The case of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan, 2005 SCC 13, [2005] 1S.C.R. 188 is considered very controversial as it questions the national public health concern that is caused by the smoke of tobacco and can affect our youth in a negative way. What this cases focuses on is s. 6 of the Saskatchewan Tobacco Control act and how by the virtue of the paramountcy doctrine is inoperative due to the fact of s. 30 of the federal tobacco Act. The doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and the federal law or its purpose, the federal law will prevail. Furthermore, s. 30 of the federal tobacco act allows retail stores to display tobacco and tobacco product-related brand elements and post
…show more content…
Firstly, the political impact this case had was can a provincial act over reach their boundaries and maybe even frustrate parliament and get away with it? The case stated that the decision made by the judges favored s.6 of the provincial act over s.30 of the federal act because it fufilled the purpose more than s. 30. It led to many questions raised in this case, in whereby how far can provinces can enact their regulations in so far it does not frustrate the federal enactment. The doctrine of paramountcy is one of great complexity and requires a great analysis in truly to understand it, especially when bringing it up to court. It requires knowledge about both provincial and federal powers. This then leads to an impact which can be unseen, can courts handle the power relationship between provincial and federal powers and how can they decide which one has more say? Thus leading to a social impact, do provinces or parliament have more say over what we can do and can’t, in this case retailers were almost conflicted with an impossibility of dual compliance. The retailer could choose either to let the 18 year old in, but displace all tobacco products therefore losing all tobacco sales. Alternatively, do not let the 18 year old in, and display all tobacco products either way the retailer is losing sales, or if lobbied by tobacco companies he could make the store inaccessible for 18 year olds and younger. The social impact this has is huge, it would make persons of 18 year or under not be eligible to walk into that store let alone buy anything. In conclusion, the case did not frustrate parliament and could easily comply with both the s. 6 of the provincial act and s. 30 of the federal act. This decision was because the provincial act met the purpose of the federal act. The purpose of the federal act was to define with greater precision the prohibition on the promotion of
Firstly, the political impact this case had was can a provincial act over reach their boundaries and maybe even frustrate parliament and get away with it? The case stated that the decision made by the judges favored s.6 of the provincial act over s.30 of the federal act because it fufilled the purpose more than s. 30. It led to many questions raised in this case, in whereby how far can provinces can enact their regulations in so far it does not frustrate the federal enactment. The doctrine of paramountcy is one of great complexity and requires a great analysis in truly to understand it, especially when bringing it up to court. It requires knowledge about both provincial and federal powers. This then leads to an impact which can be unseen, can courts handle the power relationship between provincial and federal powers and how can they decide which one has more say? Thus leading to a social impact, do provinces or parliament have more say over what we can do and can’t, in this case retailers were almost conflicted with an impossibility of dual compliance. The retailer could choose either to let the 18 year old in, but displace all tobacco products therefore losing all tobacco sales. Alternatively, do not let the 18 year old in, and display all tobacco products either way the retailer is losing sales, or if lobbied by tobacco companies he could make the store inaccessible for 18 year olds and younger. The social impact this has is huge, it would make persons of 18 year or under not be eligible to walk into that store let alone buy anything. In conclusion, the case did not frustrate parliament and could easily comply with both the s. 6 of the provincial act and s. 30 of the federal act. This decision was because the provincial act met the purpose of the federal act. The purpose of the federal act was to define with greater precision the prohibition on the promotion of