In a 9-0 judgment, the court ruled the 1997 law, and the detailed regulations that go along with it, were a "reasonable limit" that can be justified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the court in Ottawa, rejected the companies'contention, and concluded the advertising law's key provisions "are constitutional in their entirety," and "nothing less than a matter of life or death for millions of people who could be affected."
She also took the companies to task for having a long history of misleading the public in their advertising, and remarked their ability to send a positive message about a noxious product was impressive.
"The expression at stake — the right to invite consumers to draw an erroneous inference as to the healthfulness of a product that, on the evidence, will almost certainly harm them — is of low value," McLachlin wrote.
The law requiring graphic warning labels on cigarettes packages to occupy half the area of the fronts and backs of packages was also upheld.
