After reviewing the following case located below, please represent the interests of the Quebec Government, upholding the laws set out in the Consumer Protection Act, specifically relating to advertising aimed at minors under 13 years of age. Take the stance that the advertisement should be pulled and not aimed at children of that age. This will help me prepare for an upcoming debate in my class. There are two sides of the debate, one of them is representing the interests of Poutine Toys Inc and the other toy advertisers and manufacturers involved in the case and they are trying to convince the court that these companies should be allowed to advertise during any time of the day, and not be limited or restricted. And the other side which I am in is representing the interests of the Quebec Government, I am against the advertising of toys to children under the age of 13 in Quebec.

Do outside research, look into information to support your points, and please reference them (provide links)

1.) What are the main points you observed from the case? What do you think is relevant, and why?

2.) What are your main arguments? How do you think you can best defend your side of the debate?

3.) What area of the case did you focus on? What elements do you feel need to be the center of your debate?

4.) What research did you do? Where did you find your sources? Did you think it was fairly easy or difficult to find the points you were searching for? Why do you think it was easy/harder to find? What specific arguments did you take from your research?

Case:

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN: POUTINE TOY INC v. QUEBEC (AG) P utine To Ltd. v. u bec Attorne neral 1989 Facts In 1981, Poutine Toy Limited, a toy manufacturer, applied to the Superior Court of Quebec for a declaration that sections 248 and 249 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, which prohibited advertising directed at children under thirteen years of age, violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Poutine Toys and other companies had been advertising their toys during Saturday morning programming, specically during cartoons and on child-aimed channels, in order to directly advertise to young children who would be watching those shows. le. Dora the Explorer. This violated the terms of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act so the companies involved were facing large nes and a requirement to pull their commercials off the air, which had already been paid for. The court dismissed the application. On appeal, Poutine Toy argued that sections 248 and 249 also violated their 3. 2(b) rights to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which had come into force after the case went to trial. The Court of Appeal found that the sections infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justied under s. 1. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Freedom of Expression The Charter is part of the Constitution of Canada and protects citizens against actions of the government that violate our fundamental freedoms. Provincial legislation must comply with the Charter. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication Because the Charter only came into force in 1982, this case, along with two others that were heard at the same time, were the rst freedom of expression cases to come before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court had to create a model that would allow the courts in Canada to decide future cases. Some of the questions the court considered were: - What is \"expression\"? - Is all \"expression\" protected by s. 2(b), or are some forms of expression or information excluded from Charter protection? - What if the government didn't intend to infringe on the freedom of expression, but its actions had the effect of limiting expression? Justifying a Charter Infringement Even if a government act is found to infringe a freedom guaranteed under the Charter, that does not automatically make the act unconstitutional. After a court has found that an act violates a Charter right, the government has the opportunity tojustify the limit by applying 5. 1 of the Charter. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justied in a free and democratic society. When arguing that a government act infringes the Charter, the burden of proof (or \"onus\") is on the party claiming an infringement to prove on a balance of probabilities that their freedom has been violated. If they are successful. then the onus shifts to the government to justify the limitation under s. 1. The Supreme Court of Canada created a test to determine a limitation of a Charter guarantee. This test is known as the Oakes Test because it was developed in the case of R. v. Oakes. The courts apply the Oakes Test using the following steps: 1. Is the objective of the legislation pressing and substantial enough (of sufcient importance) in a free and democratic society to justify a limit on a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom? 2. Are the means chosen by the government to fulll this objective reasonable (proportional) a. Is there a rational connection between the measures adopted and the objective? b. Do the measures impair the right or freedom as little as possible? 0. Are the positive effects of the limit (given the objective) proportional to the negative effects? If the infringement is justied, then the action will remain constitutionally valid even though it limits a right or freedom