Correctional Service of Canada, et al. v. Mercier, et al.
The Correctional Service of Canada published a directive that prohibited prisoners from smoking in indoor and outdoor areas in federal prisons. Prisoners challenged the validity of the directive. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the prisoners. The Federal Court of Appeals held that the Commissioners' directive was within its power and upheld the ban.
Correctional Service of Canada, et al. v. Mercier, et al., 2010 FCA 167, Federal Court of Appeals (2010).
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.
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 Judge’s role was to determine whether the statutory grant of authority given to the Commissioner allowed him to adopt the Directive. However, the Judge did not see his role as so limited and proceeded to determine de novo whether the outdoor smoking ban was justified in the circumstances. In this regard, I refer particularly to his Reasons at paragraphs 27, 28, 33 and 34, where, in effect, the Judge appears to have substituted his view to that of the Commissioner as to whether a total ban on smoking should be implemented in federal correctional facilities. For example, at paragraph 28 of his Reasons, the Judge indicates that in his opinion, the total ban on smoking will result in the adoption of additional “control measures” and that he has doubts as to the effectiveness of these measures. As Strayer J.A. made clear in Jafari, supra, at page 602, it is not open to “a court to determine the wisdom of delegated legislation or to assess its validity on the basis of the court’s policy preferences”. "
"I am therefore satisfied that the Commissioner’s Directive clearly falls within the ambit of paragraph 97(c) of the Act in that it purports to take steps to ensure that the living and working conditions of inmates and employees of CSC are safe and healthful. Thus, the Directive falls within the scope of the powers given to the Commissioner under the Act and the Regulations."
"Third, there can be no doubt that in enacting the first Directive, the Commissioner was attempting to prevent both inmates and employees from smoking indoors within federal correctional facilities so as to protect non-smokers. There can also be no doubt that the purpose of the Directive and, more particularly, the prohibition in respect of outdoor smoking, is an attempt by the Commissioner to prevent indoor smoking and, thus, to protect the health of non-smokers within the confines of federal correctional facilities. The stated purpose of the Directive clearly finds support in the Assistant Commissioner’s recommendation of June 21, 2007, which explains why the first Directive was enacted, i.e.: “[T]his policy was developed in response to the expanding body of scientific evidence demonstrating the potential harmful effects of second-hand smoke and the increasing concern about exposure by employees, offenders and other individuals inside federal penitentiaries.” (Appeal Book, Vol. 2, p. 328). The Assistant Commissioner’s recommendation also explains why the first Directive was not successful in meeting its objective. More particularly, the recommendation sets out the number of reported infractions to the indoor smoking ban, outlining the ways and means taken by inmates to smuggle cigarettes into the correctional facilities and the fabrication of smoking devices to replace matches and lighters which CSC had either removed or confiscated."
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 Correctional Service of Canada published a directive that prohibited prisoners from smoking in indoor and outdoor areas in federal prisons. Prisoners challenged the validity of the directive. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the prisoners. The Federal Court of Appeals held that the Commissioners' directive was within its power and upheld the ban.