Yves Leboeuf

The appeal concerned the constitutional validity of federal toxic-substances provisions and an interim order limiting PCB releases after a prosecution for alleged discharge into a river.

The majority held that environmental protection through prohibitions against toxic substances is a legitimate criminal law purpose and that Part II of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act created a valid scheme targeting toxic substances through prohibitions backed by penal sanctions.

The dissent concluded that the scheme was fundamentally regulatory rather than prohibitory and could not be sustained under either the criminal law power or the national concern branch of peace, order and good government.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the summary conviction court.

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.