Top court finds Ontario spending limits on third-party election ads unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of Canada has found an Ontario law that limits spending on third-party election advertising violates the constitutional right to vote.

The country's highest court dismissed the Ontario government's appeal with a split 5-4 decision and struck down that part of the law.

Before 2021, third parties in Ontario could spend up to $600,000 on advertising in the six months before a fixed-date provincial election call.

That year, Premier Doug Ford's government stretched the restricted spending period to one year while keeping the spending limit the same. The law did not contemplate snap elections, like the one that Premier Doug Ford recently called and won.

The top court's ruling, released on Friday, said the spending limit law is so disproportionate that it allows political parties to "drown out" the voices of third parties.

"The statutory provisions create an absolute disproportionality in the broader political discourse that deprives voters of a broad range of views and perspectives on issues during a critical period in the democratic cycle," said Friday's decision, authored by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis.

"This undermines the voter's right to an informed vote and to meaningful participation in the electoral process."

The court found that section of the law "cannot be justified in a free and democratic society" and upheld the Appeal Court's decision to strike down the law.

As of Friday, the provisions are "of no force and effect," the court affirmed.

The province said it will review the decision and "determine next steps in due course."

"Having just finished the election, in which the people gave Premier Ford and our government a strong mandate, this decision has no immediate impact," said Grace Lee, Ford's spokeswoman.

Doug Ford's Progressive Conservative government previously argued the extended restriction was necessary to protect elections from outside influence, but critics said it amounted to trying to silence criticism ahead of the 2022 provincial election.

The government argued the Court of Appeal had applied the wrong legal test and failed to defer to the application judge's factual findings.

The majority of the Supreme Court ultimately disagreed, but four justices dissented.