Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), (1989) 94 N.R. 167 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 27, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 94 N.R. 167 (SCC);JE 89-772;[1989] SCJ No 36 (QL);58 DLR (4th) 577;25 CPR (3d) 417;94 NR 167;[1989] 1 SCR 927;24 QAC 2;15 ACWS (3d) 121;[1989] ACS no 36;EYB 1989-67798;39 CRR 193;1989 CanLII 87 (SCC)

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Qué. (P.g.) (1989), 94 N.R. 167 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Attorney General of Quebec v. Irwin Toy Limited, Gilles Moreau, Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General for New Brunswick, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Pathonic Communications Inc., Reseau Pathonic Inc., La Coalition contre le retour de la publicité destinée aux enfants

(20074)

Indexed As: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général)

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.

April 27, 1989.

Summary:

Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act effectively prohibited television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age. Irwin Toy applied for a declaration that ss. 248 and 249 were ultra vires the Quebec legislature or, alternatively, inoperative as a colourable attempt to prohibit television advertising, a federal matter.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application. Irwin appealed. Irwin also submitted that ss. 248 and 249 violated s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of expression) and that the notwithstanding provision in s. 364 of the Consumer Protection Act, which purported to exclude the application of ss. 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter, was ultra vires.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 3 Q.A.C. 285, allowed the appeal in part. The court rejected the division of powers argument and held that s. 364 was ultra vires as not being in conformity with the authority conferred by s. 33 of the Charter. The court held that s. 2(b) extended to freedom of commercial expression and that ss. 248 and 249 violated s. 2(b) of the Charter and were not reasonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1. Vallerand, J.A., dissenting in part, agreed that ss. 248 and 249 violated s. 2(b), but stated that they were justified under s. 1. The Attorney General appealed. The following constitutional questions were stated: "1. Is s. 364 of the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P- 40.1, added by s. 1 of An Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982, S.Q. 1982, c. 21, inconsistent with the provisions of s. 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and so ultra vires and of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency, pursuant to s. 52(1) of the latter Act? "2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act infringe the rights, freedoms and guarantees contained in ss. 2(b) and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, can those sections be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? "3. Are ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act ultra vires the legislature of the Province of Quebec, or are they to some degree of no force or effect under s. 3 of the Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B11?" The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held as follows: (1) s. 364 of the Consumer Protection Act was not inconsistent with s. 33 of the Charter, except where it was given retrospective effect by s. 7 of An Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982; (2) s. 364 expired on June 23, 1987 (five year limitation), therefore there was no valid and subsisting notwithstanding provision; (3) ss. 248 and 249 violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter, but were justified under s. 1 of the Charter and s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter; (4) s. 7 could not be invoked by a corporation; (4) ss. 248 and 249 were not ultra vires as a colourable attempt to regulate broadcasting, a federal matter.

McIntyre, J. (Beetz, J., concurring), dissenting in part, stated that ss. 248 and 249 were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter or s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1801

Freedom of expression - General - Expression - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "expression" had both content and form - An activity was expressive if it attempted to convey a meaning and that meaning was its content - The court stated that "if the activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning, it has expressive content and prima facie falls within the scope of the guarantee" - Freedom of expression was to be interpreted in a broad, inclusive manner - See paragraphs 40 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of expression - Scope of - Commercial expression - The Supreme Court of Canada held that advertising directed at children fell within the scope of "freedom of expression" - The court stated that there was sound basis for excluding commercial expression from the protection of s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 40 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 1841

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "with regard to freedom of expression, if the government has aimed to control attempts to convey a meaning either by directly restricting the content of expression or by restricting a form of expression tied to content, its purpose trenches upon the guarantee. Where, on the other hand, it aims only to control the physical consequences of the particular conduct, its purpose does not trench upon the guarantee. In determining whether the government's purpose aims simply at harmful physical consequences, the question becomes: does the mischief consist in the meaning of the activity or the purported influence that the meaning has on the behaviour of others, or does it consist, rather, only in the direct physical result of the activity" - See paragraph 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 1847

Freedom of expression - Limitations on - Regulation of advertising - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act effectively prohibited all television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 248 and 249 violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The court stated that the purpose of the sections was to restrict both a particular range of content and certain forms of expression in the name of protecting children; access to the particular message being conveyed was restricted - See paragraphs 45 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 7168

Federal or provincial legislation - Application - Exceptions - Legislative limits to rights and freedoms - Section 9.1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provided that "in exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Quebec. In this respect, the scope of the freedoms and rights, and limits to their exercise, may be fixed by law" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 9.1 was subject to the same test as used under s. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraph 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the onus of justifying the limitation of a Charter right or freedom rested upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation - See paragraph 68.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which effectively prohibited all television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age, violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter - An opponent of the sections submitted that ss. 248 and 249 were too vague to constitute a "limit prescribed by law" under s. 1 of the Charter - Particularly, it was submitted that ss. 248 and 249 were confusing, if not contradictory; the courts were not given sufficient guidance respecting how to interpret the ban on commercial advertising directed at children; and that there was too much scope for discretion to promulgate regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the arguments - The court held that ss. 248 and 249 constituted a "limit prescribed by law" - See paragraphs 58 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter - An issue arose as to whether studies post-dating the enactment of ss. 248 and 249 were irrelevant to an examination of the sections under s. 1 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in justifying legislation under s. 1 it was not open to the government to assert post facto a purpose which did not animate the legislation in the first place - However, in proving that the original objective remained pressing and substantial the government could and should draw upon the best evidence currently available - See paragraphs 64 to 65.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act effectively prohibited all television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 248 and 249 violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, but were reasonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1 - The court stated that "the evidence sustains the reasonableness of the legislature's conclusion that a ban on commercial advertising directed to children was the minimal impairment of free expression consistent with the pressing and substantial goal of protecting children against manipulation through such advertising. While evidence exists that other less intrusive options reflecting more modest objectives were available to the government, there is evidence establishing the necessity of a ban to meet the objectives the government had reasonably set. This court will not, in the name of minimal impairment, take a restrictive approach to social science evidence and require legislatures to choose the least ambitious means to protect vulnerable groups" - See paragraphs 69 to 89.

Civil Rights - Topic 8355

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Notwithstanding provision - Section 33(1) of the Charter provided, in part, that a provincial legislature could, by express declaration, make a statute operate notwithstanding ss. 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter - Section 33(3) provided that a declaration expired after five years and could, under s. 33(4), be re-enacted - Section 364 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act provided that the Act operated notwithstanding ss. 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter - The notwithstanding provision came into force June 23, 1982 and was not reenacted upon its expiration on June 23, 1987 - Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the notwithstanding provision did not protect ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act from being challenged under the Charter - The court stated that a s. 33 notwithstanding provision could not be given retrospective effect - See paragraph 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - Section 7 of the Charter provided that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person ..." - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in our opinion, a corporation cannot avail itself of the protection afforded by s. 7 of the Charter"; s. 7 "serves to underline the human element involved, only human beings can enjoy those rights" - See paragraphs 90 to 95.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3504

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Conflict or repugnancy - Requirement of - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act were challenged as conflicting with s. 3(c) of the federal Broadcasting Act - It was submitted that the doctrine of paramountcy rendered ss. 248 and 249 invalid - The federal regulation of advertising was by virtue of the CRTC Broadcasting Code, which was supplementary to all federal and provincial laws and regulations governing advertising and was not the sole and minimum standard to be applied - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the federal and provincial legislation were designed to coexist; compliance with one did not mean defiance of the other - The court stated that absent a conflict between the legislation the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply - See paragraphs 28 to 35.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6498

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - Particular matters - Consumer protection legislation - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act effectively prohibited television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age - Section 278 provided for penal sanctions for noncompliance, including fines and possible imprisonment - Non-penal sanctions were also available (injunctions) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that where ss. 248 and 249 were enacted pursuant to a valid provincial objective (consumer protection), and did not conflict with federal regulation; the penal sanctions did not make ss. 248 and 249 legislation relating to criminal law - See paragraphs 36 to 37.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6641

Federal jurisdiction - Interprovincial works and undertakings - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that provincial legislation that applied to a federal undertaking, either by direct application or indirect effect, was ultra vires if the legislation impaired (as opposed to incidentally affected) the operation of the undertaking - See paragraph 25.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7299

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Consumer protection - Sections 248 and 249 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act effectively prohibited all television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age - An opponent of the legislation claimed ss. 248 and 249 was a colourable attempt to legislate respecting television advertising, a federal matter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 248 and 249, as modified or completed by the Regulations, was legislation of general application enacted in relation to consumer protection rather than a colourable attempt, under the guise of a law of general application, to legislate in relation to television advertising - The court stated that the dominant aspect of the legislation was regulation of all forms of advertising directed at children under 13, rather than the prohibition of television advertising - See paragraphs 15 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

F.H. Hayhurst Co. v. Langlois, [1984] C.A. 74, refd to. [para. 5].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Kellogg's Company of Canada, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 211; 19 N.R. 271, appld. [para. 8].

Alliance des professeurs de Montreal v. Procureur general du Quebec, [1985] C.A. 376, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, appld. [para. 10].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Procureur general), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, appld. [para. 13].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Procureur general).

Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur general) et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, appld. [para. 13].

Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur general) et al.

Commission du salaire minimum v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, consd. [para. 16].

Carnation Co. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, [1968] S.C.R. 238, consd. [para. 18].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la sante et securite du travail (Que.), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, appld. [para. 22].

Attorney General of Manitoba v. Attorney General of Canada, [1929] A.C. 260 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

C.F.R.B. and Attorney General of Canada, Re, [1973] 3 O.R. 819 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141; 18 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 26].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, appld. [para. 34].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128, refd to. [para. 37].

Mann v. The Queen, [1966] S.C.R. 238, refd to. [para. 37].

Smith v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 37].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Locals 544, 496, 635 and 955 et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460; 74 N.R. 321; 56 Sask.R. 277, refd to. [para. 40].

Palko v. Connecticut (1937), 302 U.S. 319, refd to. [para. 41].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 41].

The Handyside case, [1976] E.C.H.R. No. 24, refd to. [para. 41].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, appld. [para. 46].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Sunday Times, The v. United Kingdom, The (1979), 2 E.H.R.R. 245, refd to. [para. 79].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 92].

Statutes Noticed:

Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-11, sect. 3(c) [para. 28]; sect. 17(1)(a) [para. 30].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b), sect. 7 [para. 4].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, sect. 3, sect. 9.1 [para. 4].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 36]; sect. 92(13), [para. 7]; sect. 92(15) [para. 37]; sect. 92(16) [para. 7].

Constitution Act, 1982, An Act Respecting, S.Q. 1982, c. 21, sect. 1 [para. 38].

Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P-40.1, sect. 215, [para. 92]; sect. 248, sect. 249, sect. 252 [para. 3]; sect. 278, [para. 36]; sect. 282 [para. 92]; sect. 316 [para. 36]; sect. 364 [para. 38].

Consumer Protection Act Regulations, R.R.Q., c. P-40.1, reg. 1, sect. 87, sect. 88, sect. 89, sect. 90, sect. 91 [para. 4].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 2, sect. 3 [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, Broadcast Advertising Handbook (1978), p. 11 [para. 32].

Schauer, Frederick, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (1982), p. 91 [para. 41].

Emerson, Thomas, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (1963), 72 Yale L.J. 877, p. 886 [para. 43].

Tucker, D.F.B., Law, Liberalism and Free Speech (1985), p. 35 [para. 43].

Cox Archibald, Freedom of Expression (1981), pp. 59, 60 [para. 48].

Scanlon, Thomas, A Theory of Freedom of Expression, in The Philosophy of Law (1971), p. 161 [para. 49].

Martin, Peter S., Business Practices - Title II of The Quebec Consumer Protection Act, in The New Consumer Protection Act of Quebec (1979), p. 222 [para. 59].

Quebec, Assemblee nationale, Commission permanente des consommateurs, cooperatives et institutions financi eres, Etude du projet de loi no 72, Loi sur la protection du consommateur (Dec. 12, 1978), No. 226, p. B-9501 [para. 66].

Federal-Provincial Committee on Advertising Intended for Children, The Effects of Quebec's Legislation Prohibiting Advertising Intended for Children (1986) [para. 67].

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, Renewal of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation's Television and Radio Network Licenses (1979), 113 Can. Gaz., Part 1, p. 3082 [para. 70].

Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children [para. 70].

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Commercial Acceptance Policy Guideline [para. 70].

National Association of Broadcasters, Television Code (21st Ed. 1980) [para. 70].

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Advertising Directed at Children: Endorsements in Advertising (1982) [para. 70].

Boddewyn, J.J., Advertising to Children: Regulation and Self-regulation in 40 Countries (1984) [para. 70].

United States Federal Trade Commission, Final Staff Report and Recommendation, In the Matter of Children's Advertising (1981) [para. 71].

Counsel:

Yves de Montigny and Richard Tardif, for the appellant;

Yvan Bolduc, Michel Robert, Q.C., Luc Martineau and Marie-Josee Hogue, for the respondent;

Pierre Valois and Gilberte Bechara, for the intervenor, Gilles Moreau;

Lorraine E. Weinrib, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Grant S. Garneau, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Joseph J. Arvay and Jennifer Button, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Robert G. Richards, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Louis-Yves Fortier, Q.C., and Michel Sylvestre, for the intervenors, Pathonic Communications Inc. and Reseau Pathonic Inc.;

Marc Legros and Diane Lajoie, for the intervenor, the Coalition contre le retour de la publicite destinee aux enfants.

Solicitors of Record:

Jean-K. Samson and Yves de Montigny, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the appellant;

Heenan, Blaikie and Robert, Dansereau, Barre, Marchessault & Lauzon, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Valois & Associes, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Gilles Moreau;

Richard F. Chaloner, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Gordon F. Gregory, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for British Columbia;

Brian Barrington-Foote, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Ogilvy, Renault, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenors, Pathonic Communications Inc. and Reseau Pathonic Inc.;

Legros & Lajoie, Anjou, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Coalition contre le retour de la publicite destinee aux enfants.

This appeal was heard on November 19 and 20, 1987, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 27, 1989, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer and Wilson, JJ. - see paragraphs 1 to 96;

McIntyre, J. (Beetz, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 97 to 105;

Estey and Le Dain, JJ., did not participate in the judgment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES

I - The Relevant Legislative and Constitutional Provisions	para. 3
II - The Respondent's Declaratory Action and the Judgements of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal	para. 5
III - The Constitutional Questions and the Issues in the Appeal	para. 11
IV - Whether ss. 248 and 249 are ultra vires the Legislature	para. 14
--A. The constitutional characterization of ss. 248 and 249	para. 15
--B. The effect of ss. 248 and 249 on broadcasting undertakings	para. 21
--C. The compatibility of ss. 248 and 249 with federal regulation	para. 28
--D. Sections 248 and 249 and the criminal law power	para. 36
V - Whether ss. 248 and 249 are protected from the application of the Canadian Charter by a valid and subsisting override provision	para. 38
VI - Whether ss. 248 and 249 limits freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Canadian and Quebec Charters	para. 39
--A. The Ford and Devine appeals	para. 39
--B. The first step: was the plaintiff's activity within the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression?	para. 40
--C. The second step: was the purpose or effect of the government action to restrict freedom of expression	para. 46
---a. Purpose	para. 47
---b. Effects	para. 51
---c. Sections 248 and 249	para. 53
--D. Summary and Conclusion	para. 54
VII - Whether the limit on freedom of expression imposed by ss. 248 and 249 is justified under s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter	para. 56
--A. The meaning of s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms	para. 57
--B. Whether ss. 248 and 249 are too vague to constitute a limit prescribed by law	para. 58
---a. Confusion and contradiction	para. 59
---b. Judicial discretion	para. 61
--C. The relevance of the s. 1 and s. 9.1 materials	para. 64
--D. Whether the s. 1 and s. 9.1 materials justify banning commercial advertising directed at persons under thirteen years of age	para. 68
---a. Pressing and substantial objective	para. 69
---b. Means proportional to the ends	para. 75
----i. Rational Connection	para. 76
----ii. Minimal impairment	para. 77
----iii. Deleterious effects	para 88
---c. Conclusion	para. 89
VIII - Whether sections 248 and 249 violate s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms	para. 90
IX - Disposition and Answers to Constitutional Questions	para. 96