Her Majesty the Queen v. Mader's Tobacco Store Ltd.
A tobacco retailer was charged with violating the Nova Scotia Tobacco Access Act, which prohibits the display of tobacco products. The retailer argued that the law violated its right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court agreed, finding that the display of tobacco products was an expressive activity and the purpose of the law was to restrict the expression of information. As a result, the law’s ban on the display of tobacco products violated the store’s right to freedom of expression.
R. v. Mader's Tobacco Store Ltd., 2010 NSPC 52 (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.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
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.
"Thus the manner in which the legislation deals with the issue of storing tobacco is similar to its prohibition on display of tobacco. The tobacco must be stored so that it is not visible to people inside or outside the store except in very limited circumstances. When one thinks of storage of products, it is difficult to imagine that the act of storing anything could ever be capable of coming within the confines of “expressive activity”. This is especially so when one considers “storing” in its ordinary meaning– putting away for future use or not putting on display. In this case, however, the legislation is drafted in such a way that vendors are prohibited from displaying any and all of their tobacco products, including those that are stored. They are prohibited from displaying tobacco products that are available for immediate sale; they are prohibited from displaying tobacco products that will be ready for sale at a later time.] Whether one describes it as displaying for sale or displaying while stored, the activity the Defendants wish to engage in is activity with an expressive content, that is displaying products which they wish to sell. The restrictions on storage of tobacco and tobacco products serve to ensure any in-store display of tobacco products is prohibited except in specific circumstances set out in the Regulations. The legislation is clear–tobacco and tobacco products are not to be displayed. Thus, when one considers the act of “storage” in the context of this legislation, the “storing” of tobacco products is an “expressive activity” so as to come within the ambit of freedom of expression."
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.
A tobacco retailer was charged with violating the Nova Scotia Tobacco Access Act, which prohibits the display of tobacco products. The retailer argued that the law violated its right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court agreed, finding that the display of tobacco products was an expressive activity and the purpose of the law was to restrict the expression of information. As a result, the law’s ban on the display of tobacco products violated the store’s right to freedom of expression.