Freedom of Expression and Justification
In this seminar, we will hear presentations and discuss the following propositions:
(1) "Just
about anything qualifies as expression, even the worst possible child pornography,
and just about any restraint on it is ruled as a s. 2(b) breach, sending the
matter to s. 1. This approach
trivializes the Charter. Matters should
not be so readily sent to s. 1, where the onus lies on government to justify
its positions."
(2) There should be no positive rights of access
to government property or information.
(3) "The test for justification under s. 1 can be strict
(more difficult for government to meet) or deferential (easier for government
to meet). The Supreme Court of Canada
has identified certain types or categories of cases that fall into the
“deferential” category. On the whole,
the categories do not make sense."
Cases (feel free to review others
and discuss them in class if you wish):
Irwin
Toy Ltd. v. A.G. Quebec,
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 25 C.P.R. (3d) 417, 39 C.R.R. 193, 94
N.R. 167.
R.J.R.
MacDonald v. Canada, [1995] 3 S.C.R.
199, 100 C.C.C. (3d) 449, 127 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 62 C.P.R. (3d) 417, 31 C.R.R.
(2d) 189, 187 N.R. 1.
Thomson
Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877, 159 D.L.R. (4th)
385, 226 N.R. 1, 51 C.R.R. (2d) 189, 109 O.A.C. 201.
R. v.
Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 194
D.L.R. (4th) 1, 150 C.C.C. (3d) 321, 39 C.R. (5th) 72, 264 N.R. 201, [2001] 6
W.W.R. 1, 86 C.R.R. (2d) 1.
The
Criminal Lawyers' Association v. Ontario (Public Safety and Security), (2007), 86 O.R. (3d)
259, (2007), 280 D.L.R. (4th) 193, (2007), 220 C.C.C. (3d) 343, (2007), 58
C.P.R. (4th) 298, (2007), 156 C.R.R. (2d) 1, (2007), 224 O.A.C. 236.
Baier v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673.