Shrillland wrote:Nilokeras wrote:
Probably a good thing - the section was apparently a bit too broad, since it banned either knowingly or unknowingly spreading mis or disinformation. It might be worth having a law about knowingly spreading false information but not having a qualifier there is a pretty dangerous line to cross.
Hmmm...it could pass the Oakes test, but it would have to be pretty specific as to what mis and disinformation actually is, otherwise it faces pretty long odds at Supreme Court level.
It's also probably exactly why they didn't appeal it - at the moment it's just struck down in Ontario, but if they continued to appeal it it could be struck down on a federal level. Which is a slightly annoying feature of the intersection of federal government policy and judicial practice, since it leads to situations like in our medically-assisted death laws where several provinces have struck down the previously existing legislation but the government declined to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, leading to a patchwork of different standings across the country.