Please help with Question 1,2,3,4,5 and explain (Canadian law)

Question 1 (1 point) Saved Adrienne, a Queen's student, wants to open a vaping shop in Kingston. Before she sets up her shop, she wants to know what laws she will be subject to. In doing some research, Adrienne finds two laws she thinks are relevant: the federal Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the provincial Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017. Which of the following is true? ( a) Adrienne must only comply with the provincial law since health is an area of exclusive provincial power under s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. O b) Adrienne must only comply with the federal law since the doctrine of paramountcy will apply whenever provincial and federal laws cover the same area. O c) Adrienne must comply with both federal and provincial laws unless it is impossible to do so. O d) Adrienne does not need to comply with the provincial law because it affects the core of federal jurisdiction over health, and the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity will apply. Question 2 (4 points) Assume that the Ontario legislature passes a new law, the Vaping Advertisement Prohibition Act. This law makes it illegal to advertise any vaping products. Adrienne wants to challenge this law under the constitutional division of powers doctrine. Explain how a court would go about determining whether the law is constitutional. Do you think it would be constitutional? Why or why not?Question 3 {1 point} v\" Saved Adrienne wants to challenge the new law under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which of the following sections of the Charter might be relevant to her challenge? 0 a} Section 2la}, guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion. 0 b) Section 15, guaranteeing equality!r rights. 0 c} Section 8, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. @ d} Section 2{b], guaranteeing freedom of expression. Question 4 {3 points} How would a court determine whether the new law's prohibition of advertising infringes Adrienne's right to freedom of expression? [Note: consider only whether the law infringes s. 2[b}, not whether it can be justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1.] Question 5 (1 point)