concerned.