▁the ▁C riminal ▁Code . ▁ ▁At ▁trial ▁they ▁were ▁found ▁guilty ▁for ▁prom oting ▁hat red . ▁On ▁appeal ▁to ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁for ▁Ontario ▁Justice ▁C ory ▁found ▁that ▁section ▁ 3 1 9 ( 2 ) ▁viol ated ▁section ▁ 2 ( b ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter ▁but ▁could ▁be ▁just ified ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 . ▁ ▁The ▁question ▁before ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁was ▁ ▁whether ▁s . ▁ 3 1 9 ( 2 ) ▁of ▁the ▁C riminal ▁Code ▁viol ated ▁section ▁ 2 ( b ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter , ▁and ▁if ▁so , ▁whether ▁the ▁viol ation ▁was ▁just ifiable ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 . ▁ ▁whether ▁s . ▁ 3 1 9 ( 3 )( a ) ▁of ▁the ▁C riminal ▁Code ▁viol ated ▁section ▁ 1 1 ( d ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter , ▁and ▁if ▁so , ▁whether ▁the ▁viol ation ▁was ▁just ifiable ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 . ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁held ▁that ▁section ▁ 3 1 9 ( 2 ) ▁and ▁ 3 1 9 ( 3 )( a ) ▁viol ated ▁the ▁Char ter ▁but ▁were ▁saved ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 . ▁ ▁Re asons ▁of ▁the ▁court ▁Chief ▁Justice ▁Dick son , ▁writing ▁for ▁the ▁majority , ▁u ph eld ▁the ▁C riminal ▁Code ▁prov isions . ▁Dick son ▁looked ▁to ▁his ▁opinion ▁in ▁R . ▁v . ▁Ke eg stra ▁and ▁applied ▁the ▁reasoning ▁from ▁the ▁decision ▁came ▁to ▁the ▁same ▁conclusion