The law clearly intended to restrict expression. The way it did so was held so vague as not to constitute a restriction “prescribed by law” as required by section 1 of the Charter. It was also disproportionate to the harms it sought to remedy. The court declined to suspend application of the ruling, as the Crown had requested.
Further details are in the blog of the successful counsel, David Fraser of Halifax.
Tragic circumstances do not justify a hasty or overbroad legislative response. . . . [more]