Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney general)  1 S.C.R. 927: The test for government action that intentionally restricts the protected activity and government actions which effectively restrict the protected activity.
This case sets out the test for government action that intentionally restricts the protected activity and government actions which effectively restrict the protected activity.
Per Dickson C.J. and Lamer and Wilson JJ.: When faced with an alleged violation of the guarantee of freedom of expression, the first step is to determine whether the plaintiff's activity falls within the sphere of conduct protected by the guarantee. Activity which (1) does not convey or attempt to convey a meaning, and thus has no content of expression, or (2) which conveys a meaning but through a violent form of expression, is not within the protected sphere of conduct. If the activity falls within the protected sphere of conduct, the second step is to determine whether the purpose or effect of the government action in issue was to restrict freedom of expression. If the government has aimed to control attempts to convey a meaning either by directly restricting the content of expression or by restricting a form of expression tied to content, its purpose trenches upon the guarantee. Where, on the other hand, it aims only to control the physical consequences of particular conduct, its purpose does not trench upon the guarantee. In determining whether the government's purpose aims simply at harmful physical consequences, the question becomes: does the mischief consist in the meaning of the activity or the purported influence that meaning has on the behaviour of others, or does it consist, rather, only in the direct physical result of the activity. If the government's purpose was not to restrict free expression, the plaintiff can still claim that the effect of the government's action was to restrict her expression. To make this claim, the plaintiff must at least identify the meaning being conveyed and how it relates to the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing. Here, respondent's activity is not excluded from the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression. The government's purpose in enacting ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act and in promulgating ss. 87 to 91 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act was to prohibit particular content of expression in the name of protecting children. These provisions therefore constitute limitations to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter.
The First Step: Was the Plaintiff's Activity Within the Sphere of Conduct Protected by Freedom of Expression?
Does advertising aimed at children fall within the scope of freedom of expression? This question must be put even before deciding whether there has been a limitation of the guarantee. Clearly, not all activity is protected by freedom of expression, and governmental action restricting this form of advertising only limits the guarantee if the activity in issue was protected in the first place. Thus, for example, in Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.),  1 S.C.R. 313; PSAC v. Canada,  1 S.C.R. 424; and RWDSU v. Saskatchewan,  1 S.C.R. 460, the majority of the Court found that freedom of association did not include the right to strike. The activity itself was not within the sphere protected by s. 2(d); therefore the government action in restricting it was not contrary to the Charter. The same procedure must be followed with respect to an analysis of freedom of expression; the first step to be taken in an inquiry of this kind is to discover whether the activity which the plaintiff wishes to pursue may properly be characterized as falling within "freedom of expression". If the activity is not within s. 2(b), the government action obviously cannot be challenged under that section .
The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression?
Having found that the plaintiff's activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:
In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation's object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation's object and thus, its validity.
Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature's power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant's need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation's actual impact.
Dickson J. went on to specify how this inquiry into purpose and effects should be carried out (at p. 334):
In short, I agree with the respondent that the legislation's purpose is the initial test of constitutional validity and its effects are to be considered when the law under review has passed or, at least, has purportedly passed the purpose test. If the legislation fails the purpose test, there is no need to consider further its effects, since it has already been demonstrated to be invalid. Thus, if a law with a valid purpose interferes by its impact, with rights or freedoms, a litigant could still argue the effects of the legislation as a means to defeat its applicability and possibly its validity. In short, the effects test will only be necessary to defeat legislation with a valid purpose; effects can never be relied upon to save legislation with an invalid purpose.
If the government's purpose, then, was to restrict attempts to convey a meaning, there has been a limitation by law of s. 2(b) and a s. 1 analysis is required to determine whether the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. If, however, this was not the government's purpose, the court must move on to an analysis of the effects of the government action.
.the purpose of government action must be measured against the ambit of the relevant guarantee. It is important, of course, to heed Dickson J.'s warning against a "theory of shifting purpose" (Big M Drug Mart, supra, at p. 335): "Purpose is a function of the intent of those who drafted and enacted the legislation at the time, and not of any shifting variable." This is not to say that the degree to which a purpose remains or becomes pressing and substantial cannot change over time. In Big M Drug Mart, Dickson J.'s principal concern was to avoid characterizing purposes in a way that shifted over time. But it is equally true that the government cannot have had one purpose as concerns the division of powers, a different purpose as concerns the guaranteed right or freedom, and a different purpose again as concerns reasonable and justified limits to that guarantee. Nevertheless, the same purpose can be assessed from different standpoints when interpreting the division of powers, limitation of a guarantee, or reasonable limits to that guarantee.
If the government's purpose is to restrict the content of expression by singling out particular meanings that are not to be conveyed, it necessarily limits the guarantee of free expression. If the government's purpose is to restrict a form of expression in order to control access by others to the meaning being conveyed or to control the ability of the one conveying the meaning to do so, it also limits the guarantee. On the other hand, where the government aims to control only the physical consequences of certain human activity, regardless of the meaning being conveyed, its purpose is not to control expression
In sum, the characterization of government purpose must proceed from the standpoint of the guarantee in issue. With regard to freedom of expression, if the government has aimed to control attempts to convey a meaning either by directly restricting the content of expression or by restricting a form of expression tied to content, its purpose trenches upon the guarantee. Where, on the other hand, it aims only to control the physical consequences of particular conduct, its purpose does not trench upon the guarantee. In determining whether the government's purpose aims simply at harmful physical consequences, the question becomes: does the mischief consist in the meaning of the activity or the purported influence that meaning has on the behaviour of others, or does it consist, rather, only in the direct physical result of the activity.
Even if the government's purpose was not to control or restrict attempts to convey a meaning, the Court must still decide whether the effect of the government action was to restrict the plaintiff's free expression. Here, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that such an effect occurred. In order so to demonstrate, a plaintiff must state her claim with reference to the principles and values underlying the freedom.
We have already discussed the nature of the principles and values underlying the vigilant protection of free expression in a society such as ours. They were also discussed by the Court in Ford (at pp. 765-67), and can be summarized as follows: (1) seeking and attaining the truth is an inherently good activity; (2) participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged; and (3) the diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, but also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed. In showing that the effect of the government's action was to restrict her free expression, a plaintiff must demonstrate that her activity promotes at least one of these principles. It is not enough that shouting, for example, has an expressive element. If the plaintiff challenges the effect of government action to control noise, presuming that action to have a purpose neutral as to expression, she must show that her aim was to convey a meaning reflective of the principles underlying freedom of expression. The precise and complete articulation of what kinds of activity promote these principles is, of course, a matter for judicial appreciation to be developed on a case by case basis. But the plaintiff must at least identify the meaning being conveyed and how it relates to the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing.
| Return to Topic Menu | Return to Main Menu |