The respondent challenged federal third party election advertising provisions, including spending limits, anti-circumvention rules, disclosure requirements, and a polling day blackout, as violating ss. 2(b), 2(d), and 3 of the Charter.
The majority held that although several provisions infringed freedom of expression, they were justified under s. 1 because Parliament could adopt an egalitarian electoral model aimed at electoral fairness, informed voting, and confidence in the electoral process.
The Court rejected the argument that s. 3 guarantees unlimited electoral expression, holding instead that meaningful participation includes access to a balanced political discourse.
The appeal was allowed and the impugned provisions were upheld as constitutional, with a partial dissent that would have struck down the spending limits.
