''RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG)'',

995 Year 995 (Roman numerals, CMXCV) was a common year starting on Tuesday of the Julian calendar. Events By place Japan * 17 May - Fujiwara no Michitaka (imperial regent) dies. * 3 June: Fujiwara no Michikane gains power and becomes Rege ...

3 S.C.R. 199 is a leading Canadian constitutional decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; , ) is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants eac ...

that upheld the federal ''Tobacco Products Control Act'' but struck out the provisions that prevented

tobacco advertising Nicotine marketing is the marketing of nicotine-containing products or use. Traditionally, the tobacco industry markets cigarette smoking, but it is increasingly marketing other products, such as electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco pr ...

and unattributed health warnings.

Background

RJR MacDonald Inc. and

Imperial Tobacco Imperial Brands plc (originally the Imperial Tobacco Company of Great Britain & Ireland, and subsequently Imperial Tobacco Group plc) is a British Multinational corporation, multinational tobacco company headquartered in Bristol, England. It is ...

challenged the Act as being ''

ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is ('within the powers'). Acts that are may equivalently be termed ...

'' the federal government's criminal law power and peace, order and good government power, and as being in violation of the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the '' Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Char ...

Reasons of the court

The Court upheld the Act as valid under the criminal law power but found that sections 4, 8, and 9 of the Act violated freedom of expression and could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter. There were four separate opinions given.

Division of powers

The Court found the Act was not colourable. The evil that the law is addressing does not have to be approached directly, and in those circumstances, it would not be practical. Even though the subject was not one that was commonly recognized as being criminal, that does not necessarily invalidate it.

Charter issues

The majority held that the impugned sections violated the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the ''Charter''. The right to freedom of expression includes the right to say nothing. The mandatory use of unattributed labels was a form of forced expression and so invoked section 2(b). The majority held that the violation was not upheld under section 1 of the ''Charter''.

External links

References