MacKay v. Man. (1989), 99 N.R. 116 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
In The Matter Of the Elections Finances Act, c. 45, Statutes of Manitoba Between Murdoch MacKay, Herold L. Driedger, Ben Hanuschak, Charles E. Lamont, Max Hofford, Joel Morassutti and Arthur Z. Green (appellants) v. The Government of Manitoba (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario and The Attorney General of Quebec (interveners)
(No. 19671)
Indexed As: MacKay et al. v. Manitoba
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Cory, JJ.
September 14, 1989.
Summary:
The Manitoba Elections Finances Act allowed candidates and political parties who received a certain amount of votes to be partially reimbursed for expenses. Several taxpayers challenged numerous provisions of the Act, arguing, inter alia, that the Act violated their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, in a decision reported 34 Man.R.(2d) 118, dismissed the application. The taxpayers appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Huband, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 39 Man.R.(2d) 275, dismissed the appeal. The taxpayers appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 1854
Freedom of speech or expression – Limitations on – Election financing by government – The Manitoba Elections Finances Act, allowed candidates and political parties who received a certain amount of votes to be partially reimbursed for expenses – Several taxpayers argued that the scheme for reimbursement of election expenses under the Act was contrary to their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter – They argued, inter alia, that the scheme of the Act forced them to support an opinion or party with which they did not agree – The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed that s. 2(b) was not violated – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal where there was no factual basis presented to the court upon which it could consider the freedom of expression issue – The court commented, however, that the Act did not prohibit the taxpayers from expressing their beliefs.
Civil Rights – Topic 8586
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Practice – Method of raising Charter issues – Requirement of establishing a factual foundation – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the necessity of establishing a factual basis in Charter cases – See paragraphs 8 to 23.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Videoflicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. – see R. v. Videoflicks et al.
Edwards Books and Art Ltd. – see R. v. Videoflicks et al.
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, generally [paras. 8 to 23]; sect. 2(b) [para. 3 et seq.].
Elections Finances Act, S.M. 1982-83-84, c. 45; C.C.S.M. c. E-32.
Authors and Works Noticed:
Morgan, Brian G., Proof of Facts in Charter Litigation (in Charter Litigation, R.J. Sharp. Ed.) (1987) [para. 11].
Sharpe, R.J. (Ed.), Charter Litigation (1987) [para. 11].
Counsel:
Sidney Green, Q.C., for the appellants;
Brian Squair, Q.C., for the respondent;
Graham Garton, Q.C, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Rebecca Regenstreif and Lori Sterling, for the Attorney General for Ontario;
Jean Bouchard, for the Attorney General of Quebec.
Solicitors of Record:
Sidney Green, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellants;
Tanner Elton, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;
John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Richard F. Chaloner, Toronto, Ontario, for the Attorney General for Ontario;
Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec.
This appeal was heard on March 14, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered in both official languages by Cory, J., on September 14, 1989.
