## Facts

- Parliament enacted provisions of the Canada Elections Act regulating “third-party” election advertising (persons or groups other than candidates or registered parties).
- The regime capped third-party advertising expenses at $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per electoral district during an election period and barred collusion to evade those caps.
- The Act also imposed registration, attribution, reporting, and enforcement requirements tied to third-party advertising spending.
- A separate provision imposed a one-day polling-day blackout on election advertising.
- Stephen Harper challenged the third-party advertising limits and related provisions, alleging violations of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to vote.
- A trial court found some infringements (including the spending caps) unjustified; the appellate court struck down most provisions.
- The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada; Harper cross-appealed seeking broader invalidation.

## Issues

1. Whether the third-party advertising caps, anti-circumvention rules, disclosure/registration requirements, and polling-day blackout infringe freedom of expression, and if so whether they are justified as reasonable limits.
2. Whether the third-party regime infringes the right to vote by impairing meaningful participation in elections.
3. Whether the anti-circumvention and spending-limit features infringe freedom of association, and if so whether any infringement is justified.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Attorney General’s appeal and dismissed Harper’s cross-appeal.
- The Court held the third-party advertising limits and related provisions restrict political expression and therefore infringe freedom of expression.
- The Court upheld the expression limits as justified to advance electoral fairness and protect an informed voting process.
- The Court held the provisions do not violate the right to vote; the scheme was found compatible with meaningful and informed participation.
- The Court rejected the association claim as constitutionally decisive, concluding the regime does not bar association and any incidental impact was justified.
- The Court upheld the polling-day advertising blackout as a justified, short, targeted restriction.

## Legal Principles

- Political advertising during elections is core expressive activity; spending caps and blackout rules presumptively limit expression.
- Electoral fairness—preventing wealth from dominating electoral discourse and protecting voters’ ability to make an informed choice—can be a sufficiently important objective to justify expression limits.
- Legislatures may receive substantial deference in designing comprehensive election-finance systems where evidence is contested and policy choices are involved, so long as limits are rationally connected, minimally impairing, and proportionate in effects.
- The right to vote protects meaningful participation, including access to information, but does not guarantee unregulated third-party advertising or unlimited spending to disseminate political messages.
- Anti-circumvention provisions may be upheld where necessary to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of valid spending limits.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the federal third-party election advertising regime, concluding that while it restricts core political expression, the limits and polling-day blackout are justified to protect electoral fairness and an informed electorate, and they do not infringe the constitutional right to vote.


Harper v. Canada (Att’y Gen.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827 (Can. 2004)