Simon V. Potter

The Government of British Columbia and a class of consumers brought separate actions against tobacco companies regarding the health impacts of smoking and 'light' cigarettes.

The tobacco companies issued third-party notices against the Government of Canada, claiming contribution and indemnity based on negligent misrepresentation, negligent design, failure to warn, and statutory liability.

Canada brought motions to strike the third-party claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Canada's appeals and struck all third-party claims.

The Court held that Canada's alleged representations and design decisions regarding low-tar cigarettes were core government policy decisions immune from tort liability.

Furthermore, Canada did not qualify as a 'manufacturer' or 'supplier' under the relevant provincial statutes.

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 challenged the constitutional validity of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the government of British Columbia to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover health care costs related to tobacco exposure.

The appellants argued the Act was ultra vires due to extra-territoriality, violated judicial independence, and offended the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Act's pith and substance is property and civil rights in the province, it does not interfere with the adjudicative role of the courts, and it does not violate the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law.

Constitutional appeals challenging federal tobacco advertising and labelling restrictions.

The Court held that Parliament had authority under the criminal law power to legislate in relation to tobacco advertising, promotion, and warning requirements aimed at protecting public health.

A majority further held that the impugned advertising ban, trademark restrictions, and unattributed package warning provisions infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and were not justified under s. 1 because the government failed to demonstrate minimal impairment.

Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Act were declared of no force or effect.

The applicants, two major tobacco companies, sought an interlocutory stay to suspend the enforcement of new packaging regulations under the Tobacco Products Control Act pending their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the Act's constitutionality.

The Court established the three-part test for interlocutory relief in Charter cases: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

While the applicants demonstrated a serious question and irreparable financial harm, the Court held that the balance of convenience weighed heavily in favour of the public interest in health, which the regulations aimed to protect.

The applications for a stay were dismissed.