Harper v. Canada (Attorney General)
Canada Supreme Court
2 S.C.R. 764 (2002)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
On May 31, 2000, the Canadian Parliament enacted the Canada Elections Act, which imposed limits on third-party spending on advertising in federal election campaigns as of September 1, 2000. In June 2000, Stephen Harper (plaintiff) sought a declaration that the spending limits were unconstitutional because they unjustifiably restricted the right of free expression under § 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In October 2000, the court entered an election writ. Harper then sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the chief electoral officer of Canada and the commissioner of Canada elections from enforcing third-party spending limits, which the trial judge granted and the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld. The attorney general (defendant) sought a stay of the injunction, and the Canada Supreme Court granted leave to seek the stay of the injunction. The trial court refused the stay, finding the attorney general failed to demonstrate harm resulting from a suspension of the law. The attorney general appealed to the supreme court to consider whether to grant the stay of the injunction on third-party spending limits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.