Tobacco Products Control Act Declared Unconstitutional

1991-01-01

UPINSMOKE:CANADA’STOBACCOPRODUCTSCONTROLACTDECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

by
BarryGamache
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
OnJuly26th,1991,Mr.JusticeJean-JudeChabotoftheSuperiorCourtofthe
provinceofQuebecdeclaredthattheActtoprohibittheadvertisingand
promotionandrespectingthelabellingandmonitoringoftobaccoproducts,
S.C.1988,c.20(alsoknownunderitsshorttitle:TobaccoProductsControl
Act),wasultravirestheParliamentofCanadaasbeingamatterwithinthe
jurisdictionofprovincialLegislaturespursuanttoSection92oftheConstitution
Act,1867;theCourtalsodeclaredtheTobaccoProductsControlActtobe
contrarytoparagraph2(b)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.
ThisdecisionistheresultofamotionbroughtagainsttheAttorneyGeneralof
Canadabytwotobaccomanufacturers,RJRMacDonaldInc.andImperial
TobaccoLtd.,followingtheadoptionoftheTobaccoProductsControlActby
theCanadianParliament.
TheTobaccoProductsControlActcameintoforceonJanuary1st,1989.Its
statedpurposeistoprovidea”legislativeresponsetoanationalpublichealth
problem”(Section3)andinparticular:”(a)toprotectthehealthofCanadians
inthelightofconclusiveevidenceimplicatingtobaccouseintheincidence
ofnumerousdebilitatingandfataldiseases;(b)toprotectyoungpersonsand
others,totheextentthatisreasonableinafreeanddemocraticsociety,from
inducementstousetobaccoproductsandconsequentdependenceon
them;and(c)toenhancepublicawarenessofthehazardsoftobaccouseby
ensuringtheeffectivecommunicationofpertinentinformationtoconsumers
oftobaccoproducts.”
Toreachthisobjective,theTobaccoProductsControlActforbidsthe
advertisingoftobaccoproductsinCanadabutcreatesanexceptionfor”the
distributionforsaleofpublicationsimportedintoCanadaortheretransmission
ofradioortelevisionbroadcastsoriginatingoutsideCanada”(Section4).It
alsoprovidesthatretailersmayexposetobaccoproductsforsaleintheir
placeofbusinessbutmaynotpostsignsindicatingthebrandnamesortrade-
marksoftheseproducts(Section5).TheTobaccoProductsControlActalso

providesthat,interalia,amanufacturerorimporteroftobaccoproductsmay
useitsfullnametosponsorculturalorsportingeventsbutmaynotmentionits
products(Section6);adistributormaynotdistributetobaccoproducts
withoutconsideration(Section7);amanufacturerorimporteroftobacco
productsmaynotapplyatrade-markwhichappearsonatobaccoproduct
toanyotherarticle(Section8).Finally,theActprohibitsthesaleoftobacco
productswithoutvarious”healthindicators”imposedbyregulation(Section9)
andempowerstheGovernmenttoadoptsuchregulation(Section17).Aftera
reviewoftheTobaccoProductsControlAct,theCourtcametothe
conclusionthattheActdidnotregulatetobaccoproducts(despiteitsshort
title)butrathertheadvertisingoftobaccoproducts.
RJRMacDonaldInc.andImperialTobaccoLtd.firstarguedinattackingthe
constitutionalvalidityoftheT
obaccoProductsControlActthatitconstituted
legislationwithinthejurisdictionofprovincialLegislatures(asopposedtothat
oftheCanadianParliament).Indeed,paragraphs2(13)and92(16)ofthe
ConstitutionAct,1867providethat”[i]neachProvincetheLegislaturemay
exclusivelymakeLawsinrelationtoMatterscomingwithintheClassesof
Subject”…”PropertyandCivilRightsintheProvince”and”GenerallyallMatters
ofamerelylocalorprivateNatureintheProvince”,matterswhich,inthe
petitioners’view,coveredtheTobaccoProductsControlAct.Inshort,RJR
MacDonaldInc.andImperialTobaccoLtd.’sfirstargumentrelatedtoa
questionofjurisdiction.
TheAttorneyGeneralofCanadarespondedbystatingthattheCanadian
ParliamentdidhavetheconstitutionalauthoritytoadopttheTobacco
ProductsControlAct:Parliamentcouldcurtailactsdeemeddangerousfor
thehealthofCanadiansasaremedyforanationalproblem,pursuanttoits
exclusivepowersincriminalmattersunderparagraph91(27)ofthe
ConstitutionAct,1867anditsresidualpowersrelatingto”Peace,Orderand
GoodGovernment”.
InordertodeterminetheconstitutionalqualificationoftheTobaccoProducts
ControlAct(diditfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheCanadianParliamentorof
theprovincialLegislatures?),theCourtanalyzedtheobjectandeffectofthe
Actandconcludedthatiteliminatednearlyallformsofadvertisingand
promotionofaproductlegallymanufacturedandsoldthroughoutCanada;
theprotectionofpublichealthwasconsideredbytheCourttobearemote
andindirectobjective.Furthermore,theCourtdeterminedthatthe
advertisingoftobaccoproductsdidnotconstituteperseadangerforpublic
health(basedonthelogicthattheword”dog”neverbitanyone!).Inasmuch
astheT
obaccoProductsControlActdidnotrelatetotherepressionofan
“evil”deemedprejudicialtotheState,itscitizensorthegoodssituatedtherein,
theCourtconcludedthattheadvertisingofacommonlyusedproductdid
notconstituteasubjectofCriminalLaw.

ConcerningtheCanadianParliament’sresidualpowersrelatingto”Peace,
OrderandGoodGovernment”,theCourtmadereferencetothedecisionof
thePrivyCouncilinAttorneyGeneralofOntariovs.CanadaTemperance
Federation[1946]A.C.193atpp.205-206:”IntheirLordship’sopinion,thetrue
testmustbefoundintherealsubjectmatterofthelegislation:ifitissuchthat
itgoesbeyondlocalorprovincialconcernorinterestsandmustfromits
inherentnaturebetheconcernoftheDominionasawhole(…)thenitwillfall
withinthecompetenceoftheDominionParliamentasamatteraffectingthe
peace,orderandgoodgovernmentofCanada,thoughitmayinanother
aspecttouchonmattersspeciallyreservedtotheprovinciallegislatures.War
andpestilence,nodoubt,areinstances;so,too,maybethedrinkordrug
traffic,orthecarryingofarms”.
IntheCourt’sopinion,theTobaccoProductsControlActdidnotconcern
publichealthoreventheregulation,fabrication,importationorsaleof
tobaccoproductsbutonlytheadvertisingandpromotionoftheseproducts.
Forthesereasons,theCourtconcludedthattheTobaccoProductsControl
ActdidnotfallwithinthecompetenceoftheCanadianParliamentasa
matteraffectingthePeace,OrderandGoodGovernmentofCanada.
TheCourtagreedwithRJRMacDonaldInc.andImperialTobaccoLtd.that
theTobaccoProductsControlAct
wasultravirestheParliamentofCanadaas
beingamatterfallingwithinthecompetenceofprovincialLegislatures
pursuanttoparagraphs92(13)and92(16)oftheConstitutionAct,1867.
RJRMacDonaldInc.andImperialTobaccoLtd.alsoarguedthattheTobacco
ProductsControlActviolatedtherightsguaranteedbySection2(b)ofthe
CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms,namelythefreedomofexpression
andthatsuchviolationcouldnotbejustifiedinafreeanddemocratic
society,inaccordancewithSection1oftheCharter.(Itistobenotedthat
Section1oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms-whichformspart
oftheCanadianConstitution-guarantees”therightsandfreedomssetoutin
it,subjectonlytosuchreasonablelimitsprescribedbylawascanbe
demonstrablyjustifiedinafreeanddemocraticsociety”).
TheAttorneyGeneralofCanadarepliedthatthepromotionoftobacco
productswasathreattothehealthofCanadiansanddidnotconstitutean
activityprotectedbytheCharter’sfreedomofexpressionclause;alternatively
andsubsidiarily,theAttorneyGeneralpleadedthat,intheeventsuchactivity
wasprotectedbyparagraph2(b)oftheCharter,theActconstituteda
reasonablelimit”prescribedbylawascanbedemonstrablyjustifiedinafree
anddemocraticsociety”,pursuanttoSection1oftheCharter.

TheCourtremindedthepartiesofthestepsthatmustbetakenwhen
analyzingacaseofallegedviolationoffreedomofexpression:1)theCourt
mustdeterminewhethertheplaintiff’sactivityfallswithinthesphereof
conductprotectedbytheguarantee;2)theCourtmustthendetermine
whetherthepurposeoreffectofthelegislationinissueistorestrictfreedomof
expression;and3)ifthetwopreviousquestionsareansweredaffirmatively,
theCourtmustdetermineifthestatuteisjustifiedunderSection1ofthe
Charter.
Onthefirstquestion,theCourtreferredtothewordsofMr.JusticeLamerof
theSupremeCourtofCanadainReferenceReCriminalCode,Sections193
and195.1(1)(c)thereof,[1990]1S.C.R.1123atp.1186:”Itissufficienttohere
reiteratethatallcontentofexpressionisprotectedwhilethesetofformsthat
willnotreceiveprotectionisnarrowandincludesdirectattacksbyviolent
meansonthephysicallibertyandintegrityofanotherperson.”TheCourt
thereforeconcludedthatRJRMacDonaldInc.andImperialTobaccoLtd.’s
commercialactivities,consistingintheadvertisingofitsproducts,fellwithin
thesphereofconductprotectedbytheguaranteesofSection2(b)ofthe
Charter.
Onthesecondquestion,theCourtheldthatitwasplainlyevidentthatthe
TobaccoProductsControlActrestrictedfreedomofexpression.
OnthethirdquestionofdeterminingwhethertheTobaccoProductsControl
ActwasjustifiedunderSection1oftheCharter,theCourtfollowedthetestset
outbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainHerMajestytheQueenvs.Oakes,
[1986]1S.C.R.103andappliedsametothelegislationunderreview.Thetestis
asfollows:1)”theobjective,whichthemeasuresresponsibleforalimitona
Charterrightorfreedomaredesignedtoserve,mustbeofsufficient
importancetowarrantoverridingaconstitutionallyprotectedrightor
freedom”;2)”onceasufficientlysignificantobjectiveisrecognized,thenthe
partyinvokingSection1mustshowthatthemeanschosenarereasonable
anddemonstrablyjusti-fied.Thisinvolvesaformofproportionalitytest”;3)
“evenifanobjectiveisofsufficientimportanceandtheproportionality
test[is]satisfied,itisstillpossiblethat,becauseoftheseverityofthe
deleteriouseffectofameasureonindividualsorgroups,themeasurewillnot
bejustifiedbythepurposesitisintendedtoserve”.
OnthematteroftheimportanceoftheGovernmentobjective,theCourt
notedtheAct’sstatedpurposesatSection3,namelyprovidingalegislative
responsetotheproblemoftobaccouse.DespitetheTobaccoProducts
ControlAct’snoteddifferencesbetweenitsstatedpurposesanditsreal
concern,theCourtconcludedthattheStatehassufficientscientific

informationjustifyingalegislativeresponsetotheproblemoftobaccouse
anditseffectonthehealthofCanadians:atthispoint,theCourtdidnotneed
toevaluatetheactualmeasuresenactedbytheStateagainsttobaccouse.
Onthematteroftheproportionalitytest,theCourtreferredtothewordsofMr.
JusticeMcIntyreoftheSupremeCourtofCanadainAndrewsvs.LawSociety
ofBritishColumbia[1989]1S.C.R.143atp.184andindicatedthattheCourt
“mustexaminethenatureoftheright,theextentofitsinfringement,andthe
degreetowhichthelimitationfurtherstheattainmentofthedesirablegoal
embodiedinthelegislation”.Tomeetthistestandweighthecompetingsetof
valuesinvolved,theCourtremindedthepartiesthatcommercialexpression,
suchasthepetitioners’advertising,”which…protectslistenersaswellas
speakersplaysasignificantroleinenablingindividualstomakeinformed
economicchoices,animportantaspectofindividualself-fulfillmentand
personalautonomy”.(Fordvs.AttorneyGeneralofQuebec[1988]2S.C.R.712
atp.767(S.C.C.)).
TheCourtfurthernotedthattheTobaccoProductsControlActdidnot
establishdistinctionsbetweenvariousformsofadvertising(suchaspersuasive
advertisementorlife-styleadvertisement)orbetweensegmentsofthe
populationinneedofprotection(suchasyoungpeople):theGovernment
legislationsuppressedallformsofadvertisingandpromotionofaproduct
legallyusedandsoldthroughoutCanada.Itwasfurthernotedthatthe
petitioners’advertisingwasnotviolent,hatefulorfalse.TheCourtconcluded
thattheTobaccoProductsControlActinitspre-sentstateconstitutedaform
ofcensorshipandsocialengineeringincompatiblewiththeessenceofafree
anddemocraticsociety.
TheCourtidentifiedanotherproblemwiththeTobaccoProductsControlAct:
byitslegislation,theStatewastryingtomodelthethoughts,beliefsand
conductofitscitizensinaccordancewiththemodelpreferredbyit.Finally,
theCourtconsideredtheexceptionsprovidedforadvertisinginimported
publications,amongothers,asrevealingadefectinthelegislation’srationality
andquestionedtheseriousnessoftheState’sgoal.
Forthesereasons,againsidingwithRJRMacDonaldInc.andImperial
TobaccoLtd.,theCourtconsideredthattheTobaccoProductsControlAct
violatedtherightsguaranteedinparagraph2(b)oftheCanadianCharterof
RightsandFreedomsanddidnotmeettheproportionalitytestunderSection
1oftheCharter.
TheAttorneyGeneralofCanadahasannounceditsintentiontoappealthis
decision.

Publishedat(1991),5W.I.P.R.265-266underthetitleTobaccoProductsControl
ActDeclaredUnconstitutional.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1991.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD