Not exactly. The criteria for what constitutes a reasonable limit was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes
I don't know about Canada, but in the USA precedent is only applicable if it's brought up and the judge decides its relevant.
In non-contested situations (eg: only the government is before the court, there is no opposition attorney) there would be no reason to bring up precedents that don't support the governments position.
This is part of the reason secret courts are so fundamentally wrong.
I like how a single crooked judge can now covertly determine what is a free and democratic society. I mean, this was the case before but it had to happen in the public which had some sense of accountability.