RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Can. (P.g.) (1995), 187 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
RJR-MacDonald Inc. (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)
and
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)
and
Attorney General of Quebec (mis en cause)
and
Attorney General for Ontario, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Lung Association (interveners)
(23460; 23490)
Indexed As: RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
September 21, 1995.
Summary:
The Tobacco Products Control Act (the Act) enacted, save a few exceptions, a total ban on tobacco products advertising (s. 4). The Act also prohibited the sale of tobacco products unless their packaging displayed an unattributed warning on their health effects and listed their toxic constituents (s. 9). The Act also regulated the public display of tobacco products (s. 5) and the display of brands and manufacturers’ names at cultural and sporting events (s. 6). The Act prohibited the free distribution of tobacco products (s. 7) and the display of trademarks on non-tobacco products (s. 8). RJR-MacDonald Inc. moved for a declaratory judgment to have the Act declared ultra vires the federal Parliament and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. joined in the motion but only sought the unconstitutionality of ss. 4, 5, 6 and 8.
The Quebec Superior Court (Chabot, J.), in a judgment reported, [1991] R.J.Q. 2260; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 37 C.P.R.(3d) 193, allowed the motion. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, Brossard, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judgment reported, [1993] R.J.Q. 375; 53 Q.A.C. 79; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 48 C.P.R.(3d) 417, allowed the appeal. RJR-MacDonald Inc. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd. appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court declared the Act validly enacted by the federal Parliament pursuant to its jurisdiction over criminal law. The court struck down ss. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 because they violated s. 2(b) of the Charter (freedom of expression) and were not a demonstrably justified reasonable limit prescribed by law according to s. 1.
Civil Rights – Topic 1847
Freedom of speech or expression – Limitations on – Regulation of advertising and commercial use of language – The Tobacco Products Control Act (the Act) enacted, save a few exceptions, a total ban on tobacco products advertising (s. 4) – The Act also prohibited the sale of tobacco products unless their packaging displayed an unattributed warning on their health effects and listed their toxic constituents (s. 9) – The Act also regulated the public display of tobacco products (s. 5) and the display of brands and manufacturers’ names at cultural and sporting events (s. 6) – The Act prohibited the free distribution of tobacco products (s. 7) and the display of trademarks on non-tobacco products (s. 8) – The Supreme Court of Canada declared ss. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 invalid because they violated s. 2(b) of the Charter (freedom of expression) and were not a demonstrably justified reasonable limit prescribed by law according to s. 1 – See paragraphs 1 to 98.
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) – The Supreme Court of Canada restated the justification test under s. 1: (1) sufficiently important legislative objective, and (2) proportionality between the legislative objective and the means chosen to achieve it – The court discussed the application of this test given the context surrounding the legislation considered, deference to Parliament, standard of proof and the trial judge’s findings – The court stated, inter alia, that “the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities at all stages of the proportionality analysis is more appropriate” and that more deference may be required to purely factual findings by the trial judge and less deference when the judge has considered social science and other policy oriented evidence – See paragraphs 5 to 21, 86, 88 to 90, 155 to 178.
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1847
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 25
Raising constitutional issues – Proof required, legislative facts versus adjudicative facts – [See first
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
].
Constitutional Law – Topic 6505
Federal jurisdiction – Criminal law, respecting particular matters – Health – The Tobacco Products Control Act (the Act) enacted, save a few exceptions, a total ban on tobacco products advertising (s. 4) – The Act also prohibited the sale of tobacco products unless their packaging displayed an unattributed warning on their health effects and listed their toxic constituents (s. 9) – The Act also regulated the public display of tobacco products (s. 5) and the display of brands and manufacturers’ names at cultural and sporting events (s. 6) – The Act prohibited the free distribution of tobacco products (s. 7) and the display of trademarks on non-tobacco products (s. 8) – The Supreme Court of Canada declared that the Act was valid federal legislation pursuant to Parliament’s jurisdiction over criminal law – See paragraphs 2, 86, 98, 125 to 154, 217.
Cases Noticed:
Chaussure Brown’s Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 3].
Ford v. Québec (Procureur général) – see Chaussure Brown’s Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 3].
Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 3].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, consd. [para. 3].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 5].
Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 11].
Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 14].
Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 14].
Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 33].
Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 39].
R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 39].
Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 39].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 61].
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Quebec (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914; 30 N.R. 496, refd to. [para. 62].
Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Revenue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, consd. [para. 62].
Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Case), [1949] S.C.R. 1; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 433, refd to. [para. 62].
Margarine Case – see Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Case).
R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 481; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(3d) 89, consd. [para. 62].
R. v. Boggs, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 49; 34 N.R. 520; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 7, refd to. [para. 64].
Reference Re Alberta Accurate News and Information Act, [1938] S.C.R. 100; [1938] 2 D.L.R. 81, refd to. [para. 66].
Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 70].
Devine et al. v. Quebec (Attorney General) – see Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277; 20 C.C.C.(2d) 449, refd to. [para. 78].
R. v. Furtney et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 89; 129 N.R. 241; 51 O.A.C. 299, refd to. [para. 78].
Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 3, refd to. [para. 87].
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 112].
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)(Local Prohibition Case), [1896] A.C. 348 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 112].
Local Prohibition Case – see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)(Local Prohibition Case).
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation, [1946] A.C. 193; [1946] 2 W.W.R. 1; [1946] 2 D.L.R. 1; 1 C.R. 229; 115 L.J.P.C. 54; 85 C.C.C. 225, refd to. [para. 112].
Canada Temperance Federation Case – see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation.
Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, consd. [para. 125].
Reference Re Lord’s Day Act (Ont.) – see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Hamilton Street Railway Co.
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Hamilton Street Railway Co., [1903] A.C. 524; 2 O.W.R. 672; 7 C.C.C. 326 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 125].
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. R., [1956] S.C.R. 303; 2 D.L.R.(2d) 11, refd to. [para. 125].
R. v. Zelensky et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372, refd to. [para. 125].
Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Canada (Attorney General), [1931] A.C. 310 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 125].
Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 127].
Reference Re Anti-Inflation Act – see Anti-Inflation Act, Re.
Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 127].
Reference Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act – see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re.
R. v. Schneider, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91; [1982] 6 W.W.R. 673; 39 B.C.L.R. 273; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 449; 139 D.L.R.(3d) 417, consd. [para. 129].
Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285; 117 C.C.C. 129; 7 D.L.R.(2d) 337, refd to. [para. 130].
R. v. Wetmore et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284; 49 N.R. 286, consd. [para. 137].
Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee, [1933] 4 D.L.R. 501, addendum [1934] 1 D.L.R. 706 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 138].
R. v. Cosman’s Furniture (1972) Ltd. (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 345; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 312 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 141].
British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1937] A.C. 368; 67 C.C.C. 193; [1937] 1 D.L.R. 688 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 144].
R. v. Campbell, [1965] S.C.R. vii, refd to. [para. 144].
Lord’s Day Alliance v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1959] S.C.R. 497; 30 C.R. 193; 123 C.C.C. 81, consd. [para. 150].
R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, consd. [para. 160].
Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. – see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.
R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. – see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.
United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, consd. [para. 160].
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 160].
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 160].
Black & Co. v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 160].
McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 160].
Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103; 141 N.R. 1; 127 A.R. 241; 20 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 160].
Dorval v. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, refd to. [para. 176].
Lapointe v. Chevrette, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 116; 45 Q.A.C. 262, refd to. [para. 176].
Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur – see Lapointe v. Chevrette.
Dunagin v. Oxford Mississippi (City) (1983), 718 F.2d 738 (Ct. App. 5th Cir. en banc), cert. denied (1984), 407 U.S. 1259, consd. [para. 177].
Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 193, consd. [para. 179].
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission (1980), 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 191].
Oklahoma Telecasters Association v. Crisp (1983), 699 F.2d 490 (Ct. App. 10th Cir.), revd. on other grounds (1984), 467 U.S. 791, consd. [para. 191].
Capital Cities Cable Inc. v. Crisp – see Oklahoma Telecasters Association v. Crisp.
Metromedia Inc. v. San Diego (City) (1981), 453 U.S. 490, refd to. [para. 191].
Posadas de Puerto Rico Association v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986), 478 U.S. 328, refd to. [para. 191].
Canadian Association of Regulated Importers et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1992] 2 F.C. 130; 135 N.R. 217 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 198].
Canada (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) v. Central Cartage Co. et al. (No. 1), [1990] 2 F.C. 641; 109 N.R. 357; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 253; 32 C.P.R.(3d) 308 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 198].
R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 289; 66 C.R.(3d) 251; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 202].
Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, consd. [para. 207].
Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights – see Manitoba Language Rights Reference.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 209].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, consd. [para. 215].
Statutes Noticed:
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 39 [para. 45].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1 [para. 4]; sect. 2(b) [para. 3].
Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-11, sect. 58, sect. 69, sect. 205, sect. 206, sect. 207, sect. 208 [para. 206].
Communistic Propaganda, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 52, generally [para. 130].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 61]; sect. 92(13), sect. 92(16) [para. 130].
Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-40.1, sect. 248, sect. 249 [para. 201].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 193, sect. 195.1(1)(c) [para. 147]; sect. 251 [para. 151].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163(8) [para. 171]; sect. 214(b) [para. 147]; sect. 207 [para. 152]; sect. 319(2) [para. 170].
Dairy Industry Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 45, sect. 5(a) [para. 136].
Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, Act to amend the, S.C. 1994, c. 37, generally [para. 135].
Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 76, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 27 [para. 137].
Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27, sect. 8, sect. 9 [para. 137].
Hazardous Products Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3, sect. 2, sect. 4, sect. 5(a), sect. 15(1)(d), sect. 15(1)(e) [para. 139].
Health Disciplines Act Regulations (Ont.), Reg. 447, sect. 37(39), sect. 37(40) [para. 204].
Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 171, sect. 6 [para. 150].
Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 281, generally [para. 130].
Non-Smokers’ Health Act, S.C. 1988, c. 21, generally [para. 135].
Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 453, sect. 2(1), sect. 3(4) [para. 202].
Tobacco Products Control Act, S.C. 1988, c. 20, sect. 3 [para. 102]; sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 17(a), sect. 17(f), sect. 17(g), sect. 18, sect. 19 [para. 108].
Tobacco Products Control Act Regulations (Can.), Tobacco Products Control Regulations amendment, SOR/93-389, sect. 11 [para. 105].
Tobacco Products Control Regulations – see Tobacco Products Control Act Regulations (Can.).
Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, S.C. 1993, c. 5, generally [para. 135].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Canadian Initiatives in Smoking and Health (1983), pp. 79 to 81 [para. 133].
Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Report by Donald T. Wigle, Illness and Death in Canada by Smoking: An Epidemiological Perspective (1989), generally [para. 128].
Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, National Program to Reduce Tobacco Use, Directional paper of the national program to reduce tobacco use in Canada (1988), generally [para. 134].
Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, National Program to Reduce Tobacco Use, Orientation Manuals & Historical Perspective (1987), generally [para. 134].
Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Tobacco Products Unit, Report by Roberta G. Ferrence, Trends in Tobacco Consumption in Canada, 1900-1987 (1989), generally [para. 128].
Canada, House of Commons Debates, vol. IX, 2nd Sess., 33rd Parl. (1987), November 23rd, 1987, pp. 11042 [para. 127]; 11045, 11047 [para. 132].
Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Report (1969), pp. 30, 32 [para. 133]; 52, 53 [paras. 133, 195].
Chandler, Michael J., A Report on the Special Vulnerabilities of Children and Adolescents (1989), pp. 17 to 18 [para. 189]; 19 [paras. 173, 214].
Chapman, Simon, and Fitzgerald, Bill, Brand Preference and Advertising Recall in Adolescent Smokers: Some Implications for Health Promotion (1982), 72 Am. J. Public Health 491, generally [para. 173].
Collinshaw, N., Tostowaryk, W., Wigle, D., Mortality Attributable to Tobacco Use in Canada (1988), 79(3) Can. J. Public Health, generally [para. 128].
Cohen, Joel, Effects of Cigarette Advertising on Consumer Behaviour, pp. 41 to 42 [para. 205]; 44 [para. 189].
Gorn, Gerald J., and Florsheim, Renée, The Effects of Commercials for Adult Products on Children (1985), 11 J. Consumer Res. 962, generally [para. 173].
Hagan, John, Can Social Science Save Us? The Problems and Prospects of Social Science Evidence in Constitutional Litigation, In Robert J. Sharpe, ed. Charter Litigation (1987), p. 215 [para. 176].
Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd ed. 1992), p. 18-5 [para. 63].
Imasco Ltd., Annual Report 1992, pp. 48, 52 to 53 [para. 172].
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Overview 1988, p. 32954 [para. 188].
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Project Viking, vol. I, A Behavioural Model of Smoking (1986), generally [para. 37].
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Project Viking, vol. II, An Attitudinal Model of Smoking (1986), pp. 31 to 35 [para. 186].
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Project Viking, vol. III, Product Issues (1986), generally [para. 186].
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Project 16, by Kwechansky Marketing Research Inc. (1977), generally [para. 188].
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Project Plus/Minus, by Kwechansky Marketing Research Inc. (1982), generally [para. 163].
Joosens, Luc, Strategy of the Tobacco Industry Concerning Legislation on Tobacco Advertising in Some Western European Countries, in Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health (1983), generally [para. 200].
Morgan, Brian G., Proof of Facts in Charter Litigation, in Robert J. Sharpe, ed., Charter Litigation (1987), p. 186 [para. 177].
New Zealand, Toxic Substances Board, Health or Tobacco: An End to Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (1989), generally [para. 34].
Pollay, Richard W., The Functions and Management of Cigarette Advertising (1989), pp. 2 [para. 173]; 28 to 29 [para. 205]; 34 [para. 189].
RJR-MacDonald Inc., Export “A” Brand Long-Term Strategy, generally [para. 188].
Rothschild, Michael L., Advertising: From Fundamentals to Strategies (1987), p. 8 [para. 173].
United States of America, Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, Final Report (1986), vol. 1, p. 326 [para. 182].
United States of America, Department of Health and Human Services, Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress, A Report of the Surgeon General (1989), pp. 315 to 316, 664 to 665 [para. 205]; 512 to 513 [paras. 163, 183].
United States of America, Department of Health and Human Services, The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction, A Report of the Surgeon General (1988), generally [para. 131].
Woolhandler, Ann, Rethinking the Judicial Reception of Legislative Facts (1988), 41 Vand. L. Rev. 111, pp. 114, 123 [para. 176].
Counsel:
Colin K. Irving, Georges R. Thibaudeau and Douglas Mitchell, for RJR-MacDonald Inc.;
L. Yves Fortier, Q.C., Simon V. Potter, Lyndon A.J. Barnes and Gregory Bordan, for Imperial Tobacco Ltd.;
Alain Gingras, for the Attorney General of Quebec;
Claude Joyal, James Mabbutt, Q.C., Paul Evraire, Q.C., Yves Leboeuf and Johanne Poirier, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Tanya Lee, for the Attorney General of Ontario;
Robert W. Cosman, Karl Delwaide and Richard B. Swan, for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, Canadian Medical Association, and Canadian Lung Association.
Solicitors of Record:
McMaster, Meighen, Montréal, Quebec, for RJR-MacDonald Inc.;
Ogilvy, Renault, Montréal, Quebec, for Imperial Tobacco Ltd.;
Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;
Côté & Ouellet, Montréal, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the Attorney General for Ontario;
Fasken, Campbell, Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, Canadian Medical Association, and Canadian Lung Association.
This appeal was heard on November 29 and 30, 1994, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on September 21, 1995 and the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 57;
Major, J. – see paragraphs 58 to 82;
Sopinka, J. – see paragraph 83;
Iacobucci, J. – see paragraphs 84 to 97;
Lamer, C.J.C. – see paragraph 98;
La Forest, J. (L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring), dissenting – see paragraphs 99 to 216;
Cory, J., dissenting – see paragraph 217.
