Discussion #1 Chapter 2
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Algonquin College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
CST8284
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ElderSheep2185
Section 4.1(1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act reads: Display, etc., of vapour products
4.1 (1) No person shall, in any place where vapour products are sold or offered for sale, display or permit the display of vapour products in any manner that would permit a consumer to view or handle the product before purchasing it.
John Smith owns a convenience store in Ottawa and decides to sell vaping (vapour) products as he knows they are popular with his youth clients. He decides to display the products on an open display where any customer can see and handle the vaping (vapour) products right beside the cash register. John is charged with a violation of s. 4.1 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and he retains a lawyer defend him against the charges. His Lawyer wants to argue that the Section of the Act does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What Charter right would his lawyer have to establish was violated?
If his lawyer succeeds, what does the prosecutor (Crown) then have to establish?
Briefly explain in point form 5 reasons why a Court would or would not uphold the law by virtue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if John will be convicted. Your response
should contain reference to 1 relevant court decision referred to in Chapter 2 The Canadian Legal System
.
John Smith's lawyer would likely argue that Section 4.1(1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the right to freedom of expression under Section 2(b). Additionally, the attorney may contend that the limitations imposed on the display and handling of vaping products could be seen as violating the right to personal security under Section 7. This line of reasoning is rooted in the belief that individuals possess the autonomy to make decisions regarding their health, and constraints on access to information or products may impede that autonomy. Although it is infrequent, electronic vapour products can potentially cause explosions, posing a threat of harm to John. In summary, the defence for John could argue a breach of both freedom of expression (Section 2(b)) and the right to personal security (Section 7) under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If John's lawyer succeeds in establishing a Charter violation, the prosecutor (Crown) would then have to demonstrate that the violation is a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter and is justifiable in a free and democratic society.
I believe the Court Might Uphold the Law as it affects multiple aspects negatively if it was not upheld; Mr. Gee's case influenced the following reasons in Chapter 2:
1. Public Health concerns have been raised for the store's customers. The court would find that the restriction on displaying vaping products will affect public health, which upholds the law.
2. The protection of Youth can affect the decision as well. If there is evidence that such displays contribute to youth vaping, the court might uphold the law to protect the well-being of the Youth.
3. The legislation can be a measure to restrain impulsive purchases of vaping products.
4. The province of Ontario aims to minimize exposure to second-hand vapour, which can support upholding the law [1].
5. The court can determine that Section 4.1(1) strikes a reasonable balance between public health and individual rights.
[1] Second-hand smoke, smoke-free spaces and the law
. Ottawa Public Health. (n.d.). https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/public-health-topics/second-hand-smoke--smoke-
free-spaces-and-the-law.aspx#Second-Hand-Smoke-Facts John Smith's legal representative is prepared to argue that Section 4.1(1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act may violate provisions within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically implicating the essential freedom of expression outlined in Section 2(b). Additionally, the legal
contention may extend to assert that the prohibition on the conspicuous display and handling of vaping products could be interpreted as a potential encroachment upon the Charter-
protected right to personal security. This assertion is rooted in the principle that individuals have a fundamental right to autonomously navigate decisions concerning their health, and regulatory constraints on access to relevant information or products may be considered an unjustifiable intrusion.
In brief summary, legal counsel for John Smith may present a dual-pronged violation argument, suggesting breaches of both freedom of expression (Section 2(b)) and the right to personal security (Section 7) within the constitutional framework of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If the defense successfully establishes a Charter violation, the ensuing responsibility lies with the prosecutor (Crown) to articulate a compelling case demonstrating that the infringement represents a reasonable limitation under Section 1 of the Charter, justifying it within a free and democratic society.
Reasons for Judicial Approval of the Legislation:
1. **Public Health Imperatives:** The judiciary may be inclined to endorse the legislative restriction if persuaded of its indispensable role in safeguarding public health considerations.
2. **Youth Protection Rationale:** Substantiated empirical linkages between conspicuous displays and heightened youth engagement in vaping might prompt the court to endorse the legislation to protect the well-being of the younger demographic.
3. **Mitigating Impulse Purchases:** Judicial support may be garnered if the legislation is perceived as an effective deterrent against impulsive acquisitions of vaping products.
4. **Mitigating Secondhand Exposure:** The court may be predisposed to uphold the legislation if its intended purpose is construed as a measure to curtail secondhand exposure to vapor.
5. **Regulatory Equilibrium:** The legislation might find judicial endorsement if deemed to strike a judicious balance between public health imperatives and the preservation of individual liberties.
Reasons for Judicial Reservations Regarding the Legislation:
1. **Freedom of Expression Scrutiny:** A meticulous examination of the legislation may transpire if the court discerns an undue curtailment of freedom of expression without commensurate justification.
2. **Exploration of Less Intrusive Measures:** The judiciary may pose inquiries regarding the necessity of the specific regulatory restrictions if alternative, less intrusive measures are perceived as equally efficacious in achieving public health objectives.
3. **Ambiguity Challenge:** The court may entertain challenges to the legislation if it is deemed nebulous or lacking in clarity.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4. **Overbreadth Concerns:** Should the legislation be construed as capturing a broader range
of expression than necessary to fulfill its intended goals, it might be susceptible to characterization as overbroad.
5. **Evidentiary Rigor:** Judicial reservations may be expressed if the evidentiary foundation supporting the necessity of the regulatory restrictions is deemed insufficient or lacking in probative value.