“The Supreme Court of Canada is set to indicate today whether it will hear an appeal of a ruling that struck down third-party election advertising rules in Ontario. The law in question added more onerous restrictions to the amounts that third parties, such as unions and special interest groups, are allowed to spend in the lead up to an election, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario found it unconstitutional.
Before 2021, third parties were allowed to spend up to $600,000 on advertising in the six months before an election call, but that year the government stretched that restricted spending period to one year, while not increasing the amount.
The Progressive Conservative government argued the extended restriction was necessary to protect elections from outside influence, but critics said it amounted to the government trying to silence criticism ahead of the 2022 provincial election. The law was found unconstitutional on free speech grounds, so the government reintroduced the provisions using the notwithstanding clause to guard against constitutional challenges, but several third party groups challenged the reintroduced provisions under a different section of the Charter.
The Appeal Court struck down that new law on the basis of violating a voter’s right to meaningful participation in the electoral process, and gave the government one year to create new, Charter-compliant legislation. The government sought an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Should the Supreme Court Hear the Appeal?
With the upcoming indication from the Supreme Court of Canada on whether they will hear the appeal, the question arises whether there is a valid reason for doing so. Both sides have presented their arguments, with the government advocating for the need to protect elections from external influence, while critics argue that the extended restrictions are a means of stifling dissent.
A Moment of Truth for Free Speech
The striking down of the law on free speech grounds by the Appeal Court raises a crucial and fundamental issue surrounding freedom of expression and its constraints during the electoral process. It brings to light the balance between the protection of democratic processes and the freedom to dissent and voice one’s opinions. This pivotal decision by the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications and set a precedent for future legislation and legal challenges.
In light of these developments, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether to hear the appeal holds significant weight. It has the potential to redefine the boundaries of free speech in the context of election advertising and safeguard the principles of democracy. As the case unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between preserving the integrity of elections and upholding the fundamental right to free speech.
Reference
