Started on: 02/04/2014
C LASS N OTES FOR : P OLI S CI 3NN6
McMaster University, Fall 2013
T UESDAY , FEBRUARY 4, Y
1. DOES THE CHARTERAPPLY? (Can skip over this step and then come back to it)
e. Gov’t activity
5 prohibitsAdvertise services
( c) advertising a drug
Whether this violates the freedom of expression under 2(b) or this limitation is saved under virtue of
According to the law, we are examining two different sections.
2(b) of the charter of rights and freedoms. To do this, we examine the purpose of the expression such thatsection
it is for the pursuit of truth, democratic participation and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy V.
Quebec; Harper). Furthermore, the expression itself has to convey a meaning in terms of its content, to
the point that the content of the message does not matter based on the principle of content neutrality
(Keegstra).Additionally, expressions whether spoken, written, artistic or even physical gestures should
warrant protection provided they meet a particular test (Ford V. Quebec). The second stage of the
freedom of expression is concerned as to whether the government actually and physically limited the right
for Dr. Rodd Noway to express himself (Irwin Toy v. Quebec).
Assuming that a charter right has been violated, the government has to justify the law it imposed on Dr.
Rodd Noway under section 1. If the law is justified under section 1, the charter violation goes away. Two
factors that have to be considered (1) whether the limits have been prescribed by law (Little Sisters
Books v. Canada) and (2) whether the reasonable limits are justifiable in a free and democratic society
(Oakes). The second stage of the section 1 test, or the Oakes test, is composed of two parts. The first part
is the purpose and objective, to see whether the purpose of the legislation or law in question is of
sufficient important that it would warrant intrusion (RJR MacDonald V. Canada).Assuming that we’ve
answered yes to the purpose and objective of the legislature, and whether its pressing and substantial for
the government to infringe upon the rights, we would move to the means and proportionality section of the
test, which consists of three additional parts. First, there must be a logical or common sense connection
proven between the means chosen and the pressing and substantial (Oakes, Benner, RJR MacDonald).
Second, whether the means chosen impair the right as little as reasonably necessary to meet the objective,
Angie © McMaster University 1
Fall 2014 Started on: 02/04/2014
in a minimal impairment test (R. v. Edwards Books). Third, the proportionate effect is whether the
infringement of the rights is too high a price to pay in order to achieve the objective (Sauve v. Canada)
1. Does it fall within expression protected under 2(b) (expression of protection under 2(b))
• Purpose (IRWIN TOY)
o Pursuit of truth? Is it for the pursuit? No
o Democratic participation? No