R. v. Zundel
|R. v. Zundel|
|Hearing: December 10, 1991
Judgment: August 27, 1992
|Full case name||Ernst Zundel v. Her Majesty The Queen|
|Citations|| 2 S.C.R. 731|
|Ruling||Zundel appeal allowed|
|Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci
|Majority||McLachlin J., joined by La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka JJ.|
|Dissent||Cory and Iacobucci JJ., joined by Gonthier J.|
R. v. Zundel  2 S.C.R. 731 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information or news on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 181 states that "[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment . . .".
At trial, Zundel was convicted. However, on appeal the case was sent back for a new trial due to a procedural error at trial in admitting evidence and instructing the jury. He was re-tried in 1988, and convicted again. The judgement was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and Zundel appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether s. 181 of the Code infringed "the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether s. 181 is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter."
Opinion of the Court
Justice McLachlin, writing for the Court, found that Zundel did violate section 181. The book was examined, and the court concluded that it "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities." However, section 181 violated section 2(b) of the Charter. She noted that section 2(b) protects all expression of a non-violent form, and as such, the content itself is irrelevant (section 2(b) is content neutral). The protection provided by the Charter includes expression of minority beliefs even where the majority may find it false. The imposition of imprisonment for expression has a severely limiting effect on freedom, beyond reason.
McLachlin further found that it could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter as the restriction on all expressions "likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest" was far too broad.