RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

SCCInfoBox
case-name=RJR - MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)
full-case-name=RJR-MacDonald Inc. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. The Attorney General of Canada
heard-date=November 29 - 30, 1994
decided-date=September 21, 1995
citations= [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) 417
docket=23490
docket2=23460
history=
ruling=
ratio=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.
SCC=1992-1997
Majority=McLachlin J. (paras. 122-178)
Concurrence=Major J. (paras. 193-217)
Concurrence2=Iacobucci J. (paras. 179-192)
Concurrence3=Lamer C.J. (para. 1)
Concurrence5=Sopinka J. (para. 120)
Dissent=La Forest J. (paras. 2-119)
JoinDissent=L'Heureux-Dube and Gonthier JJ.
Dissent2=Cory J. (para. 121)
NotPresent=

"RJR - MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)", [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 is a leading Canadian constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court upheld the federal "Tobacco Products Control Act", which banned tobacco advertising and required warning labels on cigarette packages, but struck out the provisions which prevented advertising and unattributed health warnings.

Background

RJR 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

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 majority held that the Act was valid under the criminal law power. The Court stated that the criminal law power was broad, "plenary in nature", and not frozen in time. There were three purposes of the Act. It was intended to prohibit the advertisement of tobacco products (ss. 4 and 5), promotion of tobacco products (ss. 6 to 8) and sale of tobacco products without printed health warnings (s. 9). Health as a subject of legislation is not allocated to a single head of power, but in the context of protecting the public is profound.

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

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)

External links

*