## Facts

- Ernst Zundel, a Canadian resident, operated a publishing business distributing Holocaust-denial and antisemitic material.
- He published a pamphlet titled “Did Six Million Really Die?” asserting that the Holocaust had not been established and was a conspiracy.
- Zundel added his own preface and afterword endorsing the pamphlet’s claims.
- He was charged and convicted under Criminal Code s. 181, which criminalized wilfully publishing statements known to be false that cause or are likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest.
- After an initial conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered, Zundel was convicted again; the intermediate appellate court upheld the second conviction.
- Zundel appealed, arguing s. 181 violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and was not justified as a reasonable limit.

## Issues

1. Whether Criminal Code s. 181 infringes freedom of expression by criminalizing the wilful publication of knowingly false statements likely to harm a public interest.
2. If so, whether the infringement is justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

## Decision

- The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
- The majority held s. 181 infringed freedom of expression.
- The majority held the infringement was not justified because the provision was vague, overbroad, and not minimally impairing.
- The provision was declared of no force or effect, resulting in an acquittal.
- A dissent would have upheld s. 181 as justified and would have sustained the conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of expression protects content regardless of popularity or perceived value; knowingly false statements are not excluded from protection merely because they are false.
- A law that targets expression by its content presumptively infringes freedom of expression when its purpose is to suppress specified messages.
- Limits on expression must be precisely defined and demonstrably justified; vagueness and overbreadth weigh heavily against justification.
- Criminal restrictions on speech must be carefully tailored to a clearly defined harm and must impair expression no more than reasonably necessary.
- In proportionality review, severe criminal sanctions for broadly defined “false” speech can be unconstitutional when their chilling effects on public, historical, and political debate outweigh speculative benefits.

## Conclusion

The court held that Canada’s false-news offense violated freedom of expression and was not justified because its uncertain and sweeping terms risked suppressing legitimate public discourse; it was invalidated and Zundel’s conviction was set aside.


R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 (Can. 1992)