Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Added on 2022-08-20
4 Pages540 Words12 Views
Running Head : Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1
The Tobacco Products Control Act was enacted in the year 1989, in Canada which
forbids the advertising of vapor products to necessitate health warnings on the packaging of
tobacco and prohibit all sorts of promotional activities. The tobacco company in Canada
challenged the constitutional validity of TPCA’s contending that it infringed on the freedom of
expression guaranteed under the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The supreme court
in 1995 upheld the legislation and declared the disputed provisions to be illegal (McNeil, 2016).
In the decision of RJR MacDonald, the court upheld the right of expression guaranteed under the
constitution are subject to reasonable restriction. The restriction is said to be consistent if they
relate to issues that are substantial in a democratic society.
If the defense lawyer succeeds in establishing that the provisions laid down in the Smoke-
Free Ontario Act are not made in obedience with the Canadian Charter on rights and freedoms
the ground raised by the prosecution counsel is that the accused was negligent at the time of the
commission of the act. Other defenses would be it is required for prosecuting counsel to establish
fault other than the offense of negligence.
The five reasons raised by the court while upholding that law regulating the vapor
products are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which encompasses
the following. Firstly, though, TPCA admits the objectives of public health that are underlined in
the legislation as substantial and pressing. It advanced that TPCA restricts freedom which is
unconstitutional. Secondly, the law failed to demarcate between lifestyle and brand preference
advertising and failure to permit tobacco companies to point out health warnings to the
government. Thirdly the legislation restricting tobacco products does not come within the ambit
of reasonable limitation which is far from the core values of freedom of expression. Fourthly, the
The Tobacco Products Control Act was enacted in the year 1989, in Canada which
forbids the advertising of vapor products to necessitate health warnings on the packaging of
tobacco and prohibit all sorts of promotional activities. The tobacco company in Canada
challenged the constitutional validity of TPCA’s contending that it infringed on the freedom of
expression guaranteed under the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The supreme court
in 1995 upheld the legislation and declared the disputed provisions to be illegal (McNeil, 2016).
In the decision of RJR MacDonald, the court upheld the right of expression guaranteed under the
constitution are subject to reasonable restriction. The restriction is said to be consistent if they
relate to issues that are substantial in a democratic society.
If the defense lawyer succeeds in establishing that the provisions laid down in the Smoke-
Free Ontario Act are not made in obedience with the Canadian Charter on rights and freedoms
the ground raised by the prosecution counsel is that the accused was negligent at the time of the
commission of the act. Other defenses would be it is required for prosecuting counsel to establish
fault other than the offense of negligence.
The five reasons raised by the court while upholding that law regulating the vapor
products are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which encompasses
the following. Firstly, though, TPCA admits the objectives of public health that are underlined in
the legislation as substantial and pressing. It advanced that TPCA restricts freedom which is
unconstitutional. Secondly, the law failed to demarcate between lifestyle and brand preference
advertising and failure to permit tobacco companies to point out health warnings to the
government. Thirdly the legislation restricting tobacco products does not come within the ambit
of reasonable limitation which is far from the core values of freedom of expression. Fourthly, the
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.