Thomson Newspapers Co Ltd v Canada (AG)

Last updated

Thomson Newspapers Co v Canada (AG), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to freedom of expression in which the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the publication, broadcast, or dissemination of opinion surveys within the last three days of a federal election campaign, as it violated section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The provision clearly restricted expression and was found to be too restrictive to be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

See also


Related Research Articles

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 Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Constitution Act, 1982.

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

Ford v Quebec (AG), [1988] 2 SCR 712 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court struck down part of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as "Bill 101". This law had restricted the use of commercial signs written in languages other than French. The court ruled that Bill 101 violated the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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>Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

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

R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court balanced the societal interest to regulate child pornography against the right to freedom of expression possessed by the defendants under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; holding, that while general prohibition of child pornography was constitutional, there were some limits imposed by the Charter. The decision overturned a ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

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

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada [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 landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false information or 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> Supreme Court of Canada case on wilful promotion of hatred

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>Native Womens Assn of Canada v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on section 2, section 15 and section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which the Court decided against the claim that the government of Canada had an obligation to financially support an interest group in constitutional negotiations, to allow the group to speak for its people. The case resulted from negotiations for the Charlottetown Accord, in which various groups representing Aboriginal peoples in Canada were financially supported by the government, but the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) was not. Since NWAC claimed the other Aboriginal groups primarily represented Aboriginal men, it argued that section 28 could be used so that section 2 required the government to provide an equal benefit to Aboriginal women, supposedly represented by NWAC.

<i>RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Canadian constitutional law case

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.

<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 , [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.

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.