RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 is a leading Canadian constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada what upheld the federal Tobacco Products Control Act but struck out the provisions that prevented tobacco advertising and unattributed health warnings.
The Tobacco Products Control Act was upheld under the federal government's criminal law power, but the provisions prohibiting advertising and requiring unattributed warning labels was struck down under the Charter right to freedom of expression.
Court membership
Reasons given
Majority
McLachlin J. (paras. 122–178)
Concurrence
Major J. (paras. 193–217)
Concurrence
Iacobucci J. (paras. 179–192)
Concurrence
Lamer C.J. (para. 1)
Concurrence
Sopinka J. (para. 120)
Dissent
La Forest J. (paras. 2–119), joined by L'Heureux-Dube and Gonthier JJ.
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 powersedit
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 issuesedit
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.
^SCC Case Information - Docket 23490 Supreme Court of Canada
December 15, 2023
macdonald, canada, 1995, leading, canadian, constitutional, decision, supreme, court, canada, what, upheld, federal, tobacco, products, control, struck, provisions, that, prevented, tobacco, advertising, unattributed, health, warnings, supreme, court, canadahe. RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada AG 1995 3 S C R 199 is a leading Canadian constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada what upheld the federal Tobacco Products Control Act but struck out the provisions that prevented tobacco advertising and unattributed health warnings RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada AG Supreme Court of CanadaHearing November 29 30 1994 Judgment September 21 1995Full case nameRJR MacDonald Inc and Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Attorney General of CanadaCitations 1995 3 S C R 199 127 D L R 4th 1 100 C C C 3d 449 31 C R R 2d 189 62 C P R 3d 417Docket No 23490 1 HoldingThe Tobacco Products Control Act was upheld under the federal government s criminal law power but the provisions prohibiting advertising and requiring unattributed warning labels was struck down under the Charter right to freedom of expression Court membershipReasons givenMajorityMcLachlin J paras 122 178 ConcurrenceMajor J paras 193 217 ConcurrenceIacobucci J paras 179 192 ConcurrenceLamer C J para 1 ConcurrenceSopinka J para 120 DissentLa Forest J paras 2 119 joined by L Heureux Dube and Gonthier JJ DissentCory J para 121 Contents 1 Background 2 Reasons of the court 2 1 Division of powers 2 2 Charter issues 3 See also 4 External linksBackground editRJR MacDonald Inc and Imperial Tobacco challenged the Act as being ultra vires 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 Reasons of the court editThe 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 edit 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 edit 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 See also editList of Supreme Court of Canada cases Lamer Court External links editFull text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII nbsp nbsp This article about Canadian law is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte SCC Case Information Docket 23490 Supreme Court of Canada Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada AG amp oldid 1092669397, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
