www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abqb/2001/2001abqb558.html
Guys, paragraps [162, 163] give us these main points:
1. Government must show it has a "pressing and substantial concern" or "a reasonable apprehention of harm" as its motive. Sometimes it does not even succeed in proving this. Anyway,
2. The government must also show that its regulations will prevent that harm from happening, or that irrepairable harm will occur if the regulations are not enforce.
I believe these two points are very relevant to labelling issues.
Excerpts from this case here Paragraph numbers are in []:
The order directing appellant to give respondent a letter containing certain objective facts in my opinion unquestionably limits appellant's freedom of expression.
[198] Absolute precision in the law exists rarely, if at all... On the other hand, where there is no intelligible standard and where the legislature has given [an unqualified] discretion to do whatever seems best in a wide set of circumstances, there is no "limit prescribed by law".
Again, there are no parameters on the discretion afforded by this section.
[219] The Attorney General must show that the statutory restrictions can be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter. The standard of proof to be used is the civil standard, namely proof on a balance of probabilities. Scientific proof is not required to meet this standard: "the balance of probabilities may be established by the application of common sense to what is known, even though what is known may be deficient from a scientific point of view" (RJR -MacDonald Inc.).
[262] Furthermore, there is no concrete evidence that the candidate and registered party limits are in jeopardy as a result of unregulated third party spending. While there was legislative evidence from Members of Parliament who have felt overwhelmed by third party spending in their ridings, there is no study which attempts to link spending by third parties to increased spending by parties and candidates. It should also be noted that there is no evidence that unregulated third party spending has led to a reduction in the number of registered parties and candidates.
[263] As I have noted previously in these reasons, scientific proof is not necessary to establish a pressing and substantial concern. Parliament is entitled to have a reasonable apprehension of harm. However, I am not satisfied that it is proper to call an apprehension of harm reasonable, if there is no evidence to support that apprehension. Balanced against the other contextual factors such as the importance of free expression in a democracy such as Canada's, particularly during an election, and that there has been no evidence that the Canadian electorate constitutes a vulnerable group, I find that the Defendant has not made out a pressing and substantial concern.
[264] Even with respect to the general fairness of elections, the Defendant has not shown that any Canadian election has ever been considered unfair. Given that there have never been third party spending limits during a general election in Canada (other than the November 2000 election), it is difficult to reason to the link between third party spending limits and fair elections. Mr. Kingsley admitted that he was not aware of any candidate or registered party attempting to circumvent their own limits by having third parties spend on their behalf (Transcript at 968-969). The following exchange during cross-examination also indicates that the Chief Electoral Officer's opinion is that Canadian elections are generally fair:
[274] I find that the Defendant has failed to scientifically prove a rational connection based on the evidence presented. Even assuming a pressing and substantial objective, the evidence is inconclusive at best with respect to the effect of third party spending. I am satisfied that the conclusions of the Lortie Commission on this point are called into question by the Johnston/Hiebert scenario.
Back to top of document
