Rachel Ravary

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision striking down portions of the Tobacco Act and the Tobacco Products Information Regulations.

The respondent tobacco manufacturers cross-appealed the provisions upheld by the lower court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship, and the requirement for 50% health warning labels infringed the manufacturers' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, these limits were demonstrably justified under s. 1.

The Court found that Parliament's objectives of protecting public health and preventing youth smoking were pressing and substantial, and the measures chosen were proportional and minimally impairing.

The appellants, former employees of Stelco in Quebec, sought early retirement benefits under Stelco's pension plan after plant closures.

The plan was governed by Ontario law.

Ontario's Superintendent of Pensions ordered a partial wind up and approved a report granting early retirement benefits only to Ontario employees, while Quebec employees received deferred pensions under Quebec law.

The appellants did not contest this decision in Ontario but sued in Quebec based on their employment contracts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the action was an impermissible collateral attack on the Superintendent's final decision, barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the Quebec courts should decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens.