RJR-MacDonald Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of Canada
Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of the Tobacco Products Control Act, which regulates the advertisement of tobacco products and the health warnings that must be placed on the products. The companies claimed that Parliament had acted outside the scope of its power in adopting the Act and that the Act violated their right to freedom of expression. In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that enforcement of the Act should remain in effect while the case is being decided because of the strong public interest in favor of the Act.
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of the Tobacco Products Control Act, which regulates the advertisement of tobacco products and the health warnings that must be placed on the products. The companies claimed that Parliament had acted outside the scope of its power in adopting the Act and that the Act violated their right to freedom of expression. In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that enforcement of the Act should remain in effect while the case is being decided because of the strong public interest in favor of the Act.