A court recently found,as a matter of fact,that a party's ability to advertise was restricted.In some circumstances,such a restriction violates section 2(b) of the Charter.Ultimately,however,the court's decision did not allow the affected party to advertise as it wished.Which of the following statements may explain that end result?
A) The restriction was imposed by a statute and the government responsible for that statute reacted to the court's decision by invoking the residual clause.
B) The party was not entitled to freedom of expression because it is a company rather than a human being.
C) The court held that the restriction was an "unreasonable limitation" on the freedom of expression.
D) The restriction was saved under section 15(2) of the Charter.
E) The restriction was imposed by a private party,rather than by a government actor.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q50: The Government of Canada thinks that Harpreet
Q51: Subordinate legislation
A)involves a statute that was introduced
Q52: Which of the following statements is TRUE?
A)The
Q54: Lamda Corp is based in Vancouver but
Q56: Omicron Inc claims that a municipal by-law
Q56: Harrison owns and manages a golf course
Q57: Peter starts a new job with Enviromaim
Q58: The premier of your province wants to
Q59: The notwithstanding clause
A)is contained in section 1
Q60: Myra is a new MP.She introduces a
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents