Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which creates a legal action for the federal government against tobacco manufacturers to recover the health care costs for individuals with tobacco-related illnesses. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the government's actions. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the Recovery Act, finding British Columbia to have the closest relationship to the cause of action. The Court found that independence of judiciary was not violated and that the Act did not violate companies' right to a fair trial.
British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada, et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473, Supreme Court of Canada (2005).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The Act does not implicate the rule of law in the sense that the Constitution comprehends that term. Except in respect of criminal law, the retrospectivity and retroactivity of which is limited by s. 11(g) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is no requirement of legislative prospectivity embodied in the rule of law or in any provision of our Constitution. Nor does the Constitution, through the rule of law, require that legislation be general in character and devoid of special advantages for the government (except where necessary for effective governance), or that it ensure a fair civil trial. In any event, tobacco manufacturers sued pursuant to the Act will receive a fair civil trial: they are entitled to a public hearing, before an independent and impartial court, in which they may contest the claims of the plaintiff and adduce evidence in their defence. The court will determine their liability only following that hearing, based solely on its understanding of the law as applied to its findings of fact. That defendants might regard the Act as unjust, or the procedural rules it prescribes as unprecedented, does not render their trial unfair."
"The Act does not violate the independence of the judiciary. A court called upon to try an action brought pursuant to the Act retains at all times its adjudicative role, and the ability to exercise that role without interference. It must independently determine the applicability of the Act to the government’s claim, independently assess the evidence led to support and defend that claim, independently assign that evidence weight, then independently determine whether its assessment of the evidence supports a finding of liability. The fact that the Act shifts onuses of proof in respect of some of the elements of an aggregate claim or limits the compellability of certain information does not in any way interfere, in either appearance or fact, with the court’s adjudicative role or any of the essential conditions of judicial independence. Judicial independence can abide unconventional rules of civil procedure and evidence.[55-56]"
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which creates a legal action for the federal government against tobacco manufacturers to recover the health care costs for individuals with tobacco-related illnesses. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the government's actions. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the Recovery Act, finding British Columbia to have the closest relationship to the cause of action. The Court found that independence of judiciary was not violated and that the Act did not violate companies' right to a fair trial.