the various rulings, including keegstra, have all clarified that any law restricting "hate speech" violates s. 2b of the canadian constitution, regarding free speech. keegstra was explicitly clear that what conservatives/progressives call "hate speech" is always protected by s. 2b.
however, in canada we have a section of the constitution that allows specific laws to infringe the constitution if they pass something called an oakes test.
1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
a. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
b. There must be minimal impairment of rights
c. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective
if a law in canada is found to be unconstitutional, but it passes the oakes test, the unconstitutional law may be left in place.
the court has repeatedly found that any restriction of speech, include what conservatives/progressives call "hate speech", is always an infringement of s. 2b, but they will not strike the laws down on the specific case that the speech is determined to be violent. you can hate the jews as much as you want, and you can scream it through a megaphone in public, but you can't threaten the jews. that's when the court lets the police enforce the laws it has determined are unconstitutional.
that is why these cases require a warrant to be issued by the attorney general, which i think is not strong enough. police should never be allowed to arrest somebody for these charges, or any charges, unless they get a warrant from a judge. however, the law is written to prevent officers from making these decisions and get a warrant from the ministry precisely because the court has ruled it unconstitutional, and only saved it because the case at hand involved violence. if the police were to try to charge somebody with public incitement of hate, advocating genocide or any other hokey attempt at restricting speech that some people don't like, and the case did not involve credible threats of violence, which is also required to prove a threat in court, the court would strike the law down. by forcing officers to get permission to lay charges, the government is trying to save a law it knows has already been struck in principle, and is hanging by a thread, due to the specific case at hand being about violent threats.
ultimately, police should just charge people with uttering threats when it comes down to it, as that's what is actually criminalized, and not bother with the attempts to restrict speech that comes up in political discourse. the court will not convict you of just offending somebody, in the end, even if some asshole judge forces you to go through an appeal. you have to threaten somebody for these laws to result in conviction, and the threats have to be imminent. you'd be more likely to get a conviction if you just stuck to the laws against threats in the first place, and sidestepped the minefield of trying to call it hate speech.