Major said, on the connection between the cause of action and the province. Judicial independence At no point during an action under the Act is the independence of the judiciary interfered with. The Court dismissed the suggestion that the shift in burden to the accused or the unconventional rules of procedure and evidence created by the Act have any effect on independence. Rule of law The tobacco companies had claimed that the retrospectivity and retroactivity of the Act violated the rule of law by creating an unfair trial. Further, they felt that legislation should neither target a particular sector nor confer special privileges on the government. The rule of law, as protected by the Constitution, does not require that Acts ensure a fair civil trial or avoid giving the government advantages. The Supreme Court held that accepting this amorphous conception of the rule of law would render several provisions of the Charter redundant because they are more narrowly formulated. Significance The Court limited the four unwritten principles of the Constitution, which were outlined in Reference re Secession of Quebec. It reaffirmed that a textual basis for review must be submitted because of the stability and predictability provided by a written constitution. "Because of this ruling, Canada became the first country outside the United States where governments can sue tobacco manufacturers to recover smoking-related healthcare costs; as much as $10 billion in costs was at stake in this B.C. case. Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have since drafted or adopted legislation based on this B.C. model." References External links Canadian constitutional case law Supreme Court of Canada cases 2005 in Canadian case law Smoking in Canada Tobacco case law British American Tobacco British Columbia case law