RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG)

Supreme court of Canada in summer

RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG) 1995 3 SCR 199 is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the balance between freedom of expression guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and public health objectives sought by the government. The case specifically dealt with the constitutionality of the Tobacco Products Control Act (TPCA) of 1988, which aimed to regulate the advertising and promotion of tobacco products in Canada.

Background

The TPCA was introduced as a measure to protect public health by reducing tobacco consumption among Canadians, particularly among young people. Among other provisions, the Act prohibited the advertising of tobacco products and required health warnings on tobacco packaging. RJR-MacDonald Inc., a major tobacco company, challenged the Act, arguing that it infringed upon their rights to freedom of expression as provided by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered a divided decision. The majority of the Court held that while the TPCA did infringe upon the freedom of expression, such infringement was justified under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows the government to limit Charter rights if such limitation can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court applied the Oakes test, a legal test developed in R v Oakes to determine whether a law that infringes upon Charter rights can be justified under Section 1. The test involves two main components: the law must have a pressing and substantial objective, and the means chosen to achieve this objective must be proportional. The proportionality test itself has three parts: the measures must be rationally connected to the objective; they must impair the right as little as possible; and there must be a proportionality between the infringement and the objective.

The majority found that the TPCA met these criteria. The objective of the Act, to protect public health by reducing tobacco consumption, was deemed pressing and substantial. The Court also found that the measures taken by the Act, including the ban on advertising and the requirement for health warnings, were rationally connected to the objective and were not overly broad or more restrictive than necessary.

Implications

The decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG) has had significant implications for public health policy and the regulation of advertising in Canada. It established that the government has the authority to regulate commercial speech, particularly when such regulation is aimed at protecting public health. The case also reinforced the importance of the Oakes test in determining the justifiability of laws that infringe upon Charter rights.

See Also

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• Freedom of expression in Canada
• Public health law
• Tobacco advertising