Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)

Last updated
Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: November 19–20, 1987
Judgment: Decided April 27, 1989
Full case nameThe Attorney General of Quebec v Irwin Toy Limited
Citations [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927
Docket No.20074 [1]
Prior historyAppeal allowed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
Reasons given
MajorityDickson C.J. and Lamer and Wilson JJ.
DissentMcIntyre J., joined by Beetz J.
Estey J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Attorney General of Quebec v. Kellogg's Co. of Canada, (1978); R. v. Oakes, (1986); Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), (1988); Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General), (1988); R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., (1985)

Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that in order to determine if a breach of section 2(b) had occurred one first had to determine whether the conduct constituted non violent activity which attempted to convey meaning. This changed the law of the constitution of Quebec. The next step was to consider whether the effect or purpose of the legislation was to restrict freedom of expression. Applying the analysis, the Court held that a Quebec law that restricted advertising directed to children was valid law which violated section 2(b) but could be justified under section 1.

Contents

Background

The province of Quebec passed legislation that prohibited "commercial advertising directed at persons under thirteen years of age." The law was challenged on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Reasons of the court

Chief Justice Dickson, Justice Lamer, and Justice Wilson wrote the decision of the majority.

Expression

The Justices considered the rationale of the freedom of expression provision and enumerated three grounds: [2]

  1. seeking and attaining the truth is an inherently good activity;
  2. participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged; and
  3. the diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, but also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed.

The Justices then considered the scope of expression. They defined it broadly as any activity that "attempts to convey meaning". [3] The Court used the example of unlawful parking to illustrate the breadth of the right. If an individual parks against the rules in order to protest rule or policy, their action will count as expression. However, it excluded activities that are "purely physical and [do] not convey or attempt to convey meaning" [4] as well as activities that are of a violent form. [5]

The majority re-affirmed the decision of Ford v. Quebec (1988) by finding that freedom of expression included advertising. Accordingly, they found that the Quebec law violated section 2(b).

Justified limitation

The Justices then considered whether the law was justified under section 1. They dismissed the argument that the law was not prescribed by law. A law only needed to have an "intelligible standard" which the Quebec law satisfied.

On the inquiry into minimal impairment the Court held that when the government attempts to justify the necessity of a complete ban, courts will not be restrictive to social sciences, however, the government must establish a "sound evidentiary basis" for their conclusions. [6]

The Court was unsympathetic to the harm to Irwin. The effects of the ban, said the Court, were not so severe as to override the objective of the ban. The advertisers would always be able to direct ads to adults or use other means to sell children's products.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>R v Morgentaler</i> 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision legalizing abortion

R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated women's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of the person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

The legal dispute over Quebec's language policy began soon after the enactment of Bill 101, establishing the Charter of the French Language, by the Parliament of Quebec in 1977.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography, hate speech, and obscenity.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

<i>R v Butler</i> 1992 Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on pornography and state censorship. In this case, the Court had to balance the right to freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with women's rights. The outcome has been described as a victory for anti-pornography feminism and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, but a loss for alternative sexualities.

<i>Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada</i> 2000 Supreme Court of Canada case

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.

<i>R v Zundel</i> Free speech case in Supreme Court of Canada

R v Zundel [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false news on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Keegstra</i> 1990 Supreme Court of Canada case on hate speech

R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 is a freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld the Criminal Code provision prohibiting the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Andrews.

<i>Harper v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Harper v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Court ruled that Canada Elections Act's spending limits on third party election advertising did violate section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was justified under Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Devine v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Devine v Quebec (AG), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional protection of minority language rights.

<i>R v Skinner</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Skinner, [1990] 1 SCR 1235, is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter").

<i>Prostitution Reference</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, commonly known as the Prostitution Reference, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Manitoba's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.

<i>Montréal (City of) v 2952-1366 Québec Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Montréal v 2952-1366 Québec Inc, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141, 2005 SCC 62 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that a strip club has no constitutional right to broadcast music into public streets in order to attract customers. The decision stated that location of the expression was a factor in considering if there was a violation.

<i>Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

<i>British Columbia Government Employees Union v British Columbia (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v British Columbia (AG), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to picket as a freedom of expression under section 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Andrews</i> Supreme Court of Canada case on wilful promotion of hatred

R v Andrews, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 870 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Keegstra. The Court upheld the criminal provision that prohibits communicating statements that wilfully promote hatred.

<i>Ramsden v Peterborough (City of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ramsden v Peterborough (City of), [1993] 2 SCR 1084 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down a bylaw prohibiting all postering on public property on the grounds that it violated freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Bryan</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Bryan 2007 SCC 12 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and Canadian federal elections. The Court upheld a law that prevented the publicizing of election results from some ridings before the polls closed in others.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of expression in Canada</span>

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 20074 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ p. 976
  3. ↑ p. 968
  4. ↑ p. 969
  5. ↑ p. 970
  6. ↑ p. 934
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.