Page

 1
 of
 86
 

 
CONSTITUTIONAL
 LAW
 

 [1]
 Sources
 &
 Nature
 of
 the
 Constitution-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
  Minister,
  or
  of
  the
  cabinet
  or
  of
  the
  dependence
  of
  the
  cabinet
  on
  the
 
support
  of
  a
  majority
  in
  the
  House
  of
  Commons:
  the
  composition
  of
  the
 
Definition
 of
 Constitutional
 Law:
  actual
  executive
  authority
  and
  its
  relationship
  of
  the
  legislative
  authority
 
=
  The
  law
  prescribing
  the
  exercise
  of
  power
  by
  the
  organs
  of
  a
  State.
  It
  explains
  were
 left
 in
 the
 form
 of
 unwritten
 conventions
 –
 as
 in
 the
 UK
 
 
which
  organs
  can
  exercise
  legislative
  power
  (making
  new
  laws),
  executive
  power
  o No
 amending
 clause
 –
 amendments
 go
 through
 UK
 Parliament
 
 
(implementing
  the
  laws)
  and
  judicial
  power
  (adjudicating
  disputes),
  and
  what
  the
  o No
 mention
 of
 responsible
 government
 
limitations
 on
 those
 powers
 are
 
  o No
 rules
 for
 Supreme
 Court
 (said
 there
 can
 be
 one,
 but
 didn’t
 establish)
 

  o No
 Civil
 Rights
 protected
 (left
 to
 UK
 common
 law)
 
(a) Constitution
 Act,
 1867
 
  o Constitution
  Act,
  1867:
  “whereas
  the
  provinces
  of
  Canada,
  Nova
  Scotia,
 
! B.N.A
 Act,
 1867
 was
 renamed
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1867
  and
 New
 Brunswick
 have
 expressed
 their
 desire
 to
 be
 federally
 united
 into
 
! B.N.A
 Act:
 goal
 =
 confederation
 (split
 from
 UK)
  one
  Dominion
  under
  the
  Crown
  of
  the
  UK
  of
  Great
  Britain
  and
  Ireland,
 
o Created
  the
  new
  Dominion
  of
  Canada
  by
  uniting
  3
  of
  the
  colonies
  of
  with
 a
 constitution
 similar
 in
 principle
 to
 that
 of
 the
 UK.”
 
British
 North
 America
 and
 by
 providing
 the
 framework
 for
 the
 admission
 
 
of
 all
 other
 British
 North
 American
 colonies
 and
 territories
 
  (b)
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982
 
o Established
  the
  rules
  of
  federalism=
  rules
  that
  allocate
  governmental
  ! Made
  3
  important
  repairs
  to
  Canada’s
  constitutional
  law:
  (1)
  a
  domestic
 
power
  between
  the
  central
  institutions
  (especially
  the
  federal
  amending
  formula
  was
  adopted;
  (2)
  the
  authority
  over
  Canada
  of
  the
  United
 
Parliament)
  and
  the
  provincial
  institutions
  (especially
  the
  provincial
  Kingdom
  (imperial)
  Parliament
  was
  terminated;
  and
  (3)
  the
  Charter
  of
  Rights
 
Legislatures)
  was
 adopted
 
o Did
  not
  follow
  the
  model
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  the
  United
  States
  in
  ! the
 phrase
 “Constitution
 of
 Canada”
 was
 used
 for
 the
 first
 time
 in
 this
 Act
 
 
codifying
  all
  of
  the
  new
  nation’s
  constitutional
  rules
  "
  the
  reason
  was
 
 
stated
  in
  the
  preamble
  to
  the
  Act:
  the
  new
  nation
  was
  to
  have
  “a
  (c)
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
Constitution
 similar
 in
 principle
 to
 that
 of
 the
 United
 Kingdom.”
  ! defined
 in
 s.
 52(2)of
 the
 Constitution
 act,
 1982-­‐
 it
 includes:
 
o Some
  of
  the
  most
  important
  rules
  were
  not
  matters
  of
  law
  at
  all,
  but
  o (a)the
 Canada
 Act
 1982,
 including
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 
were
 simply
 “conventions”
 which
 were
 unenforceable
 in
 the
 courts
  o (b)the
 thirty
 other
 Acts
 and
 orders,
 including
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 
 
o Because
  of
  the
  absence
  of
  an
  amending
  clause
  in
  the
  BNA
  Act,
  the
  o (c)
 amendment
 which
 may
 be
 made
 
 
imperial
  Parliament
  enacted
  amendments
  to
  the
  Act
  until
  1982,
  when
  ! the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 is
 part
 of
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 because
 it
 is
 Part
 I
 of
 
the
  Constitution
  Act,
  1982
  (itself
  an
  imperial
  statute)
  finally
  supplied
  the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982,
 which
 is
 schedule
 B
 of
 the
 Canada
 Act
 1982,
 which
 
amending
 procedures
 which
 could
 be
 operated
 entirely
 within
 Canada.
  is
 expressly
 named
 in
 s
 52(2)
 

  ! Definition
 of
 constitution
 is
 not
 exhaustive
 
 “uses
 word
 includes”
 
!
 GAPS
 IN
 THE
 BNA
 ACT:
  ! The
 supremacy
 clause
 is
 s.
 52(1),
 -­‐
 affirms
 the
 primacy
 
 of
 the
 Constitution
 of
 
o The
  office
  of
  Governor
  General
  has
  never
  been
  formalized
  in
  an
  Canada
  which
  provides:
  The
  Constitution
  of
  Canada,
  and
  any
  law
  that
  is
 
amendment
  to
  the
  BNA
  Act
  –
  the
  office
  is
  still
  constituted
  by
  the
  royal
  inconsistent
  with
  the
  provisions
  of
  the
  Constitution
  is,
  to
  the
  extent
  of
  the
 
prerogative
 and
 appointments
 are
 still
 made
 by
 the
 Queen
  (although
 acts
  inconsistency,
 of
 no
 force
 or
 effect
 "
 this
 gives
 priority
 to
 the
 ‘Constitution
 of
 
on
 the
 advice
 of
 her
 Canadian
 ministers
  Canada’
 where
 is
 it
 inconsistent
 with
 other
 laws.
 
 
o The
  Rules
  of
  the
  System
  of
  responsible
  (cabinet)
  government
  never
 
 
written
  into
  the
  BNA
  Act
  and
  so
  there
  is
  no
  mention
  of
  the
  Prime
 
 Page
 2
 of
 86
 

 
! The
  entrenchment
  clause
  is
  s
  52(3):
  Amendments
  to
  the
  Constitution
  of
  (f)
 Case
 Law
 
Canada
 shall
 be
 made
 only
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 authority
 contained
 in
 the
  ! Another
 important
 source
 of
 constitutional
 law
 
 
Constitution
 of
 Canada
 "
 effect?
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 cannot
 be
 amended
  ! As
  part
  of
  the
  process
  of
  “interpretation”,
  the
  SCC
  has
  not
  hesitated
  to
  find
 
by
 ordinary
 legislative
 action,
 but
 only
 by
 the
 special
 amending
 procedures
 laid
  “unwritten”
  principles
  that
  “underlie”
  the
  text
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867,
 
down
 by
 Part
 V
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982
  and
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982.
 
 
 
o Reasons
 for
 entrenching:
 
  ! For
  example,
  the
  courts
  use
  the
  doctrine
  of
  parliamentary
  privilege,
  which
  is
 
o “May
 provide
 an
 added
 safeguard
 for
 fundamental
 human
 rights
 and
  nowhere
  mentioned
  in
  the
  2
  Acts,
  to
  exempt
  the
  actions
  of
  legislative
 
individual
 freedoms
 “
  assemblies
 from
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 
 
o “may
  seek
  to
  ensure
  that
  vulnerable
  minority
  groups
  are
  endowed
 
 
with
 the
 institutions
 and
 rights
 necessary
 to
 promote
 their
 identities
  ! REFERENCE
 RE
 SECESSION
 OF
 QUEBEC
 [1998]:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
against
 the
 assimilative
 pressures
 of
 the
 majority’
  • SCC
 invoked
 4
 unwritten
 fundamental
 principles
 of
 the
 Constitution:
 
 
o “may
  provide
  for
  a
  division
  of
  the
  public
  power
  that
  allocates
  political
  (1)
  democracy,
  (2)
  federalism,
  (3)
  constitutionalism
  and
  the
  rule
  of
  law
 
power
 amongst
 different
 levels
 of
 government”
  and
  the
  (4)
  protection
  of
  minorities
  to
  hold
  that,
  if
  a
  province
  were
  to
 

  decide
  in
  a
  referendum
  that
  it
  wanted
  to
  secede
  from
  Canada,
  the
  federal
 
Downside
  of
  not
  having
  complete
  constitutional
  text:
  lawyers
  need
  to
  search
  government
  and
  the
  other
  provinces
  would
  come
  under
  a
  legal
  duty
  to
 
through
 the
 following
 sources
 to
 define
 the
 constitution:
  enter
 into
 negotiations
 to
 accomplish
 the
 secession
 
 

  • Illustrates
 the
 active
 and
 creative
 role
 that
 the
 modern
 SCC
 has
 carved
 
 
(d)
 Imperial
 Statutes
 
  • This
  case
  carries
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  way
  beyond
  the
  literal
 
! Both
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 and
 1982
 are
 imperial
 statutes
 
  language
 of
 its
 text
 and
 way
 beyond
 the
 intentions
 of
 the
 framers
 
 
! =
  statutes
  enacted
  for
  Canada
  by
  the
  UK
  Parliament
  in
  its
  role
  as
  imperial
 
 
Parliament
 
  (g)
 Prerogative
 
 
! these
  2
  statutes
  are
  within
  the
  definition
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  in
  s
  ! the
  royal
  prerogative
  consists
 
  of
  the
  powers
  and
  privileges
  accorded
  by
  the
 
52(2)
 of
 the
 constitution
 Act
 1982,
 they
 are
 supreme
 over
 other
 laws
 and
 can
  common
 law
 to
 the
 Crown
 
 
be
 amended
 or
 repealed
 only
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 amending
 procedures
 of
  !
 powers
 or
 privileges
 unique
 to
 the
 Crown
 
Part
 V
 of
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
  • Making
 treaties
 
 
! Other
 imperial
 statues
 have
 no
 effect
 on
 Canada.
 
  • Conducting
 war
 

  • Office
 of
 Governor
 General
 
 
(e)
 Parliamentary
 Privilege
 
  • Appointment
 of
 prime
 minister
 and
 ministers
 
! Common
 law
 powers
  • Obtaining
 passports
 
! Not
 subject
 to
 the
 Charter
 (unlike
 other
 common
 law
 powers
 of
 government)
 
• Creation
 of
 aboriginal
 reserves
 
 
! The
  Federal
  Houses
  of
  Parliament
  and
  the
  provincial
  legislative
  assemblies
  ! Dicey
 described
 it
 as
 “the
 residue
 of
 discretionary
 or
 arbitrary
 authority,
 which
 
possess
  a
  set
  of
  powers
  and
  privileges
  that
  are
  “necessary
  to
  their
  capacity
  to
  at
 any
 given
 time
 is
 left
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 the
 Crown”
 
function
 as
 legislative
 bodies”;
 these
 powers
 and
 rights
 are
 known
 collectively
  ! a
  branch
  of
  the
  common
  law,
  because
  it
  is
  the
  decisions
  of
  the
  courts
  which
 
as
 “parliamentary
 privilege”
  have
 determined
 its
 existence
 and
 extent
 
 
! ie.
 
  freedom
  of
  speech
  in
  debate,
  including
  immunity
  from
  legal
  proceedings
  ! apart
  from
  the
  power
  over
  the
  colonies,
  the
  courts
  held
  that
  there
  was
  no
 
for
 things
 said
 in
 debate
  prerogative
 power
 to
 legislate:
 only
 the
 Parliament
 could
 make
 new
 laws
 
! could
 be
 regarded
 as
 a
 branch
 of
 the
 common
 law
 in
 that
 it
 is
 not
 contained
 in
  ! The
 courts
 also
 held
 that
 there
 was
 no
 prerogative
 power
 to
 administer
 justice:
 
any
  statute
  or
  other
  written
  instrument,
  and
  it
  is
  the
  courts
  who
  determine
  its
  only
  the
  courts
  could
  adjudicate
  disputes
  according
  to
  law
  –
  these
  decisions
 
existence
 and
 extent
  confined
 the
 prerogative
 to
 executive
 governmental
 powers
 
 
! Canada
  v
  Vaid
  (2005)
  "
  sweeping
  claim
  of
  parliamentary
  privilege
  failed
  to
  ! Powers
  can
  be
  abolished
  or
  limited
  by
  a
  statute,
  and
  once
  a
  statute
  had
 
meet
  the
  test
  for
  necessity.
  “hiring/firing
  of
  all
  employees
  in
  gov
  not
  occupied
 the
 ground
 formerly
 occupied
 by
 the
 prerogative,
 the
 Crown
 had
 to
 
protected”
  comply
 with
 the
 terms
 of
 the
 statute
 

 
 Page
 3
 of
 86
 

 
! The
  exercise
  of
  the
  Crown’s
  prerogative
  powers
  is
  regulated
  by
  conventions,
  • Example
  of
  usage:
  the
  practice
  of
  appointing
  to
  the
  position
  of
  Chief
 
not
  laws.
  These
  powers
  are
  now
  limited
  by
  the
  courts,
  who
  have
  power
  to
  Justice
  of
  Canada
  the
  person
  who
  is
  the
  senior
  puisne
  judge
  of
  the
  SCC
 
determine
 existence,
 compliance
 with
 statute,
 charter
 etc.
 (1.9
 note.
 )
  at
 the
 time
 of
 the
 vacancy
 

 
  • A
  usage
  may
  develop
  into
  a
  convention
  –
  if
  a
  practice
  is
  invariably
 
(h)
 Conventions
  followed
  over
  a
  long
  period
  of
  time,
  it
  may
  come
  to
  be
  generally
 
I. Definitions
 of
 conventions
 [
 generally
 regarded
 as
 obligatory
 ]
 
  regarded
  as
  obligatory
  and
  thereby
  cease
  to
  be
  merely
  a
  usage
  –
  the
 
• =
  Rules
  of
  the
  constitution
  that
  are
  not
  enforced
  by
  the
  law
  courts
  resulting
  convention
  may
  be
  called
  a
  custom
  =
  the
  ways
  in
  which
  most
 
because
 they
 are
 regarded
 as
 non-­‐
 legal
 rules.
  conventions
 have
 been
 established
 
 
 
• Prescribe
 the
 way
 in
 which
 legal
 powers
 shall
 be
 exercised
 
  • Patriation
  Reference
  was
  the
  first
  time
  courts
  looked
  at
  different
 
• Some
  have
  the
  effect
  of
  transferring
  effective
  power
  from
  the
  legal
  between
  usage
  and
  convention
  (custom).
  They
  asked
  three
  things
 
holder
 to
 another
 official
 or
 institution
  found
  above.
  Provinces
  argued
  that
  the
  rule
  was
  crystalized
  into
  law
 
• Other
 limit
 or
 do
 not
 apply
 a
 legal
 power.
  (common
  law)
  and
  thus
  was
  now
  obligatory.
  Yet
  no
  precedent
  on
 
• Example:
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
  and
  many
  Canadian
  statutes,
  crystallization
 of
 conventions
 in
 past.
 
 
confer
 extensive
 powers
 on
 the
 Governor
 General
 
  or
  on
  the
  Governor
 
 
General
  in
  Council
  (aka
  Prime
  Minister
  &
  cabinet),
  but
  a
  convention
  IV. Convention
 and
 law
 
stipulates
 that
 the
 Governor
 General
 will
 exercise
 those
 powers
 only
 in
  • A
  convention
  could
  be
  transformed
  into
  law
  by
  statute
  and/or
  the
 
accordance
  with
  the
  advice
  of
  the
  cabinet
  or
  in
  some
  other
  case
  the
  enforcement
 of
 the
 courts
 
Prime
 Minister
 
 
 
• Where
  “unconstitutionality”
  springs
  merely
  from
  a
  breach
  of
  • So
 why
 are
 they
 obeyed?
 
convention,
  no
  breach
  of
  the
  law
  has
  occurred
  and
  no
  legal
  remedy
  o Breach
 =
 serious
 political
 consequences.
 
 
will
 be
 available
 
 

 
 
• Requirements
  (courts
  ask)
  for
  establishing
  a
  convention
  (also
  for
 
 
determining
  whether
  a
  usage
  has
  become
  a
  convention):
  Patriation
 

 
Reference
 
o What
 are
 the
 precedents/
 rules?
 
 
o Did
 the
 actors
 believe
 that
 they
 were
 bound
 by
 a
 rule?
 
 
 
o Is
 there
 a
 reason
 for
 the
 rule?
 
 

 
 
II. Conventions
 in
 the
 courts
 
 

 
• Although
  a
  convention
  will
  not
  be
  enforced
  by
  the
  courts,
  the
 
existence
  of
  a
  convention
  has
  occasionally
  been
  recognized
  by
  the
 
 
courts
 
 
 
• Patriation
  Reference
  (81)
  –
  Courts
  found
  convention
  to
  exist
  that
 
 
federal
  government
  needed
  substantial
  approval
  from
  provinces
  to
 
 
amend
 the
 constitution.
 Yet
 there
 was
 no
 legal
 requirement
 to
 do
 so.
 
 

 

 
III. Convention
 and
 usage
 
 
 
• Convention
  are
  often
  distinguished
  from
  “usages”:
  a
  convention
  is
  a
 
 
rule
 which
 is
 regarded
 as
 obligatory
 by
 the
 officials
 to
 whom
 it
 applies
 
 
 
• a
  usage
  is
  not
  a
  rule,
  but
  merely
  a
  governmental
  practice
  (tradition)
 
 
which
 is
 ordinarily
 followed,
 although
 it
 is
 not
 regarded
 as
 obligatory
 
 
 
 Page
 4
 of
 86
 

 
[2]
 Amending
 Procedures-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
 
 

  (b) The
 search
 for
 a
 domestic
 amending
 procedure
 
History
 of
 amendment
 
  ! Constitution
 Act
 1982
 was
 the
 result
 end
 of
 a
 search
 for
 a
 domestic
 amending
 
(a) Imperial
 amendment
 
  procedure
 which
 started
 in
 1927.
 
! Two
 previous
 attempts
 were
 made.
 Both
 giving
 veto
 power
 to
 Quebec.
 
 
! BNA
  Act,
  1867
  differed
  from
  the
  constitutions
  of
  US
  and
  AUS
  (and
  other
 
! The
  elimination
  of
  the
  UK
  Parliament
  in
  Canada’s
  amendment
  process
  could
 
federal
  countries)
  in
  that
  it
  contained
  no
  general
  provision
  for
  its
  own
 
not
 be
 accomplished
 until
 a
 domestic
 amending
 procedure
 had
 been
 enacted
 
amendment
 "
 Until
 1982,
 amendments
 to
 the
 BNA
 Act
 had
 to
 be
 enacted
 by
 
the
 UK
 (imperial)
 Parliament
 
  into
 Canada’s
 Constitution
 
 
! In
  1931,
  when
  the
  Statute
  of
  Westminster
  conferred
  upon
  Canada
  (and
  the
 
 
other
  dominions)
  the
  power
  to
  repeal
  or
  amend
  imperial
  statutes
  applying
  to
  (c) The
 failure
 to
 accommodate
 Quebec
 
 
Canada,
  BUT
  NOT
  the
  BNA
  Act
  "
  this
  was
  done
  so
  that
  the
  BNA
  Act
  could
  not
  ! The
  Constitution
  Act
  1982
  was
  a
  major
  achievement,
  curing
  several
  long
 
be
  amended
  by
  an
  ordinary
  statute.
  This
  was
  already
  a
  longstanding
  standing
 defects
 in
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
 
! Accomplishments:
 As
 well
 as
 the
 adoption
 of
 domestic
 amending
 procedures
 
convention
 anyways.
 
 
(ss38-­‐49),
  a
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  was
  adopted
  (ss1-­‐34),
  aboriginal
  rights
  were
 
! The
 BNA
 Act
 could
 still
 be
 amended
 only
 by
 the
 UK
 Parliament
 
 
! Imperial
  Conference
  of
  1930
  =
  Constitutional
  convention:
  UK
  Parliament
  recognized
  (s35),
  equalization
  was
  guaranteed
  (s36),
  provincial
  powers
  over
 
would
 not
 enact
 an
 amendment
 to
 the
 BNA
 Act
 (or
 any
 other
 law
 applying
 to
  natural
  resources
  were
  extended
  (ss50-­‐51),
  and
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
 
Canada)
 except
 at
 the
 request
 and
 with
 the
 consent
 of
 Canada
 
  was
 defined
 and
 given
 supremacy
 over
 other
 laws
 (s52).
 
o Convention
  did
  not
  stipulate
  which
  governmental
  bodies
  in
  Canada
 
 
should
  make
  the
  request
  for,
  and
  give
  the
  consent
  to,
  proposed
  ! BUT
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1982
  failed
  to
  accomplish
  one
  of
  the
  goals
  of
 
constitutional
  reform,
  and
  that
  was
  the
  better
  accommodation
  of
  Quebec
 
amendments
 to
 the
 BNA
 Act
 
within
 the
 Canadian
 federation
 
 
 
o However,
 long
 before
 1930,
 the
 practice
 had
 developed
 of
 requesting
 
! Quebec
  viewed
  the
  amendments
  as
  non
  binding,
  and
  often
  utilized
  s33.
 
amendments
  by
  a
  “joint
  address”
  of
  the
  Canadian
  House
  of
  Common
 
and
 the
 Canadian
 Senate
 
  Notwithstanding
 clause
 to
 opt
 out
 of
 legislation.
 
 Yet
 they
 were
 legally
 bound.
 
 
! What
 was
 the
 role
 of
 the
 provinces
 in
 the
 amending
 process?
 
 
 
! Patriation
  Reference
  1981!
  held
  that
  the
  consent
  of
  the
  Part
 V
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982
 (ss38-­‐49)
 (amending
 procedure)
 
provinces
 to
 the
 proposed
 amendments
 was
 not
 required
 “as
  ! Replaced
  Patriation
  Reference
  approach
  of
  using
  constitutional
  convention
 
of
 obtaining
 provincial
 consent
 to
 a
 substantial
 degree
 
 
a
 matter
 of
 law”,
 but
 that
 a
 “substantial
 degree”
 of
 provincial
 
! Part
  V
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1982
  is
  headed
  ‘Procedure
  for
  Amending
 
consent
 was
 required
 “as
 a
 matter
 of
 convention”
 
 

  Constitution
 of
 Canada.”
 It
 provides
 5
 different
 amending
 procedures:
 
o The
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982,
 Part
 V,
 introduces
 into
 the
 Canadian
 Constitution
 
 
a
  set
  of
  amending
  procedures
  which
  enable
  the
  BNA
  Act
  (now
  renamed
 
 1.
 General
 amending
 procedure
 (s
 38)-­‐
 aka
 the
 7/50
 Rule
 
Constitution
  Act,
  1867)
  and
  its
  amendment
  to
  be
  amended
  within
  Canada
 
 (A)
  Section
  38(1)-­‐
  requires
  that
  an
  amendment
  to
  the
  Constitution
  be
 
without
  recourse
  to
  the
  UK
  Parliament.
  (role
  of
  UK
  Parliament
  in
  Canada
  authorized
 by
 
 
amendment
 process
 is
 eliminated)
  (a)
  Resolution
  of
  Both
  House
  of
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  (Senate
  &
 
o The
 role
 of
 the
 federal
 and
 provincial
 governments
 in
 the
 amendment
  House
 of
 Commons);
 and
 
process
 are
 now
 defined
 in
 precise
 statutory
 language.
 
  (b)
 
 Resolutions
  of
  the
  legislative
  assemblies
  of
  at
  least
  two-­‐thirds
  of
 
o The
 vague
 and
 unsatisfactory
 rules
 laid
 down
 by
 the
 SCC
 in
 Patriation
  the
  provinces,
  provides
  that
  they
  represent
  at
  least
  50
  %
  of
  the
 
Reference
  (above)
  have
  been
  replaced
  and
  have
  NO
  CURRENT
  population
  of
  all
  the
  provinces
  (in
  practice:
  at
  least
  1
  Western
 
RELEVANCE.
 
  Province,
 at
 least
 1
 Atlantic
 Province,
 Quebec
 or
 Ontario=
 7/50
 rul
 
 
o The
  new
  procedures
  in
  Part
  V
  of
  the
  Constitutions
  Act,
  1982
  (B)
 Proclamation
 
 
constitute
  a
  complete
  code
  of
  legal
  (as
  opposed
  to
  conventional)
  • Once
  the
  authority
  for
  an
  amendment
  has
  been
  provided
  by
  the
 
rules
  which
  enable
  all
  parts
  of
  the
  “Constitution
  of
  Canada”
  to
  be
  requisite
 number
 of
 resolutions
 of
 assent,
 s
 38(1)
 provides
 that
 the
 
amended.
 
 
 Page
 5
 of
 86
 

 
formal
  act
  of
  amendment
  is
  accomplished
  by
  a
  “proclamation
  • 42(1)(a)
 refers
 to
 “the
 principle
 of
 proportionate
 representation
 of
 
issued
 by
 the
 Governor
 General
 under
 the
 Great
 Seal
 of
 Canada”
  the
 provinces
 in
 the
 House
 of
 Commons”
 
• Section
 39
 imposes
 time
 limits
 on
 the
 issue
 of
 this
 proclamation
 – ! But
 grandfather
 clause
 (which
 guaranteed
 that
 provinces
 
39(1)-­‐
  the
  proclamation
  is
  not
  to
  be
  issued
  until
  a
  full
  year
  has
  with
 declining
 populations
 would
 not
 lose
 any
 seats
 on
 a
 
elapsed
  from
  the
  adoption
  of
  “the
  resolution
  initiating
  the
  readjustment)
  does
  not
  require
  7/50
  amendment:
 
amendment
  procedure”,
  unless
  before
  then
  all
  provinces
  have
  Campbell
 v.
 Canada
 
 
adopted
 resolutions
 of
 assent
 or
 dissent.
 
  o 42(1)(b)(c)
  refer
  to
  the
  powers
  of
  the
  Senate,
  the
  method
  of
 
(C)
 Initiation
 
  selecting
 senators
 and
 provincial
 representation
 in
 the
 Senate
 
 
! Procedure
 for
 amendment
 “may
 be
 initiated
 either
 by
 the
 Senate
 or
 the
  o
 42(1)(d)
 refers
  to
  the
  SCC
  in
  all
  aspects
  other
  than
  its
  composition
 
House
 of
 Commons
 or
 by
 the
 legislative
 assembly
 of
 a
 province
 (s
 46(1))
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  (specifically
 listed
 in
 s
 41(d)-­‐
 the
 unanimity
 procedure)
 
[anyone
 who
 has
 authority
 to
 amend]
  ! Supreme
 Court
 Act
 is
 a
 federal
 statute
 that
 is
 not
 one
 of
 
(D)
 Opting
 Out
  the
  instruments
  forming
  part
  of
  the
  constitution.
  Since
  s
 
! s
  38(3)
  enables
  any
  province
  to
  opt
  out
  of
  an
  amendment
  that
  derogates
  42
  applies
  only
  to
  amendments
  to
  the
  “constitution
  of
 
from
 the
 province’s
 powers,
 rights
 or
 privileges
 and
 that
 is
 unacceptable
  Canada”
 the
 federal
 parliaments
 acting
 under
 s
 101
 of
 the
 
to
 it.
 Not
 a
 veto,
 just
 amendment
 dosnt
 apply
 to
 it.
 
 
  CA
 1867
 is
 the
 amending
 power
 of
 the
 supreme
 court
 act
 
 
! A
 MAXIMUM
 OF
 3
 PROVINCES
 could
 opt
 out
 of
 an
 amendment—if
 there
  ! Supreme
  Court
  of
  Canada
  Act
 can
  be
  changed
  by
  ordinary
 
were
 more
 than
 3
 dissenting
 provinces,
 the
 amendment
 would
 not
 have
  legislation
 
 
the
  support
  of
  two-­‐thirds
  of
  the
  provinces
  and
  would
  therefore
  be
  o s.42(1)(e)
  refers
  to
  the
  extension
  of
  existing
  provinces
  into
  the
 
defeated
 (7/50
 Rule)
  territories,
 and
 par
 (f)
 to
 the
 establishment
 of
 new
 provinces
 –
 
 
! S
 38(3)-­‐
 a
 resolution
 of
 dissent
 must
 be
 passed
 “prior
 to
 the
 issue
 of
 the
  ! The
  Constitution
  Act
  1871,
  by
  s
  2
  authorizes
  the
  federal
 
proclamation
 to
 which
 the
 amendment
 relates”
 (cant
 opt
 out
 after).
  parliament
  to
  establish
  new
  provinces
  in
  federal
 
(E)
 Compensation
 for
 Opting
 Out
 
 
 
 
 (only
 for
 edu
 /
 cultural
 matters)
  territories
  and
  by
  s
  3
  authorizes
  the
  federal
  Parliament,
 
! Section
  40
  imposes
  upon
  the
  federal
  government
  the
  obligation
  to
  with
 the
 consent
 of
 a
 province,
 to
 extend
 the
 boundaries
 
provide
  “reasonable
  compensation”
  to
  any
  province
  that
  has
  opted
  out
  of
  a
  province
  "
  these
  provisions
  were
  not
  repealed
  or
 
of
 an
 amendment
 that
 transfers
 “provincial
 legislative
 powers
 relating
 to
  amended
  in
  1982
  and
  can
  still
  be
  operated
  without
  any
 
education
  or
  other
  cultural
  matters”
  from
  the
  provincial
  Legislatures
  to
  change
 in
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
 
the
  federal
  Parliament-­‐"
  purpose
  of
  this
  obligation:
  to
  ensure
  that
  a
  !
 (H)
 “Regional
 Veto”
 Statute
 
 
province
  is
  not
  abandoning
  jurisdiction
  over
  educational
  or
  cultural
  • The
 general
 (seven-­‐
 fifty)
 amending
 formula
 of
 s
 38
 does
 not
 give
 
matters
 because
 of
 financial
 issues.
 
  any
 province
 a
 veto
 over
 constitutional
 amendments
 
 
! Amendments
 that
 do
 not
 relate
 to
 education
 or
 cultural
 matters
 do
 not
  • Purpose
 of
 the
 statute:
 to
 import
 new
 conditions
 into
 the
 general
 
carry
 any
 constitutional
 right
 to
 compensation
 for
 opting
 out
 
  (seven-­‐fifty)
 formula
 for
 amending
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
 
(F)
 Revocation
 of
 Assent
 or
 Dissent
 
  • On
 top
 of
 the
 constitutional
 requirement
 of
 support
 by
 7
 provinces
 
! A
  resolution
  of
  assent
  may
  be
  revoked
  only
  before
  the
  issue
  of
  the
  representing
 50%
 of
 the
 population,
 the
 statute
 imposes
 the
 new
 
proclamation
 authorized
 by
 the
 resolution
 (s46(2)
  statutory
  requirement
 that
 the
 7
 agreeing
 provinces
 must
 include
 
! 38(4)-­‐
 a
 resolution
 of
 dissent
 (an
 opting-­‐out
 resolution)
 may
 be
 revoked
  the
  five
  “regions”
  stipulated
  in
  the
  Act,
  namely,
  Ontario,
  Quebec
 
at
 any
 time,
 before
 or
 after
 the
 issue
 of
 proclamation
 
  British
 Columbia,
 two
 Atlantic
 provinces
 and
 two
 Prairie
 provinces
 
 
(G)
 Section
 42
  • Only
 applies
 to
 amendments
 that
 are
 to
 follow
 the
 general
 (seven-­‐
! The
 general
 amending
 procedure
 (the
 7/50
 formula)
 is
 the
 correct
 one
  fifty)
  amending
  procedure
  of
  s
  38
  and
  that
  do
  not
  afford
  a
 
for
  the
  residual
  class
  of
  amendments
  which
  are
  not
  covered
  by
  the
  dissenting
 province
 the
 constitutional
 right
 to
 “opt-­‐out”
 
more
 specific
 procedures
 of
 ss
 41,
 43,
 44
 and
 45
 
 
! In
  addition
  s
  42
  requires
  that
  the
  general
  amending
  procedure
  be
  used
 
 
for
 6
 defined
 classes
 of
 amendments
 to
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
 

 
 Page
 6
 of
 86
 

 
2.
 A
 unanimity
 procedure
 (s
 41)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [needs
 unanimous
 votes]
  3.
 A
 some-­‐but-­‐not-­‐
 all
 provinces
 procedure
 (s
 43)
 
! for
 5
 defined
 kinds
 of
 amendments,
 requiring
 the
 assents
 of
 the
 federal
  ! For
 amendment
 of
 provisions
 not
 applying
 to
 all
 provinces,
 requiring
 the
 
Parliament
 and
 all
 of
 the
 provinces
  assents
 of
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 and
 only
 those
 provinces
 affected
 
 
! s41
  lists
  5
  matters
  which
  an
  amendment
  to
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  ! S
 43
 of
 Constitution
 Act
 1982:
 
requires
 the
 unanimous
 support
 of
 the
 provinces,
 as
 opposed
 to
 the
 two-­‐ • 43.
  An
  amendment
  to
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  in
  relation
  to
  any
 
thirds
 majority
 called
 for
 by
 the
 general
 procedure
 of
 s
 38(1)
  provision
 that
 applies
 to
 one
 or
 more,
 but
 not
 all,
 provinces,
 including
 
! Subject
 to
 no
 time
 limit
 
  (a) Any
 alteration
 to
 boundaries
 between
 provinces,
 and
 
 
! Brought
 into
 force
 by
 a
 proclamation
 of
 the
 Governor
 General
 
  (b) Any
  amendment
  to
  any
  provision
  that
  relates
  to
  the
  use
  of
  the
 
English
 or
 the
 French
 language
 within
 a
 province,
 
 
! In
 respect
 of
 these
 matters,
 each
 province
 has
 a
 veto
 over
 amendments
 
 
May
 be
 made
 by
 proclamation
 issued
 by
 the
 Governor
 General
 under
 the
 
! The
 5
 listed
 topics
 are
 specially
 entrenched
 because
 they
 are
 deemed
 to
  Great
  Seal
  of
  Canada
  only
  where
  so
  authorized
  by
  resolutions
  of
  the
 
be
 matters
 of
 national
 significance
 which
 should
 not
 be
 altered
 over
 the
  Senate
  and
  House
  of
  Commons
  and
  of
  the
  legislative
  assembly
  of
  each
 
objection
 of
 even
 one
 province
 
  province
 to
 which
 the
 amendment
 applies
 

  ! There
  are
  provisions
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  which
  apply
  to
  one
  or
 
(a)=
  “the
  office
  of
  the
  Queen,
  the
  Governor
  General
  and
  the
  more,
 but
 not
 all,
 provinces
 
 
Lieutenant
 Governor
 of
 a
 province”-­‐
  ! Hogan
  v
  Newfoundland
  (2000):
  rights
  of
  minority
  are
  entrusted
  to
 
• Effect
  of
  entrenching
  provisions
  of
  the
  constitution
  of
  Canada
  that
  majority,
 but
 protection
 is
 provided
 by
 more
 complicated
 procedure
 
 
deal
 with
 the
 monarchy
 and
 its
 representatives
 in
 Canada
 
  o if
  a
  provision
  of
  the
  constitution
  only
  applies
  to
  one
  province
  s
  43
 

  expressly
 applies
 to
 that
 provision
 
 
(b)=
  entrenches
  the
  right
  of
  the
  least
  populous
  provinces
  to
  a
  ! BUT,
  s
  45
  gives
  province
  exclusive
  right
  to
  amend
  “constitution
  of
  the
 
minimum
 number
 of
 members
 in
 the
 House
 of
 Commons,
 
  province”
 
o Thereby
 modifying
 the
 relentless
 application
 of
 representation
 by
  o Alternatively:
  s
  43
  applies
  to
  anything
  found
  in
  the
  Constitution
  Acts,
 
population
  "
  this
  provision
  called
  the
  “senate
  floor”
  was
  and
 s
 45
 applies
 to
 issues
 outside
 those
 acts
 
established
 to
 limit
 the
 declining
 representations
 of
 the
 maritime
 
 
provinces
  by
  the
  BNA
  Act
  1915,
  which
  added
  a
  new
  s
  51A
  to
  the
  4.
 The
 federal
 Parliament
 alone
 (s
 44)
 
BNA
 Act
 (now
 Constitution
 Act
 1867).
 If
 s
 51A
 were
 not
 protected
  ! Has
  power
  to
  amend
  provisions
  relating
  to
  the
  federal
  executive
  and
 
by
 s
 41,
 it
 would
 be
 arguable
 that
 it
 could
 be
 repealed
 or
 amended
  House
 of
 Parliament
 
by
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 alone
 under
 s
 44
  ! 44.
  Subject
  to
  section
  41
  and
  42,
  Parliament
  may
  exclusively
  make
  laws
  amending
  the
 
Constitution
  of
  Canada
  in
  relation
  to
  the
  executive
  government
  of
  Canada
  or
  the
  Senate
 

 
and
  House
  of
  Commons
  (by
  ordinary
  legislation)
  (ordinary=
  not
  entrenched
 
(c)=
  entrenches
  those
  provisions
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  that
 
make
 provision
 for
 “the
 use
 of
 the
 English
 or
 French
 language”
  legislation)
 

  ! The
 matters
 listed
 in
 s
 42
 which
 include
 some
 of
 the
 rules
 regarding
 the
 
(d)=
 entrenches
 the
 “composition
 of
 the
 SCC”-­‐
 
  Senate
  and
  House
  of
  Commons
  can
  be
  amended
  only
  by
  the
  general
 
-­‐ The
 term
 “composition”
 is
 not
 entirely
 clear:
 the
 total
 number
 of
  (seven-­‐
 fifty)
 amending
 procedure
 of
 s
 38(1),
 which
 requires
 the
 consent
 
judges,
  and
  the
  number
  of
  judges
  who
  must
  be
  drawn
  from
  a
  of
 two-­‐thirds
 of
 the
 provinces
 having
 at
 least
 50%
 of
 the
 population
 
 
particular
  region,
  are
  probably
  aspects
  of
  composition;
  the
  mode
 
 
of
  appointment
  is
  probably
  not.
  (but
  since
  rules
  regarding
  the
  5.
 Each
 provincial
 Legislature
 alone
 (
 s
 45)
 
! S
  45.
  Subject
  to
  section
  41,
  the
  legislature
  of
  each
  province
  may
  exclusively
  make
  laws
 
composition
  of
  the
  SCC
  are
  contained
  in
  the
  Supreme
  Court
  Act,
  amending
 the
 constitution
 of
 the
 province
 
 
which
  is
  not
  part
  of
  the
  “Constitution
  of
  Canada”
  par
  (d)
  is
  ! Authorizes
 each
 provincial
 Legislature,
 by
 ordinary
 legislation,
 to
 amend
 
probably
 ineffective
 –
 composition
 of
 the
 SCC
 can
 still
 be
 changed
  the
 “constitution
 of
 the
 province”
 
by
 the
 ordinary
 legislative
 process
 of
 the
 Parliament
 of
 Canada
 
  ! S
 45
 differs
 from
 ss
 38,
 41,
 42,
 43,
 and
 44
 in
 that
 s
 45
 makes
 no
 reference
 
(e)=
  provides
  that
  any
  amendment
  to
  the
  amending
  procedures
  to
  the
  “Constitution
  of
  Canada”,
  a
  term
  defined
  in
  s
  52(2)
  of
  the
 
themselves
 (“this
 part”
 being
 part
 V
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1982)
 can
  Constitution
  Act
  1982.
  Instead
  s
  45
  refers
  to
  the
  “constitution
  of
  the
 
only
 be
 effected
 by
 the
 unanimity
 procedure
 of
 s41
  province”,
 which
 is
 not
 defined
 anywhere
 in
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 
 
 Page
 7
 of
 86
 

 
Future
 Amendments
 
  General
 Considerations
 
(a) Forces
 of
 change
 
  ! Amending
 procedures
 apply
 to
 the
 Constitution,
 as
 defined
 in
 s
 52(2)
 
! the
  movement
  for
  constitutional
  reform
  which
  led
  to
  the
  constitutional
  ! some
 odd
 exceptions:
 Supreme
 Court
 of
 Canada
 Act,
 Official
 Languages
 Act
 
amendments
 of
 1982
 and
 which
 will
 lead
 to
 continuing
 efforts
 to
 adopt
 other
  ! The
 amending
 procedures
 are
 not
 required
 for
 the
 amendment
 of
 statutes
 or
 
amendments
 to
 the
 Constitution,
 is
 powered
 by
 a
 number
 of
 forces
  instruments
  that
  are
  not
  part
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada;
  anything
  that
  is
 
o French-­‐
  Canadian
  nationalism=
  French
  Canadians
  are
  a
  minority
  in
  not
  part
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  can
  be
  amended
  by
  the
  ordinary
  action
 
the
 nation
 as
 a
 whole,
 but
 a
 majority
 in
 the
 province
 of
 Quebec.
 Their
  of
 the
 competent
 legislative
 body
 
distinctive
  language
  and
  culture,
  nurtured
  by
  the
  memory
  of
  the
  ! Charter
  does
  not
  apply
  to
  most
  amending
  procedures,
  because
  it
  can
  be
 
conquest
 by
 the
 English
 and
 the
 constant
 danger
 of
 assimilation,
 has
  modified
 by
 the
 general
 procedure
 but
 Charter
 applies
 to
 amendments
 within
 
made
 them
 anxious
 to
 be
 masters
 in
 their
 own
 house.
 This
 inevitably
  exclusive
 federal
 or
 provincial
 jurisdiction
 
 
leads
  to
  demands
  for
  greater
  power
  in
  the
  provincial
  Legislature
  in
 
 
Quebec
  City
  –
  the
  Legislature
  that
  is
  controlled
  by
  a
  French-­‐
  Canadian
 
 
majority
 
  Secession
 
 (Chap
 5.7)
 
o Western
 regionalism
 =
 this
 is
 based,
 not
 on
 a
 distinctive
 language
 or
  (a) The
 power
 to
 secede
 (break
 away,
 pull
 out,
 withdraw)
 
culture,
  but
  on
  the
  distinctive
  economic
  base
  of
  four
  western
  ! There
  is
  no
  reason
  in
  principle
  why
  a
  federal
  constitution
  should
  not
  give
 
countries.
  Because
  the
  bulk
  of
  Canada’s
  population
  is
  concentrated
  in
  a
 power
 of
 secession
 to
 its
 provinces
 or
 states
 
 
Ontario
  and
  Quebec,
  federal
  policies
  have
  tended
  to
  favour
  the
  ! The
  absence
  of
  any
  provision
  in
  the
  Constitution
  authorizing
  secession
 
manufacturing
 industries
 and
 consumers
 of
 central
 Canada
 
  makes
 clear
 that
 no
 unilateral
 secession
 is
 possible
 
 
o Aboriginal
  peoples
  of
  Canada
  =
  they
  seeks
  entrenchment
  of
  an
  ! The
  question
  whether
  a
  province
  has
  the
  power
  to
  secede
  from
  the
 
explicit
  right
  to
  self
  –
  government
  and
  a
  right
  to
  participate
  in
  the
  Canadian
  federation
  became
  an
  issue
  after
  the
  election
  in
  Quebec
  in
 
process
 of
 constitutional
 amendment
 at
 least
 where
 aboriginal
 rights
  1976
 of
 the
 Parti
 Quebecois
 
 
could
 be
 affected
 
  ! The
  1995
  referendum
  proceeded
  on
  the
  assumption
  that
  a
  unilateral
 
o Canadian
 nationalism
 
  declaration
  of
  independence
  would
  be
  legally
  effective
  to
  remove
 
o Civil
  libertarian
  impulse
  to
  entrench
  a
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  in
  the
  Quebec,
 with
 its
 present
 boundaries,
 from
 Canada,
 without
 the
 need
 for
 
Constitution
 
  any
 amendment
 of
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 and
 regardless
 of
 whether
 

  the
 terms
 of
 separation
 were
 agreed
 to
 by
 Canada
 
 
(b) Division
 of
 powers
 
 
! The
  most
  obvious
  way
  to
  redress
  the
  grievances
  of
  French
  Canadians
  and
  SECESSION
 REFERENCE
 (1998)
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
western
  Canadians
  is
  to
  reduce
  the
  powers
  of
  the
  federal
  Parliament,
  which
  ! Operation
 of
 Constitutional
 Principles
 in
 the
 Secession
 Context
 
 
they
 do
 not
 control,
 and
 to
 increase
 the
 powers
 of
 the
 provincial
 Legislatures,
  o Was
 a
 reference
 by
 the
 federal
 government
 to
 the
 SCC,
 in
 which
 the
 
which
 they
 do
 control.
 
  Court
  was
  asked
  whether
  Quebec
  could
  secede
  unilaterally
 
! The
  1982
  amendments
  made
  only
  one
  change
  in
  the
  division
  of
  powers
  (separately,
 individually)
 from
 Canada
 
between
 the
 2
 levels
 of
 government,
 and
 that
 was
 an
 increase
 in
 the
 provincial
  o SCC
  held:
  the
  secession
  from
  Canada
  of
  a
  province
  could
  not
  be
 
power
 over
 natural
 resources
 
  undertaken
  in
  defiance
  of
  the
  terms
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada.
 

  the
 principle
 of
 the
 rule
 of
 law
 or
 constitutionalism
 required
 that
 a
 
(c) Central
 institutions
 
  government,
  even
  one
  mandated
  by
  a
  popular
  majority
  in
  a
 
! Different
  approach
  to
  constitutional
  change
  concentrates
  on
  reforming
  the
  referendum,
 must
 still
 obey
 the
 rules
 of
 the
 Constitution
 
 
institutions
  of
  the
  federal
  government
  so
  that
  regional
  attitudes
  and
  interests
  o A
  secession
  should
  be
  in
  accordance
  with
  the
  Constitution’s
 
are
 more
 effectively
 represented
 within
 those
 institutions
 
  amending
 procedures.
 (not
 clear
 which
 of
 the
 5
 different
 amending
 
! The
  theory
  is
  that
  the
  more
  effectively
  these
  attitudes
  and
  interests
  are
  procedures
 is
 the
 correct
 one)
 
represented
  within
  the
  central
  institutions
  the
  wider
  is
  the
  range
  of
  powers
  o Democratic
 principles
 demand
 that
 considerable
 weight
 be
 given
 to
 
that
 may
 be
 conferred
 on
 central
 institutions
  a
  clear
  expression
  by
  the
  people
  of
  Quebec
  of
  their
  will
  to
  secede
 

  from
  Canada,
  even
  though
  a
  referendum,
  in
  itself
  and
  without
 
 Page
 8
 of
 86
 

 
more,
 has
 no
 direct
 legal
 effect,
 and
 could
 not
 in
 itself
 bring
 about
 
 
unilateral
 secession
 
 
o the
  federalism
  principle,
  in
  conjunction
  with
  the
  democratic
 
 
principle,
  dictates
  the
  clear
  rejection
  of
  the
  existing
  constitutional
 
 
order
 and
 the
 clear
 expression
 of
 the
 desire
 to
 pursue
 secession
 by
 
 
the
  population
  of
  a
  province
  would
  give
  rise
  to
  a
  reciprocal
 
 
obligation
  on
  all
  parties
  to
  Confederation
  to
  negotiate
 
 
constitutional
 changes
 to
 respond
 to
 that
 desire.
 
 
 
o The
  conduct
  of
  the
  parties
  in
  such
  negotiations
  would
  be
  governed
 
 
by
  the
  same
  constitutional
  principles
  which
  give
  rise
  to
  the
  duty
  to
 
 
negotiate:
  federalism,
  democracy,
  constitutionalism
  and
  the
  rule
  of
 
 
law,
 and
 the
 protection
 of
 minorities
 
 
o any
  attempt
  to
  effect
  the
  secession
  of
  a
  province
  from
  Canada
 
 
must
 be
 undertaken
 pursuant
 to
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada,
 or
 else
 
 
violate
 the
 Canadian
 legal
 order.
 However,
 the
 continued
 existence
 
 
and
  operation
  of
  the
  Canadian
  constitutional
  order
  cannot
  remain
 
 
unaffected
  by
  the
  unambiguous
  expression
  of
  a
  clear
  majority
  of
 
 
Quebecers
 that
 they
 no
 longer
 wish
 to
 remain
 in
 Canada
 
 
o principle
 of
 effectiveness
 
 
! a
  unilateral
  declaration
  of
  independence
  by
  a
  province
  could
 
 
lead
 to
 a
 de
 facto
 secession
 ,
 which
 might
 take
 place
 without
 
 
the
 required
 agreement
 or
 the
 required
 amendment
 –
 such
 a
 
 
secession
  would
  be
  unconstitutional
  –
  however,
  an
 
 
unconstitutional
  secession
  could
  become
  successful
  if
  the
 
 
seceding
  government
  achieved
  effective
  control
  of
  a
  territory
 
 
and
 recognition
 by
 the
 international
 community
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Page
 9
 of
 86
 

 
[3]
 Federalism
 &
 Judicial
 Review-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
  ! In
 Canada,
 the
 principle
 has
 rarely
 been
 invoked
 in
 political
 discourse
 
 

  ! One
  of
  the
  primary
  goals
  of
  confederation
  in
  1867
  was
  to
  preserve
  a
 
Distribution
 of
 governmental
 power
  considerable
 degree
 of
 autonomy
 for
 the
 4
 original
 provinces
 
 
(a) Federalism
 
  ! Another
  primary
  goal-­‐
  to
  provide
  the
  uniting
  provinces
  with
  the
  collective
 
! Canada
 is
 a
 federal
 state,
 or
 a
 federation
  benefits
  of
  an
  economic
  union,
  greater
  financial
  strength
  and
  an
  increased
 
! Federal
  state=
  governmental
  power
  is
  distributed
  between
  a
  central
  (or
  strength
 capacity
 for
 defence
 -­‐-­‐-­‐to
 these
 ends
 the
 BNA
 Act
 1867
 invested
 the
 
national
  or
  federal)
  authority
  and
  several
  regional
  (or
  provincial
  or
  state)
  federal
  Parliament
  with
  authority
  over
  such
  matters
  as
  customs
  and
  excise,
 
authorities,
 in
 such
 a
 way
 that
 every
 individual
 in
 the
 state
 is
 subject
 to
 the
 laws
  interprovincial
  and
  international
  trade
  and
  commerce,
  banking
  and
  currency,
 
of
 two
 authorities,
 the
 central
 authority
 and
 a
 regional
 authority
 
  all
  forms
  of
  taxation
  and
  national
  defence—this
  was
  consistent
  with
  the
 
! Central
  authority
  and
  regional
  authority
  are
  “coordinate”,
  neither
  is
  principle
 of
 subsidiarity
 
 
subordinate
 to
 the
 other
 
  ! Powers
  over
  criminal
  law,
  penitentiaries
  and
  marriage
  and
  divorce
  were
 
! Alternatively,
  unitary
  state=
  governmental
  power
  is
  vested
  on
  one
  national
  entrusted
 to
 the
 federal
 level,
 contrary
 to
 the
 principle
 of
 subsidiarity
 
 
authority
 
 
 
 
! In
  every
  federation,
  in
  the
  event
  of
  an
  inconsistency
  between
  a
  federal
  and
  Reasons
 for
 federalism
 (Federation)
 
provincial
 or
 state
 law
 it
 is
 the
 federal
 or
 national
 law
 which
 prevails
 
  ! The
  genesis
  of
  the
  federal
  system
  in
  Canada
  was
  a
  political
  compromise
 

  between
  proponents
  of
  unity
  (who
  would
  have
  preferred
  a
  legislative
  union)
 
(b) Confederation
 
  and
  proponents
  of
  diversity
  (who
  were
  unwilling
  to
  submerge
  the
  separate
 
! Canada
 often
 described
 as
 a
 “confederation”.
 Yet
 it
 is
 a
 unique
 principle.
 
  identities
 of
 their
 provinces)
 
! In
 Canada,
 a
 Central
 government
 
 was
 established
 and
 was
 independent
 of
 the
 
 
provinces
 and
 coordinated
 with
 them.
 
  Advantages:
 

  ! In
 a
 country
 that
 cover
 diverse
 regions,
 there
 may
 be
 advantages
 of
 efficiency
 
(c) Legislative
 union
 
  and
  accountability
  in
  dividing
  the
  powers
  of
  government
  so
  that
  a
  national
 
! UK
 is
 a
 legislative
 union
 of
 England,
 Wales,
 Scotland,
 and
 Northern
 Ireland
  government
 is
 responsible
 for
 matters
 of
 national
 importance
 and
 provincial
 or
 
! =
 closest
 possible
 kind
 of
 union,
 in
 which
 the
 united
 states
 or
 provinces
 form
 a
  state
 governments
 are
 responsible
 for
 matters
 of
 local
 importance
 
 
new
 unitary
 state
 which
 incorporates
 the
 former
 units
 and
 subjects
 them
 to
 the
  ! A
 province
 or
 state
 may
 serve
 as
 a
 “social
 laboratory”
 in
 which
 new
 kinds
 of
 
authority
 of
 a
 single
 central
 legislature.
  legislative
  programmes
  can
  be
  “tested”-­‐
  if
  a
  new
  programme
  does
  not
  work
 

 
  out,
 the
 nation
 as
 a
 whole
 has
 not
 been
 placed
 at
 risk
 –
 social
 credit,
 medicare,
 
(d) Special
 status
  family
 property
 regimes,
 -­‐
 no-­‐fault
 auto
 insurance
 
 
! the
  provinces
  are
  not
  equal
  in
  wealth,
  status
  or
  actual
  power;
  nor
  is
  their
  ! A
  more
  decentralized
  form
  of
  government
  can
  be
  expected
  to
  be
  able
  to
 
constitutional
 situation
 exactly
 equal
 
  identify
  and
  give
  effect
  to
  different
  preferences
  and
  interests
  in
  different
 
!
 “special
  status”
  is
  the
  term
  which
  has
  been
  applied
  to
  proposals
  for
  parts
 of
 the
 country.
 
 
constitutional
  change
  under
  which
  one
  province
  (most
  likely,
  Quebec)
  would
  ! Facilitate
 pursuit
 of
 collective
 goals
 by
 cultural
 and
 linguistic
 minorities
 forming
 
possess
 larger
 powers
 than
 the
 other
 provinces
  majority
 in
 province
 (SCC-­‐
 Quebec
 Secession
 Reference)
 

  ! Avoids
 one
 large
 bureaucracy
 
 
(e) Dominions
 and
 provinces
  o Efficiency
 
 
! In
 a
 federal
 state
 it
 is
 necessary
 to
 find
 suitable
 vocabulary
 to
 describe:
  o Allows
 for
 different
 preferences
 across
 country
 
 
o Regional
 authorities=
 
 the
 provinces
 
 
 
o The
 following
 2
 have
 not
 been
 satisfactorily
 resolved:
 
 
! Central
 authority=
 the
 Dominion
 
 
 
! Nation
 as
 a
 whole=
 Dominion
 of
 Canada
 
 
 
 
(f) subsidiary
 
 
 
! =
  decisions
  affecting
  individuals
  should,
  as
  far
  as
  reasonably
  possible,
  be
  made
 
 
by
 the
 level
 of
 government
 closest
 to
 the
 individuals
 affected
 
 
 
 Page
 10
 of
 86
 

 
Federalism
 in
 Canada
 (Canada
 as
 a
 Federal
 Nation
  ! The
  constitution
  must
  be
  “supreme”,
  meaning
  that
  it
  must
  be
  binding
  on
  ,
 
(a) The
 terms
 of
 the
 Constitution
 
  and
 unalterable
 by,
 each
 of
 the
 central
 and
 regional
 authorities
 
! BNA
  Act
  gives
  the
  provinces
  only
  enumerated
  powers
  to
  make
  laws,
  giving
  the
  ! As
 well,
 s
 52(1)
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982
 expressly
 affirms
 the
 supremacy
 
residue
 of
 power
 to
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 
 (indication
 framers
 wanted
 strong
  over
 all
 other
 laws
 of
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada
 
central
 government)
 
 
! s
  91(2)-­‐
  federal
  parliament
  given
  power
  to
  regulate
  “trade
  and
  commerce”
  Role
 of
 the
 Courts
 
without
 qualification
 
  (a) development
 of
 judicial
 review
 
 
! other
  federal
  parliament
  powers/areas:
  banking
  (s
  91(15);
  marriage
  and
  ! Provisions
  of
  a
  constitution
  distributing
  legislative
  power
  will
  be
  couched
  in
 
divorce
 (s.91(26);
 criminal
 law
 (s.
 91(27);
 and
 penitentiaries
 (s91(28)
  general
 language
 which
 cannot
 possibly
 be
 free
 from
 doubt
 or
 ambiguity
 –
 so
 
! federal
  parliament
  was
  given
  by
  s
  91(3)
  the
  power
  to
  levy
  indirect
  as
  well
  as
  there
  will
  be
  disputes
  whether
  or
  not
  a
  particular
  legislative
  body
  has
  the
 
direct
 taxes
 while
 the
 provinces
 were
 confined
 by
 s
 92(2)
 to
 direct
 taxes
 
  power
 to
 enact
 a
 particular
 statute
 
 
Proof
 that
 provinces
 were
 made
 subordinate
 in
 situations
 (non
 federalist):
  ! any
 federal
 system
 therefore
 has
 the
 machinery
 for
 settling
 disputes
 about
 the
 
! 90
 –
 Federal
 govt
 given
 power
 to
 invalidate
 provincial
 statute.
 
  distribution
 of
 legislative
 power
 
 
! 92(1)-­‐
 provinces
 were
 denied
 the
 power
 to
 alter
 that
 part
 of
 their
 constitution
 
  ! section
 52(1)
 stipulates
 that
 the
 “Constitution
 of
 Canada”
 is
 the
 “supreme
 law
 
! S
 93-­‐
 the
 federal
 government
 was
 given
 the
 power
 to
 determine
 appeals
 from
  of
  Canada”,
  and
  that
  “any
  law
  is
  inconsistent
  with
  the
  provisions
  of
  the
 
provincial
  decisions
  affecting
  minority
  educational
  rights,
  and
  the
  federal
  Constitution
  is,
  to
  the
  extent
  of
  the
  inconsistency,
  of
  no
  force
  or
  effect”.
 
parliament
  was
  given
  the
  power
  to
  enforce
  a
  decision
 
  on
  appeal
  by
  the
  Section
 52(1)
 is
 the
 current
 basis
 of
 judicial
 review
 in
 Canada
 
enactment
 of
 “remedial
 laws”
 
  ! Constitution
  Act
  1982
  also
  broadened
  the
  scope
  of
  judicial
  review
  by
  adding
  a
 
Therefore
 –
 Quasi
 Federal
 State
 of
 Canada
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  to
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada.
  It
  adds
  an
  additional
  set
  of
 

  provisions
  limiting
  the
  powers
  of
  legislative
  bodies.
 
  Those
  limits
  give
  rise
  to
 
(b) Judicial
 interpretation
 of
 the
 distribution
 of
 powers
  judicial
 review.
 
 
! believed
  strongly
  in
  provincial
  rights
  and
  they
  established
  precedents
  that
 
 
elevated
  the
  provinces
  to
  coordinate
  status
  with
  the
  Dominion
  and
  gave
  a
  (b) Limitations
 of
 judicial
 review
 
 
narrow
 interpretation
 to
 the
 principal
 federal
 powers
 (the
 residuary
 power
 and
  ! One
 function
 of
 judicial
 review
 is
 to
 enforce
 distribution
 of
 powers:
 
the
  trade
  and
  commerce
  power)
  and
  a
  wide
  interpretation
  to
  the
  provincial
  ! The
 rules
 of
 federalism:
 whether
 a
 particular
 statute
 comes
 within
 the
 powers
 
power
 (over
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province)
  conferred
 by
 the
 Constitution
 of
 the
 legislative
 body
 that
 enacted
 the
 statute:
 

  if
  the
  statute
  is
  judicially
  determined
  to
  be
  outside
  the
  powers
  conferred
  upon
 
(c) Appointment
 of
 Lieutenant
 Governors
 
  the
 enacting
 body,
 then
 the
 statute
 is
 ultra
 vires
 and
 for
 that
 reason
 is
 invalid
 
 
nd
! the
 federal
 power
 to
 appoint
 Lieutenant
 Governors
 is
 another
 apparent
 breach
  ! 2
 function
 of
 judicial
 review:
 to
 enforce
 the
 Charter
 restrictions
 and
 the
 other
 
of
  the
  federal
  principle.
  This
  power
  is
  regularly
  exercised
  by
  the
  federal
  non-­‐
  federal
  restrictions.
  The
  courts
  often
  have
  to
  decide
  whether
  a
  statute
 
government,
  but
  once
  an
  appoint
  is
  made
  the
  Lieutenant
  Governor
  is
  no
  so
  violates
  a
  constitutional
  prohibition,
  for
  example,
  by
  unjustifiably
  abridging
 
sense
 the
 agent
 of
 the
 federal
 government:
 he
 is
 obliged
 by
 the
 conventions
 of
  freedom
  of
  expression:
  if
  the
  statute
  is
  judicially
  determined
  to
  violate
  the
 
responsible
 government
 to
 act
 on
 the
 advice
 of
 the
 provincial
 cabinet
 
  prohibition,
 then
 the
 statute
 is
 ultra
 vires
 and
 for
 that
 reason
 invalid
 
 

  ! Language
  of
  the
  Constitution:
  broad
  /
  vague-­‐
  rules
  that
  distribute
  the
  whole
 
(d)
 Appointment
 of
 Judges:
  range
 of
 legislative
 power
 occupy
 only
 a
 few
 pages
 of
 text,
 as
 does
 the
 charter-­‐
 
-­‐ s96
  –
  Fed
  to
  appoint
  judges
  to
  higher
  provincial
  courts,
  when
  needed
  to
  be
  the
  scope
  of
  potential
  governmental
  activity
  that
  the
  rules
  address
  is
  so
 
filled.
  Tradition
  of
  judicial
  independence
  is
  so
  strong
  that
  it
  is
  never
  been
  enormous
 that
 many
 problems
 will
 be
 overlooked
 by
 the
 framers
 of
 the
 text
 
seriously
 claimed
 that
 fed-­‐apointed
 judges
 would
 favour
 federal
 governments.
  ! Therefore
  courts
  have
  larger
  discretionary
  judgment
  to
  its
  constitutional
 

  decisions
  –
  as
  Hughes
  C.J.
  of
  the
  US
  Supreme
  Court
  made
  in
  his
  celebrated
 
Supremacy
 of
 the
 Constitution
 
  mark:
 “we
 are
 under
 a
 Constitution,
 but
 the
 Constitution
 is
 what
 the
 judges
 
! The
 constitution
 (or
 at
 least
 this
 part
 of
 it)
 must
 be
 in
 writing,
 because
 such
 a
  say
 it”
 
vital
 matter
 could
 not
 be
 left
 to
 unwritten
 understandings
 (federal
 principle).
  ! Canada’s
 adoption
 of
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 in
 1982
 was
 a
 conscious
 decision
 to
 
! Federal
 constitutions
 must
 be
 rigid
 and
 entrenched
 (with
 amending).
 
  increase
 the
 scope
 of
 judicial
 review
 
 
 Page
 11
 of
 86
 

 

  ! Where
 there
 is
 a
 distribution
 of-­‐powers
 argument
 and
 a
 Charter
 argument
 for
 
the
 invalidity
 of
 a
 law,
 the
 arguments
 cannot
 both
 be
 successful
 
 

 
! HOGG:
  Federal
  arguments
  should
  precede
  Charter
  ones.
  If
  you
  are
  arguing
 
[4]
 Principles
 of
 Interpretation-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
  both
  grounds,
  you
  should
  frame
  the
  Charter
  argument
  as
  one
  “in
  the
 

  alternative”,
  not
  an
  addition,
  to
  an
  argument
  based
  on
  a
  federal
  ground:
 
  in
 
Judicial
 Review
 on
 Federal
 Grounds
 
  reviewing
 the
 validity
 of
 a
 law,
 the
 first
 question
 is
 whether
 the
 law
 is
 within
 

  the
  law-­‐
  making
  power
  of
  the
  enacting
  body,
  and
  the
  second
  question
  is
 
! Federalism=
 the
 distribution
 of
 powers
 between
 a
 central
 authority
 (federal
 Parliament)
  whether
 the
 law
 is
 consistent
 with
 the
 charter
 of
 rights.
 
 
and
 regional
 authorities
 (Provincial
 Legislatures)
 that
 constitute
 the
 essence
 of
 a
 federal
  ! The
  priority
  of
  the
  federal
  ground
  does
  not
  mean
  that
  a
  court
  deciding
  a
 
constitution
 
  constitutional
 case
 must
 always
 dispose
 of
 the
 federal
 issue
 before
 proceeding
 
! This
  part
  will
  examine
  the
  doctrines,
  techniques
  and
  the
  language
  employed
  by
  the
  to
 the
 Charter
 issue
 
 
courts
 in
 carrying
 out
 the
 review
 of
 distribution
 of
 powers
 questions
 (i.e.
 challenged
 on
  ! The
 court
 can
 decide
 the
 case
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 seems
 strongest
 to
 the
 court
 
 
“federal
 grounds”
  ! Another
  point
  in
  favour
  of
  the
  logical
  priority
  of
  federalism
  issues
  over
  Charter
 
! the
  distribution
  of
  legislative
  power
  between
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  and
  the
  issues
 is
 the
 presence
 of
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 of
 the
 power
 of
 override.
 
provincial
 Legislatures
 is
 mainly
 set
 out
 in
 ss
 91
 and
 92
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
  o S
  33
  of
  Charter-­‐
  enables
  the
  Parliament
  or
  a
  Legislature
  to
  override
 
1867
  most
  of
  the
  provisions
  of
  the
  Charter
  by
  including
  in
  a
  statute
  a
 
o s
 
 91-­‐
 laws
 competent
 to
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 
  declaration
  that
  the
  statute
  is
  to
  operate
  notwithstanding
  the
 
o s
 92-­‐
 laws
 competent
 to
 the
 provincial
 Legislatures
 
  relevant
 provision
 of
 the
 Charter.
 Such
 a
 statute
 is
 then
 valid,
 despite
 
o both
 sections
 use
 a
 distinctive
 terminology,
 giving
 legislative
 authority
  the
  breach
  of
  the
  Charter.
  There
  is
  no
  similar
  saving
  provision
  for
  a
 
in
  relation
  to
  “matters”
  coming
  within
  “classes
  of
  subjects”-­‐
  this
  breach
 of
 the
 federal
 distribution
 of
 powers
 
 
terminology
  emphasizes
  and
  helps
  to
  describe
  the
  2
  steps
  involved
 
 
in
 the
 PROCESS
 of
 judicial
 review:
 
 

  STEP
 1:
 Characterization
 of
 Law
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .
 
STEP
  1:
  IDENTIFY
  THE
  “MATTER”
  (OR
  PITH
  AND
  SUBSTANCE)
  OF
  THE
  (a) “Matter”
 (pith
 and
 substance
 “dominant
 feature”)
 
CHALLENGED
 LAW
 =
 THE
 CHARACTERIZATION
 OF
 THE
 CHALLENGED
 LAW
 
  ! First
  step
  is
  to
  identify
  the
  matter
  of
  the
  challenged
  law,
  ie.
  Identify
  the
 

  dominant
 or
 most
 important
 characteristic
 of
 the
 challenged
 law
 (the
 PITH
 AND
 
STEP
 2:
 TO
 ASSISGN
 THE
 MATTER
 TO
 ONE
 OF
 THE
 “CLASSES
 OF
 SUBJECTS”
 (OR
  st
SUBSTANCE)
 (1
 doctrine
 of
 federalism)
 
HEADS
  OF
  LEGISLATIVE
  POWER)=
  THE
  INTERPRETATION
  OF
  THE
  POWER-­‐
  o Yet
 when
 identifying
 the
 matter
 of
 law
 courts
 often
 use
 concepts
 which
 
DISTRIBUTING
 PROVISIONS
 OF
 THE
 CONSTITUTION
 
  will
 assist
 in
 determining
 to
 which
 head
 of
 power
 it
 should
 be
 allocated
 

  (second
  step):
  often
  settling
  question
  of
  validity,
  leaving
  allocation
  of
 
! 3
 key
 federalism
 doctrines:
  mater
 to
 class
 a
 formality.
 
 
o Pith
 &
 Substance:
 is
 the
 law
 valid?
  ! Purpose
 of
 identifying
 the
 “matter”
 of
 a
 law:
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 law
 is
 
o Interjurisdictional
  Immunity
  (“IJI”):
  core
  of
  an
  enumerated
  power
  is
  constitutional
 or
 not.
 
 
immune
 from
 intrusion
 by
 other
 government
 
  ! “pith
  and
  substance”
  doctrine
  enables
  one
  level
  of
  government
  to
  enact
  laws
 
o Paramountcy:
  is
  the
  provincial
  law
  inoperative
  because
  of
  a
  conflict
  with
 substantial
 impact
 on
 matters
 outside
 its
 jurisdiction
 
 
with
 federal
 law?
  ! Court
  will
  look
  beyond
  the
  direct
  legal
  effects
  to
  inquire
  into
  what
  the
  actual
 

  purpose
 of
 the
 act
 is
 in
 determining
 who
 will
 regulate
 it
 
Priority
 between
 Federal
 and
 Charter
 Grounds
  ! Difficulty
  is
  where
  a
  statute
  has
  features
  that
  come
  within
  a
  provincial
  AND
 
! when
  a
  law
  is
  challenged
  on
  both
  federal
  and
  Charter
  grounds,
  does
  the
  federal
  head
  of
  power.
  Here
  you
  make
  a
  judgment
  as
  which
  is
  the
  most
 
Constitution
 accord
 priority
 to
 one
 grounds
 over
 the
 other?
  important
  feature
  of
  the
  law
  and
  characterize
  the
  law
  by
  that
  feature
  (the
 
! S
  52,
  Constitution
  Act
  1982-­‐
  a
  law
  that
  is
  contrary
  to
  any
  provision
  of
  the
  dominant
 feature
 is
 the
 “pith
 and
 substance”
 or
 “matter”
 of
 the
 law;
 the
 other
 
Constitution
 of
 Canada
 is
 “of
 no
 force
 or
 effect”.
 Both
 the
 federal
 distribution
  feature
 is
 merely
 incidental)
 
of
 powers
 and
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 are
 part
 of
 the
 “Constitution
 of
 Canada”
 
 Page
 12
 of
 86
 

 
! This
 distinction
 is
 commonly
 expressed
 by
 using
 the
 phrase
 “in
 relation
 to”.
 For
  federal
 Parliament’s
 power
 over
 criminal
 law
 (the
 Act
 was
 actually
 struck
 down
 
example
 the
 challenged
 act
 was
 “in
 relation
 to
 X”
 and
 merely
 “affected”
 Y
  for
 breach
 of
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights)
 
! There
  are
  many
  examples
  of
  laws
  which
  have
  been
  upheld
  despite
  their
  o Criminal
  character
  of
  the
  Act
  flowed
  from
  its
  purpose,
  which
  was
  the
 
“incidental”
 impact
 on
 matters
 outside
 the
 enacting
 body’s
 jurisdiction
 
  religious
  one
  of
  “the
  preservation
  of
  the
  sanctity
  of
  the
  Christian
 
o ie
  a
  federal
  law
  in
  relation
  to
  navigation
  and
  shipping
  (federal
  matter)
  Sabbath”.
 
 (Determined
 via
 history
 and
 name
 of
 Act).
 
 
may
  validly
  regulate
  labour
  relations
  in
  a
  port
  (provincial
  matter)
  o The
  court
  acknowledged
  that
  if
  the
  purpose
  of
  the
  statute
  had
  not
  been
 
(Stevedores
 Reference
 1955)
  religious
  “but
  rather
  the
  secular
  goal
  of
  enforcing
  a
  uniform
  day
  of
  rest
 
! Essentially,
 2
 things
 must
 be
 examined:
 the
 purpose
 of
 the
 enacting
 body
 and
  from
 labour”
 then
 the
 Act
 would
 have
 fallen
 under
 provincial
 rather
 then
 
the
 legal
 effect
 of
 the
 law
 (Reference
 re
 Firearms
 Act)
  federal
 competence
 
 

  ! R
  v
  Edwards
  Books
  (purpose
  being
  secular,
  for
  rest
  of
  retail
  workers,
  falling
 
(b) Singling
 out
  under
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 s92).
 
 
! There
  a
  number
  of
  cases
  in
  which
  provincial
  laws
  have
  been
  upheld,
  ! To
 determine
 the
 purpose,
 courts
 can
 look
 to:
 
notwithstanding
  that
  the
  laws
  singled
  out
  a
  person
  or
  class
  of
  persons
  within
  o 1.
 The
 preamble
 
 
federal
 jurisdiction
 
  o 2.
 The
 intention
 of
 the
 legislative
 body
 that
 drafted
 the
 statute
 
! For
 example,
 a
 taxing
 statute,
 although
 it
 applied
 to
 other
 corporations
 as
 well
  o 3.
 The
 mischief
 that
 the
 law
 is
 trying
 to
 rid/correct
 
 
as
  banks,
  did
  impose
  a
  special
  rate
  of
  tax
  on
  banks
  alone;
  yet
  the
  law
  was
  ! BUT
 must
 look
 to
 true
 purpose,
 not
 necessarily
 the
 stated
 purpose
 (CANADIAN
 
characterized
  as
  “in
  relation”
  to
  taxation,
  not
  banking
  (Bank
  of
  Toronto
  v.
  WESTERN
 BANK)
 
Lambe)
 
 
! EXCEPTION
  to
  the
  general
  rule
  that
  a
  provincial
  law
  of
  general
  application
  (e) Effect
 
which
 is
 in
 relation
 to
 a
 provincial
 matter
 may
 validly
 affect
 federal
 matters
 as
  ! In
  characterizing
  a
  statute-­‐
  identifying
  its
  “matter”
  or
  “pith
  and
  substance”-­‐
  a
 
well.
  "
  if
  a
  provincial
  law
  is
  valid
  in
  the
  generality
  of
  its
  applications,
  but
  in
  court
 will
 always
 consider
 the
 effect
 of
 the
 statute,
 in
 the
 sense
 that
 the
 court
 
effect
  impairs
  the
  status
  or
  essential
  powers
  of
  a
  federally-­‐
  incorporated
  will
  consider
  how
  the
  statute
  changes
  the
  rights
  and
  liabilities
  of
  those
  who
  are
 
company,
 or
 to
 affect
 a
 vital
 part
 of
 a
 federally-­‐
 regulated
 enterprise,
 it
 will
 not
  subject
 to
 it
 
 
apply
 to
 the
 federally
 –
 incorporated
 company
 or
 federally
 regulated
 enterprise
 
 
 

  (f) Efficacy
 
 
(c) Double
 aspect
 doctrine
 (or
 double
 matter)
  ! In
 characterizing
 a
 statute
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 judicial
 review
 on
 federal
 grounds,
 
! Some
  matters
  cannot
  be
  categorized
  under
  a
  single
  head
  of
  power
  (ie
  they
  may
  look
  at
  the
  purpose
  of
  the
  statute
  and
  the
  effects
  of
  the
  statute"
  however
 
have
 both
 a
 provincial
 and
 federal
 aspect)
  reviewing
 court
 should
 not
 pass
 judgment
 on
 the
 likely
 efficacy
 of
 the
 statute
 
 
o I.e-­‐
  dangerous
  driving:
  punishment
  of
  a
  crime
  -­‐public
  order,
  criminal
  ! Re
  Firearms
  Act
  (2000):
  efficacy
  was
  a
  matter
  for
  Parliament,
  NOT
  the
  court:
 
(federal)
  (s91(27);
  conduct
  on
  the
  roads=
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  “Parliament
 is
 the
 judge
 of
 whether
 a
 measure
 is
 likely
 to
 achieve
 its
 intended
 
(provincial)(s92(13)
  purpose;
  efficaciousness
  is
  not
  relevant
  to
  the
  Court’s
  division
  of
  powers
 
o Gives
  rise
  to
  the
  possibility
  of
  conflict
  between
  a
  valid
  federal
  law
  and
  a
  analysis”
 
valid
 provincial
 law.
 
 
o Resolution
 of
 such
 conflicts
 in
 favour
 of
 the
 federal
 law
 is
 the
 function
 of
  (g) Colourability
 doctrine
 (cloaking
 legislations
 real
 purpose)
 
the
 “federal
 paramountcy”
  ! Invoked
  when
  a
  statute
  bears
  the
  formal
  trappings
  of
  a
  matter
  within
 
! Doctrine
 used
 in
 areas
 where
 judges
 show
 restraint.
 When
 both
 characteristics
  jurisdiction
 but
 in
 reality
 is
 addressed
 to
 a
 matter
 outside
 jurisdiction
 
 
 
are
 roughly
 equal
 in
 importance
 (could
 be
 by
 both
 fed
 /
 prov)
 [Hogg]
  ! Applies
  to
  the
  maxim,
  that
  a
  Legislature
  body
  cannot
  do
  indirectly
  what
  it
 

  cannot
 do
 directly
 
 
(d) Purpose
  ! Alberta
 Bank
 Taxation
 Reference-­‐
 colourability
 is
 rarely
 successful
 
 
! Legislative
 purpose
 in
 characterizing
 the
 matter
 of
 an
 alleged
 
 law
 is
 important:
  o The
 legislation,
 although
 ostensibly
 designed
 as
 a
 taxation
 measure,
 was
 
Court
 will
 look
 beyond
 the
 legislative
 effect
 at
 the
 laws
 purpose
 (goals).
 
  in
 reality
 directed
 at
 banking
 
! In
  R.
  v.
  Big
  M
  Drug
  Mart
  (1985)
  the
  SCC
  held
  that
  federal
  Lord’s
  Day
  Act,
  which
 
prohibited
  various
  commercial
  activities
  on
  Sundays,
  was
  a
  valid
  exercise
  of
  the
 
 Page
 13
 of
 86
 

 
!An
  examination
  of
  the
  actual
  effect
  is
  useful
  in
  determining
  if
  the
  law
  was
  ! A
 “severance
 clause”
 is
 a
 section
 of
 a
 statute
 that
 provides
 that
 if
 any
 part
 of
 
“colourable”.
  That
  is,
  whether
  the
  law,
  in
  substance,
  addresses
  a
  matter
  the
 statute
 is
 judicially
 held
 to
 be
 unconstitutional,
 the
 remainder
 of
 the
 Act
 is
 
completely
 different
 from
 what
 the
 law
 addresses
 in
 form.
 
  to
 continue
 to
 be
 effective
 
 
! For
  example,
  in
  R.
  v.
  Morgentaler
  the
  province
  of
  Nova
  Scotia
  passed
  a
  law
  ! Rule
 that
 the
 courts
 have
 developed
 is
 that
 severance
 is
 inappropriate
 when
 
prohibiting
  abortion
  clinics
  under
  the
  guise
  that
  it
  was
  protecting
  health
  the
  remaining
  good
  part
  “is
  so
  inextricably
  bound
  up
  with
  the
  part
  declared
 
services
  (hospitals
  92.7
  and
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  92.16),
  when
  in
  substance
  invalid
 that
 what
 remains
 cannot
 independently
 survive”;
 
 
they
 were
 attempting
 to
 ban
 abortions
 (criminal-­‐
 federal
 power)
  ! On
 the
 other
 hand,
 where
 the
 
 2
 parts
 can
 exist
 independently
 of
 each
 other,
 

  then
 severance
 is
 appropriate
 
(h) Criteria
 of
 Choice
  ! Privy
  council
  usually
  struck
  down
  the
  entire
  statute
  once
  an
  adverse
 
! When
 you
 have
 several
 possible
 dominant
 purposes
 (ie
 matter),
 how
 to
 choose
  conclusion
 has
 been
 reached
 as
 to
 the
 constitutionality
 of
 part
 
 
which
 is
 the
 pith
 and
 substance?
  ! Severance
 is
 more
 common
 in
 Charter
 cases
 than
 in
 federalism
 cases
 
 
! Can
  look
  at
  (i)
  legislative
  scheme/
  relevant
  extrinsic
  material;
  (ii)
  judicial
  ! highly
  unusual
  that
  an
  entire
  statute
  is
  struck
  down
  under
  the
  Charter
  of
 
decisions
 on
 similar
 kinds
 of
 statutes;
 (iii)
 policy
 
  Rights
 
 
! Policy:
  THE
  CHOICE
  MUST
  BE
  GUIDED
  BY
  A
  CONCEPT
  OF
  FEDERALISM-­‐
  is
  this
  ! Only
  one
  Charter
  case
  where
  SCC
  struck
  down
  an
  entire
  statute:
  R
  v
  Big
  M
 
the
 kind
 of
 law
 that
 should
 be
 enacted
 at
 the
 federal
 level
 or
 provincial
 level?
  Drug
 Mart
 
 
! Judicial
 restraint
 must
 be
 invoked.
 
 

  (2)
 Reading
 Down
 
 
(i) Presumption
 of
 Constitutionality
 
  ! A
  statute
  is
  to
  be
  interpreted
  more
  narrowly,
  when
  possible,
  as
  to
  keep
  it
 
! Judicial
  restraint
  in
  determining
  the
  validity
  of
  statutes
  may
  be
  expressed
  in
  within
 the
 scope
 of
 the
 power
 of
 the
 enacting
 legislative
 body.
 
terms
 of
 a
 “presumption
 of
 constitutionality”
  ! General
  language
  in
  statute
  that
  can
  extend
  beyond
  the
  power
  of
  enacting
 
! burden
 is
 on
 those
 who
 would
 challenge
 the
 validity
 of
 a
 statute
 
  legislature/parliament
 will
 be
 construed
 narrowly
 to
 keep
 it
 in
 scope.
 
 
! Carries
 3
 legal
 consequences:
  ! Only
  available
  when
  language
  can
  bare
  (valid)
  limited
  meaning
  and
  (invalid)
 
1.
 
  In
 choosing
 between
 competin
 characterizations
 of
 a
 law,
 the
 court
 should
  extended
 meaning:
 limited
 meaning
 be
 selected.
 
 
normally
 choose
 that
 one
 that
 would
 support
 the
 validity
 of
 the
 law
 
 
2.
 
  Where
  the
  validity
  of
  a
  law
  requires
  a
  finding
  of
  fact
  (for
  example,
  the
  Consequences
 of
 Judicial
 Review:
 
existence
 of
 an
 emergency),
 that
 finding
 of
 fact
 need
 not
 be
 proved
 strictly
  • Law
 which
 applies
 to
 matter
 outside
 of
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 enacting
 body
 may
 
by
  the
  government;
  it
  is
  enough
  that
  there
  be
  a
  ‘rational
  basis’
  for
  the
  be
 attacked
 in
 3
 ways:
 
finding
 
  1. Validity
  of
  law
  [matter
  or
  pith/subst
  comes
  in
  class
  of
  subjects
  outside
 
3.
 
  Where
  a
  law
  is
  open
  to
  both
  a
  narrow
  and
  a
  wide
  interpretation
  and
  under
  jurisdiction
 of
 enacting
 body]
 
the
  wide
  interpretation
  the
  law’s
  application
  would
  extend
  beyond
  the
  2. Applicability
 of
 law
 [valid
 in
 most
 applications
 but
 should
 be
 interpreted
 to
 
powers
  of
  the
  enacting
  legislative,
  the
  court
  should
 “read
  down”
  the
  law
  as
  not
 apply
 to
 the
 matter
 that
 is
 outside
 of
 its
 jurisdiction
 of
 enacting
 body]
 
to
 confine
 it
 to
 those
 applications
 that
 are
 within
 the
 power
 of
 the
 enacting
  3. Inoperative
 [argued
 through
 doctrine
 of
 Paramouncy,
 federal
 prevails]
 
legislative
 body
 
 
 
! Where
  a
  law
  is
  challenged
  on
  Charter
  grounds,
  as
  opposed
  to
  federal
  grounds,
  STEP
 2:
 INTERPRETATION
 OF
 CONSTITUTION
 [POWERS]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .
 
rd
there
  is
  no
  presumption
  of
  constitutionality,
  except
  for
  the
  3
  doctrine,
  (a) Relevance
 
“reading
 down”
 which
 also
 applies
 in
 charter
 cases
 
  ! Once
  the
  matter
  (or
  pith
  and
  substance)
  of
  a
  challenged
  law
  has
  been
 
nd

  identified,
 the
 2
 stage
 in
 judicial
 review
 is
 to
 assign
 the
 matter
 to
 one
 of
 the
 
MITIGATION
 OF
 JUDICIAL
 REVIEW:
  “classes
 of
 subjects”
 (or
 heads
 of
 legislative
 power)
 specified
 in
 the
 Constitution
 
 
(1)
 Severance
 
 
! The
  question
  arises
  whether
  the
  court
  should
  ‘sever”
  the
  bad
  part,
  thereby
  (b) Exclusiveness
 
preserving
  the
  good
  part,
  or
  whether
  the
  court
  should
  declare
  the
  entire
  ! Each
  list
  of
  classes
  of
  subjects
  in
  s.
  91
  or
  92
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act,
  1867
  is
 
statute
 to
 be
 bad
  exclusive
 to
 the
 Parliament
 or
 Legislature
 to
 which
 it
 is
 assigned
 
 Page
 14
 of
 86
 

 
! This
  means
  that
  a
  particular
  “matter”
  will
  come
  within
  a
  class
  of
  subjects
  on
  (e) Exhaustiveness
 
 
only
 one
 list
 
  ! The
 distribution
 of
 powers
 between
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 and
 the
 provincial
 
! Some
  laws
  are
  available
  to
  both
  levels,
  but
  that
  is
  because
  such
  laws
  have
  a
  Legislatures
 is
 exhaustive
 
double
  aspect
  (or
  2
  matters)
  [double
  aspect
  doctrine]
  not
  because
  ! There
  are
  exceptions
  to
  the
  doctrine
  of
  exhaustive
  distribution,
  including
  the
 
subjects/classes
 overlap
 with
 each
 other.
 
  subjects
 protected
 by
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 
 

  ! Any
 matter
 which
 does
 not
 come
 within
 any
 of
 the
 specific
 classes
 of
 subjects
 
(c) Ancillary
 power
  will
 be:
 
! Constitution
  of
  Canada
  does
  not
  include
  an
  ancillary
  power
  in
  the
  enumerated
  o Provincial
 if
 
 "
 it
 is
 merely
 local
 or
 private
 (s
 92(16))
 and
 will
 be
 
 
powers
 of
 either
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 or
 the
 provincial
 Legislatures.
 
 
  o Federal
 if
 
 
 
 
 "
 it
 has
 a
 national
 dimension
 (s
 91,
 opening
 words).
 (s
 
! Definition
  in
  USA:
  “power
  to
  make
  all
  laws
  which
  are
  necessary
  for
  carrying
  91
 gives
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 the
 residuary
 power
 “to
 make
 laws
 for
 
into
 execution
 enumerated
 powers”
  the
  peace,
  order,
  and
  good
  government
  of
  Canada,
  anything
  not
 
! The
 pith
 and
 substance
 doctrine
 enables
 a
 law
 that
 is
 classified
 as
 “in
 relation
  exclusively
 assigned
 to
 the
 Legislatures
 of
 the
 Provinces”)
 
to”
 a
 matter
 within
 the
 competence
 of
 the
 enacting
 body
 to
 have
 incidental
 or
  ! Saumur
 v
 Quebec:
 articulated
 this
 doctrine
 as
 one
 reason
 for
 striking
 down
 a
 
ancillary
 effects
 on
 matters
 outside
 the
 competence
 of
 the
 enacting
 body
  municipal
  by
  law
  that
  forbade
  the
  distribution
  of
  literature
  on
  the
  streets
  of
 
! if
 
 a
 certain
 provision
 of
 a
 larger
 statutory
 scheme
 is
 being
 challenged-­‐
 
 you
  Quebec
 City
 without
 the
 permission
 of
 the
 chief
 of
 police
 
 
need
 to
 look
 at
 the
 ancillary
 doctrine
 
  o The
  absence
  of
  any
  standards
  in
  the
  by-­‐law
  to
  guide
  the
  chief
  of
 
o if
 the
 larger
 legislative
 scheme
 is
 valid,
 then
 the
 impugned
 provision
 may
  police’s
  discretion
  was
  by
  itself
  fatal
  to
  the
  validity
  of
  the
  by-­‐law.
 
also
 be
 found
 to
 be
 valid
 because
 of
 its
 relationship
 to
 the
 larger
 scheme
  Without
  more
  precision
  in
  the
  drafting
  of
  the
  by-­‐law,
  it
  was
 
by
 way
 of
 this
 doctrine
  impossible
 to
 classify
 it
 as
 in
 relation
 to
 any
 particular
 matter
 
 

 
 TEST:
 
  Measure
  the
  degree
  of
  infringement
  of
  the
  impugned
  provision
  on
  the
 
 
other
  government’s
  sphere
  of
  power
  (the
  more
  significant
  the
  (f) Progressive
 interpretation
 
 [words
 not
 always
 defined
 as
 they
 were
 in
 1867]
 
infringement,
  the
  more
  strict
  the
  test
  it),
  and
  then
  must
  determine
  how
  ! The
  words
  of
  the
  act
  are
  to
  be
  given
  a
  “progressive
  interpretation”,
  so
  that
 
necessary
 the
 impugned
 provision
 is
 to
 the
 otherwise
 valid
 
 scheme:
  they
 are
 continuously
 adapted
 to
 new
 conditions
 and
 new
 ideas
 
 
(i)
 
  For
  MINOR
  encroachments,
  the
  rational
  connection
  test
  is
  ! Same-­‐Sex
  Marriage
  Reference
  2004:
 
  the
  court
  said
  the
  constitution
  “is
  a
 
appropriate
 
  living
  tree
  which,
  by
  way
  of
  progressive
  interpretation,
  accommodates
  and
 
(ii)
  For
  MAJOR
  encroachments,
  a
  stricter
  test
  (“truly
  necessary”)
  is
  addresses
 the
 realities
 of
 modern
 life”
 
appropriate
  (General
  Motors
  v
  City
  National
  Leasing
  1989)
  –
  ! The
  idea
  that
  Constitution
  Act
  1867,
  is
  a
  “constituent”
  or
  “organic”
  statute,
 
Dickson
 CJ
  which
  has
  to
  provide
  the
  basis
  for
  the
  entire
  government
  of
  a
  nation
  over
  a
 
"
 HOGG:
 “test
 is
 not
 satisfactory,
 if
 a
 provision
 is
 rational/functional
 part
 of
 federal
  long
 period
 of
 time.
 It
 is
 not
 an
 ordinary
 statute
 –
 which
 is
 more
 restrictive
 to
 
legislation
  why
  should
  it
  be
  regarded
  as
  ‘encroaching’
  on
  provincial
  interpretation.
 
 
powers?
 
  Claims
  this
  approach
  creates
  unpredictability.
  Claims
  that
  the
 
 
rational
 connection
 test
 is
 to
 be
 preferred
 to
 stricter
 alternatives
 (essential
  (g) Unwritten
 constitutional
 principles
 
or
  necessary
  tests)
  because
  it
  is
  less
  strict.
  Liberal
  test
  respects
  limits
  ! Even
 if
 the
 world
 remained
 the
 same,
 the
 courts
 would
 still
 have
 to
 apply
 the
 
imposed
 by
 constitutions
 distribution
 of
 powers.
 
  text
 to
 unpredictable
 human
 and
 institutional
 behavior
 
 

  ! The
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  is
  constructed
  on
  a
  set
  of
  unwritten
  or
  implicit
 
(d) Concurrency
 (happening
 together)
 –
 exceptions
 to
 exclusiveness
 of
 powers
  principles
  that
  have
  profoundly
  influenced
  the
  drafting
  of
  the
  text
  and
  that
 
! There
 are
 3
 provisions
 that
 explicitly
 confer
 concurrent
 powers:
  continue
 to
 influence
 its
 interpretation
 
 
1.
 
 
 s
 92(A)
 of
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 (added
 in
 1982)
 natural
 resources
 (provincial)
  ! Democracy,
 the
 rule
 of
 law,
 the
 independence
 of
 the
 judiciary,
 the
 protection
 
power
 is
 concurrent
 with
 the
 federal
 Parliament’s
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 
  of
 civil
 liberties
 and
 federalism
 are
 among
 those
 principles
 
 
2.
 
  S
  94(A)-­‐
  old
  age
  pensions
  and
  supplementary
  benefits
  (federal)
  concurrent
  ! i.e.
 Succession
 Reference
 example.
 Or
 RE
 Remuneration
 of
 Judges.
 
 
with
 acknowledgement
 of
 provincial
 existence
 
 
 
3.
 
 
 
 
 S
 95
 -­‐concurrent
 powers
 over
 agriculture
 and
 immigration
 
 
 

 
 
 Page
 15
 of
 86
 

 
Interjurisdictional
 Immunity
 (‘IJI’)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2nd
 doctrine
 of
 federalism)
  pith
 and
 substance
 doctrine
 would
 prevail,
 enabling
 the
 provincial
 law
 to
 
! Another
  way
  (alternative
  to
  the
  pith
  and
  substance)
  of
  attacking
  a
  law
  is
  by
  apply
 to
 the
 core
 of
 the
 federal
 subject
 =
 [this
 is
 the
 NEWEST
 TEST]
 
 
characterizing
  the
  law
  as
  coming
  within
  a
  class
  of
  subjects
  that
  is
  outside
  the
  o Only
  if
  the
  provincial
  law
  would
  “impair”
  the
  core
  of
  the
  federal
  subject,
 
jurisdiction
 of
 the
 enacting
 legislative
 body,
 and
 to
 argue
 that
 the
 law
 should
 be
  would
 interjurisdictional
 immunity
 apply.
 
INTERPRETED
 (ie
 read
 down)
 so
 as
 not
 to
 apply
 to
 the
 matter
 that
 is
 outside
 the
  o The
  majority
  indicated
  a
  strong
  preference
  for
  the
  pith
  and
  substance
 
jurisdiction
 of
 the
 enacting
 body.
 If
 this
 argument
 succeeds,
 the
 law
 isn’t
 invalid,
  doctrine
  as
  the
  default
  position
  when
  otherwise
  valid
  provincial
  laws
 
but
 is
 simply
 INAPPLICABLE
 to
 the
 extra-­‐
 jurisdictional
 matter
 
  intruded
  into
  federal
  matters.
  This
  was
  on
  the
  basis
  that
  “a
  court
  should
 

  favour,
  where
  possible,
  the
  ordinary
  application
  of
  statutes
  enacted
  by
 
(a) Definition
 of
 Interjurisdictional
 Immunity
 
  both
 levels
 of
 government.
 
 
! Does
 not
 have
 a
 precise
 meaning
 
  o interjurisdictional
 immunity
 should
 be
 applied
 “with
 restraint”
 
! A
 law
 that
 purports
 to
 apply
 to
 a
 matter
 outside
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 enacting
 
 
legislative
 body
 may
 be
 attacked
 in
 3
 different
 ways:
  (c) Provincial
 subjects
 
 

  ! The
  doctrine
  of
  interjurisdictional
  immunity
  ought
  to
  be
  reciprocal,
  protecting
 
1.
 The
 validity
 of
 the
 law
  provincial
  subjects
  from
  incursion
  by
  federal
  laws.
  This
  is
  because
  provincial
 
! Argue
 that
 the
 law
 is
 invalid,
 because
 the
 matter
 of
 the
 law
 (or
 its
 pith
 and
  heads
 of
 power
 in
 s
 92
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 are
 just
 as
 exclusive
 as
 the
 
substance)
 comes
 within
 a
 class
 of
 subjects
 that
 is
 outside
 the
 jurisdiction
  federal
 heads
 in
 s
 91
 
2.
 The
 applicability
 of
 the
 law
 
 
 
! to
 acknowledge
 that
 the
 law
 is
 valid
 in
 most
 of
 its
 applications,
 but
 to
 argue
  # Distinguish
  between
  pith
  and
  substance
  analysis
  and
  interjurisdictional
 
that
 the
 law
 should
 be
 interpreted
 so
 as
 not
 to
 apply
 to
 the
 matter
 that
 is
  immunity
 
 
outside
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 enacting
 body
 
  # The
 latter
 is
 used
 sparingly
 by
 courts;
 should
 normally
 rely
 on
 pith
 and
 substance
 
! If
  this
  arguments
  succeeds,
  the
  law
  is
  no
  held
  to
  be
  invalid,
  but
  simply
  analysis
 
 
INAPPLICABLE
 to
 the
 extra-­‐jurisdictional
 matter
 
 
 
! The
  technique
  for
  limiting
  the
  application
  of
  the
  law
  to
  matters
  within
 
jurisdiction
 is
 the
 reading
 down
 doctrine
 
 
 
 
 
 
 REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 PRINCIPLES
 OF
 INTERPRETATION:
 
3.
 The
 operability
 of
 the
 law
 
 
! Argue
 that
 the
 law
 is
 INOPERATIVE
 through
 the
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 
 
! Doctrine
  of
  paramountcy:
  where
  there
  are
  inconsistent
  federal
  and
  CANADIAN
 WESTERN
 BANK
 v.
 ALBERTA
 [2007]
 
provincial
 laws,
 it
 is
 the
  federal
 law
 that
 prevails;
 paramountcy
 renders
 the
  FACTS:
 
 
provincial
 law
 inoperative
 to
 the
 extent
 of
 the
 inconsistency
 
  • AB
 enacted
 changes
 to
 Insurance
 Act
 making
 federal
 banks
 subject
 to
 provincial
 licensing
 
schemes
 via
 promotion
 of
 insurance
 products.
 
 
! Paramouncty
  is
  a
  form
  of
  attack
  available
  only
  against
  a
  provincial
  law,
  and
 
• Banks
 argued:
 1)
 their
 promotion
 of
 insurance
 via
 the
 Bank
 Act
 was
 “banking”
 in
 s91(15)
 
then
 only
 when
 there
 is
 a
 conflicting
 federal
 law
 in
 existence
 
CA1867.
  AND
  2)
  The
  Insurance
  Act
  were
  inapplicable
  by
  virtue
  of
  doctrine
  of
  IJI
  and
 

  Paramouncy.
 
 
(b) Rationale
 of
 Interjurisdictional
 Immunity
 
  ISSUE:
 
 
 
! Interjurisdictional
 immunity
 cases
 do
 not
 concern
 provincial
 laws
 that
 single
 out
  • What
 extent
 to
 which
 banks,
 as
 federally
 regulated
 financial
 institutions,
 must
 comply
 
federal
 undertakings,
 works,
 persons
 or
 services
 for
 special
 treatment
 
  with
 provincial
 laws
 regulating
 the
 promotion
 and
 sale
 of
 insurance.
 
! In
  CANADIAN
  WESTERN
  BANK
  the
  SC
  accepted
  Beetz
  J’s
  rationale
  for
  the
  HELD:
 
interjurisdictional
  immunity
  doctrine,
  and
  in
  particular
  the
  need
  to
  protect
  a
  • Insurance
  Act
  =
  valid
  exercise
  of
  provincial
  powers
  under
  s92(13)
  as
  within
  property
 
“basic,
  minimum
  and
  unassailable”
  core
  of
  each
  head
  of
  legislative
  power,
  and
 civil
 rights.
 
 
rooted
  in
  the
  exclusivity
  of
  each
  head
  of
  power
  in
  ss.
  91
  and
  92
  of
  the
  • Interjurisdictional
 immunity
 fails
 because
 insurance
 is
 not
 “at
 the
 core”
 of
 banking,
 it
 is
 
Constitution
 Act
 1867
  not
 vital
 or
 essential
 element
 of
 the
 banking
 undertaking,
 and
 
• Federal
 Paramouncy
 does
 not
 apply
 because
 there
 is
 no
 operational
 conflict
 between
 
o However,
  the
  MAJORITY
  narrowed
  the
  doctrine
  by
  insisting
  that,
  if
  a
 
federal
 and
 provincial
 law.
 
provincial
 law
 merely
 affected
 (without
 having
 an
 adverse
 effect
 on)
 the
 
 
core
  of
  a
  federal
  subject,
  then
  the
  doctrine
  did
  not
  apply.
  In
  that
  case
  the
 
 
 Page
 16
 of
 86
 

 
REASONING:
  legislation
  on
  a
  single
  subject
  depending
  on
  the
  perspective
  from
  which
  the
  legislation
  is
 
Federalism
  considered,
 that
 is,
 depending
 on
 the
 various
 “aspects”
 of
 the
 “matter”
 in
 question.
 
 
! Constitutional
 doctrines
 permit
 an
 appropriate
 balance
 to
 be
 struck
 in
 the
 recognition
 
 
and
 management
 of
 the
 inevitable
 overlaps
 in
 rules
 made
 at
 the
 two
 levels
 of
 legislative
  ! In
  certain
  circumstances,
  the
  powers
  of
  one
  level
  of
  government
  must
  be
  protected
 
power,
 while
 recognizing
 the
 need
 to
 preserve
 sufficient
 predictability
 in
 the
 operation
  against
 intrusions,
 even
 incidental
 ones,
 by
 the
 other
 level.
 For
 this
 purpose,
 the
 courts
 
of
 the
 division
 of
 powers
  have
 developed
 two
 doctrines:
 

 
 
Assessing
 the
 constitutionality
 of
 legislation:
 [legal
 challenges
 to
 legislation
 follow
 these
 steps:
  [a]
 Interjurisdictional
 Immunity
 doctrine:
 
1. Pith
  and
  substance
  of
  the
  provincial
  law
  and
  the
  federal
  law
  should
  be
  examined
  to
  o Interjurisdictional
  immunity,
  recognizes
  that
  our
  Constitution
  is
  based
  on
  an
 
ensure
 that
 they
 are
 both
 valid
 and
 to
 determine
 the
 overlap,
 if
 any,
 between
 them.
  allocation
  of
  exclusive
  powers
  to
  both
  levels
  of
  government,
  not
  concurrent
 
2. The
 applicability
 of
 the
 provincial
 law
 to
 the
 federal
 undertaking
 or
 matter
 in
 question
  powers,
 although
 these
 powers
 are
 bound
 to
 interact
 in
 the
 realities
 of
 the
 life
 of
 
must
 be
 resolved
 with
 reference
 to
 the
 doctrine
 of
 interjurisdictional
 immunity.
  our
 Constitution.
 
 
3. If
 both
 the
 provincial
 law
 and
 the
 federal
 law
 have
 been
 found
 to
 be
 valid,
 and
 only
 if
 the
  o However,
  a
  view
  of
  federalism
  that
  puts
  greater
  emphasis
  on
  the
  legitimate
 
provincial
 law
 is
 found
 to
 be
 applicable
 to
 the
 federal
 matter,
 then
 both
 statutes
 must
 be
  interplay
  between
  federal
  and
  provincial
  powers
  was
  championed
  by
  the
  late
 
compared
  to
  determine
  whether
  the
  overlap
  between
  them
  constitutes
  a
  conflict
  Chief
  Justice
  Dickson,
  who
  described
  the
  doctrine
  of
  interjurisdictional
  immunity
 
sufficient
 to
 trigger
 the
 application
 of
 the
 doctrine
 of
 federal
 paramountcy.
  as
 “not
 .
 .
 .
 particularly
 compelling.
 In
 our
 view,
 the
 sweeping
 immunity
 argued
 

  for
  by
  the
  banks
  in
  this
  appeal
  is
  not
  acceptable
  in
  the
  Canadian
  federal
 
Pith
 and
 Substance
 Doctrine:
 
  structure.
 
• The
  resolution
  of
  a
  case
  involving
  the
  constitutionality
  of
  legislation
  in
  relation
  to
  the
  o The
 Court
 identifies
 a
 number
 of
 problems
 with
 invoking
 the
 doctrine
 
division
  of
  powers
  must
  begin
  with
  an
  analysis
  of
  the
  pith
  and
  substance
  of
  the
  ! Broad
  use
  of
  the
  doctrine
  would
  be
  inconsistent
  with
  the
  flexible
  federalism
 
impugned
  legislation.
  The
  courts
  must
  be
  able
  from
  its
  language
  and
  its
  relevant
  that
  the
  constitutional
  doctrines
  of
  pith
  and
  substance,
  double
  aspect
  and
 
circumstances,
 to
 attribute
 an
 enactment
 to
 a
 matter
 in
 relation
 to
 which
 the
 legislature
  federal
  paramountcy
  are
  designed
  to
  promote.
  Must
  recognize
  that
 
acting
 has
 been
 empowered
 to
 make
 laws.
 
  overlapping
 powers
 are
 unavoidable
 
• Legislation
  whose
  pith
  and
  substance
  falls
  within
  its
  jurisdiction
  may
  affect
  matters
  ! A
 broad
 use
 of
 the
 doctrine
 of
 interjurisdictional
 immunity
 runs
 the
 risk
 of
 
beyond
  the
  jurisdiction
  without
  necessarily
  being
  unconstitutional.
  At
  this
  stage
  of
  the
  creating
  an
  unintentional
  centralizing
  tendency
  in
  constitutional
 
analysis,
 the
 dominant
 purpose
 of
 the
 legislation
 is
 still
 decisive.
 
  interpretation.
  The
  “asymmetrical”
  application
  of
  interjurisdictional
 
• Merely
 incidental
 effects
 do
 not
 disturb
 the
 constitutionality
 of
 otherwise
 intra
 vires
 law.
  immunity
  is
  incompatible
  with
  the
  flexibility
  and
  co-­‐ordination
  required
  by
 
! STEPS:
 To
 determine
 the
 pith
 and
 substance:
  contemporary
 Canadian
 federalism
 
(1)
 
 The
  PURPOSE
  of
  the
  enacting
  body:
  Can
  look
  to
  intrinsic
  evidence
  (e.g.
  o Interjurisdictional
 immunity
 should
 in
 general
 be
 reserved
 for
 situations
 already
 
preamble/purpose
  clauses,
  and
  extrinsic
  evidence).
  Must
  look
  to
  TRUE
  PURPOSE
  covered
 by
 precedent.
 
 
though,
 not
 necessarily
 the
 stated
 purpose
 
 
(2)
 
  The
  LEGAL
  EFFECT
  of
  the
  law:
  E.g.,
  in
  Attorney-­‐General
  for
  Alberta
  v.
  Attorney-­‐ The
 Doctrine
 of
 Federal
 Paramountcy:
 
 
General
 for
 Canada,
 [1939]
 the
 Privy
 Council
 held
 a
 provincial
 statute
 levying
 a
 tax
  ! Federal
 paramountcy
 =
 when
 the
 operational
 effects
 of
 provincial
 legislation
 are
 
on
 banks
 to
 be
 invalid
 on
 the
 basis
 that
 its
 effects
 on
 banks
 were
 so
 great
 that
 its
  incompatible
 with
 federal
 legislation,
 the
 federal
 legislation
 must
 prevail
 and
 the
 
true
 purpose
 could
 not
 be
 (as
 the
 province
 argued)
 the
 raising
 of
 money
 by
 levying
  provincial
 legislation
 is
 rendered
 inoperative
 to
 the
 extent
 of
 the
 incompatibility.
 
a
 tax
 (in
 which
 case
 it
 would
 have
 been
 intra
 vires),
 but
 was
 rather
 the
 regulation
 of
 
! The
 doctrine
 of
 federal
 paramountcy
 is
 also
 inapplicable
 because
 neither
 operational
 
banking
 (which
 rendered
 it
 ultra
 vires,
 and
 thus
 invalid)
 
incompatibility
 nor
 the
 frustration
 of
 a
 federal
 purpose
 have
 been
 made
 out.
 
! Here,
 the
 pith
 and
 substance
 of
 the
 Alberta
 Insurance
 Act
 relates
 to
 property
 and
 civil
  ! Since
 2000,
 the
 banks
 have
 been
 promoting
 insurance
 in
 Alberta
 while
 complying
 with
 
rights
  in
  the
  province
  under
  s.
  92(13)
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act,
  1867,
  and
  is
  a
  valid
  both
 the
 federal
 Bank
 Act
 and
 the
 provincial
 Insurance
 Act.
 This
 is
 not
 a
 case
 where
 the
 
provincial
  law.
  The
  mere
  fact
  that
  the
  banks
  now
  participate
  in
  the
  promotion
  of
  provincial
 law
 prohibits
 what
 the
 federal
 law
 permits.
 The
 federal
 legislation
 is
 
insurance
  does
  not
  change
  the
  essential
  nature
  of
  the
  insurance
  activity,
  which
  permissive
 not
 exhaustive,
 and
 compliance
 by
 the
 banks
 with
 the
 provincial
 law
 
remains
 a
 matter
 generally
 falling
 within
 provincial
 jurisdiction
  complements,
 not
 frustrates,
 the
 federal
 purpose
 

 
 
The
 Double
 Aspect
 Doctrine:
 
 
 
• The
 double
 aspect
 doctrine
 applies
  within
 the
 course
 of
 the
  pith
 and
  substance
  analysis.
 
 
It
  recognizes
  that
  both
  Parliament
  and
  the
  provincial
  legislatures
  can
  adopt
  valid
 
 

 
 Page
 17
 of
 86
 

 
QUEBEC
 (AG
 )
 v.
 CANADIAN
 OWNERS
 AND
 PILOTS
 ASSOCIATION
 
 
 
 [2010]
  R
 v
 MORGENTALER,
 [1993]
 –
 not
 the
 1998
 SCC
 decision.
 
 

  FACTS:
  Morgentaler
  challenged
  the
  constitutionality
  of
  a
  Nova
  Scotia
  law
  prohibiting
  the
 
FACTS:
 
  An
  aerodrome,
  registered
  under
  the
  federal Aeronautics
  Act,
  was
  constructed
  on
  performance
  of
  abortions
  outside
  of
  a
  hospital
  on
  the
  grounds
  that
  it
  was
  ultra
 
land
  zoned
  as
  agricultural
  (s92)
  in
  the
  province
  of
  Quebec.
  Since
  the
  Prov
  vires.
 Also
 claimed
 violate
 s7
 life
 liberty
 security
 of
 women.
 
 
Commission’s
  permission
  was
  not
  obtained
  prior
  to
  constructing
  the
  aerodrome,
 
 
the
  Commission
  ordered
  the
  return
  of
  the
  land
  to
  its
  original
  state.
  The
  ISSUE:
  [1]
 Is
 the
 Nova
 Scotia
 Medical
 Services
 Act
 and
 the
 regulation
 made
 under
 the
 act
 
Commission’s
  decision
  was
  challenged
  on
  the
  ground
  that
  aeronautics
  is
  within
  ultra
  vires
  the
  province
  of
  Nova
  Scotia
  on
  the
  grounds
  that
  they
  are
  in
  pith
  and
 
federal
 jurisdiction
 &
 not
 agriculture.
 
  substance
 criminal
 law?
 YES
 

  [2]
 Whether
 s251
 violates
 rights
 (s7
 –
 life
 liberty)
 guaranteed
 by
 the
 Charter?
 If
 so,
 
COURTS:
 
  The
  Admin
  Tribunal
  of
  Quebec,
  the
 Court
  of
  Quebec
 and
  the
 Superior
  Court
  of
  is
 it
 justifiable
 under
 s1
 of
 the
 Charter?
 
Quebec
 all
  upheld
  the
  Commission's
  decision,
  but
  the
 Quebec
  COA
  found
  that
 
 
interjurisdictional
  immunity
  precluded
  the
  Commission
  from
  ordering
  the
  ARGUES:
 
  Nova
 Scotia
 argues
 that
 the
 regulation
 deals
 with
 hospitals,
 health,
 and
 the
 medical
 
dismantling
 of
 the
 aerodrome.
  profession,
 which
 is
 within
 provincial
 jurisdiction.
 

  Morgentaler
 argues
 that
 the
 regulation
 is
 in
 pith
 and
 substance
 related
 to
 crim
 law.
 
HELD:
 
  The
 appeal
 was
 dismissed
 –
 agreed
 with
 COA.
 
 
 
1. Provincial
  laws
  designating
  agricultural
  land
  were
  in
  pith
  and
  substance
  intra
  vires
  REASONS:
  Sopinka
 J
 
provincial
 jurisdiction,
 by
 virtue
 of
 ss.
 92(13),
 (16)
 and
 95
  • The
 province
 is
 limited
 to
 legislating
 with
 regards
 to
 the
 heads
 of
 power
 outlined
 in
 s.92.
 
2. But,
  its
  incidental
  effects
  of
  its
  application
  impaired
  the
  “core”
  of
  the
  federal
  jurisdiction
  • Classification
 of
 a
 law
 for
 purposes
 of
 federalism
 involve
 first
 identifying
 the
 matter
 of
 
over
 aeronautics
 under
 POGG
 [ability
 to
 determine
 location]
  the
 law
 (as
 evidenced
 by
 it’s
 purpose,
 legal
 and
 practical
 effects),
 and
 then
 assigning
 it
 to
 
3. Provincial
  law
  was
  deemed
  inapplicable
  by
  virtue
  of
  doctrine
  of
 
  Interjurisdictional
  one
 of
 the
 classes
 of
 subjects
 in
 respect
 to
 which
 the
 federal
 and
 provincial
 governments
 
immunity,
 under
 a
 two-­‐part
 test
 that
 was
 stated
 by
 McLachlin
 CJ:
  have
 legislative
 authority
 under
 ss.
 9
 &
 92
 of
 the
 constitution
 act.
 

  • Example
  of
  a
  colourable
  law:
  The
  court
  determined
  that
  the
  legislation
  on
  its
  face
 
st
1
 step
 
  Is
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 provincial
 law
 ...
 trenches
 on
 the
 protected
 “core”
 of
 a
  addresses
  matters
  that
  are
  within
  its
  jurisdiction,
 but
  are
  in
  pith
  and
  substance
  directed
 
federal
 competence.
 
 If
 It
 does…
  at
 matters
 outside
 its
 jurisdiction
 
nd
2
 step
 
  is
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 provincial
 law’s
 effect
 on
 the
 exercise
 of
 the
 protected
 
 
federal
 power
 is
 sufficiently
 serious
 to
 invoke
 the
 doctrine
 of
 interjurisdictional
  SCC
 DECISION:
 1998
 (not
 relevant
 for
 federal
 question)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dickson
 J
 
immunity.
  Section
 251
 of
 the
 Criminal
 Code
 did
 violate
 section
 7
 of
 the
 Charter.
 
 

  • S251
  violated
  in
  two
  ways:
  (1)
  disallowing
  women
  from
  access
  to
  safe
  medical
 
! While
 ARPALAA
 is
 valid
 provincial
 legislation,
 it
 is
 inapplicable
 to
 the
 extent
 that
 it
  procedure
 unless
 they
 meet
 criteria
 that
 is
 not
 their
 own.
 (2)
 Women
 must
 go
 through
 
impacts
 the
 federal
 power
 over
 aeronautics.
 The
 federal
 aeronautics
 jurisdiction
  process
 to
 meet
 criteria,
 causing
 delays
 and
 increased
 mortality
 rates
 and
 psychological
 
encompasses
 not
 only
 the
 regulation
 of
 the
 operation
 of
 aircraft
 and
 airports,
 but
 also
  impact.
 
 Claimed
 this
 was
 breach
 of
 fundamental
 justice.
 
 
the
 power
 to
 determine
 the
 location
 of
 airports
 and
 aerodromes.
 This
 power
 is
  • Held
 that
 it
 was
 not
 proportionate
 as
 per
 s1
 test.
 
 
essential
 to
 aeronautics
 and
 lies
 in
 core
 of
 federal
 aeronautic
 residual
 powers.
 
 
 

  REASONS:
 Dissent
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (McIntyre
 &
 La
 Forest)
 
!
 In
 those
 cases
 where
 the
 doctrine
 applies,
 it
 serves
 to
 protect
 the
 immunized
 core
 of
  • S251
  not
  violate
  charter
  s7.
  The
  Court
  did
  not
  have
  the
  exclusive
  right
  to
  decide
  the
 
federal
 power
 from
 any
 provincial
 impairment.
  substance
  of
  s.
  7
  (what
  rights
  the
  section
  protects.).
  Further,
  no
  positive
  right
  of
 

  abortion
  is
  found
  in
  Canada.
  Historically
  clear
  right
  to
  protect
  feotus
 –
  which
  was
  the
 
The
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 would
 permit
 Parliament
 to
 legislatively
 override
 provincial
  purpose
 of
 s251.
 
 
zoning
 legislation
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 establishing
 aerodromes
 
 
 
 

  • McIntyre
  concluded
  that
  s.
  251
  was
  within
  federal
  jurisdiction.
  He
  agreed
  with
  the
 
! The
 doctrine
 of
 federal
 paramountcy
 would
 not
 apply
 in
 this
 case
  Ontario
  Court
  of
  Appeal
  that
  the
  challenged
  legislation
  was
  not
  for
  the
  protection
  of
 
! Here,
 there
 was
 no
 operational
 conflict,
 since
 the
 federal
 legislation
 did
 not
 require
 the
  health
  and
  therefore
  it
  was
  not
  within
  provincial
  competence
  in
  such
  a
  way
  as
  to
 
construction
 of
 an
 aerodrome
 and
 it
 is
 possible
 to
 comply
 with
 both
 the
 provincial
 and
  preclude
 federal
 legislation.
 
federal
 legislation
 by
 demolishing
 the
 aerodrome.
 
 
! There
 was
 also
 no
 evidence
 establishing
 that
 a
 federal
 purpose
 regarding
 the
 location
 of
 
aerodromes
 was
 frustrated
 by
 the
 provincial
 legislation.
 
 
 

 
 
 Page
 18
 of
 86
 

 
[2]
 Paramountcy
 
 (3rd
 Doctrine
 of
 Federalism)
 
 

  (b)
 Frustration
 of
 federal
 purpose
 =
 provincial
 law
 frustrates
 the
 purpose
 of
 
 federal
 
 

 
 
 
 
 Problem
 of
 Inconsistency
 
  ! Where
 there
 are
 overlapping
 federal
 and
 provincial
 laws,
 and
 it
 is
 possible
 to
 
! Doctrine
  of
  implied
  repeal:
  where
  there
  are
  2
  inconsistent
  (or
  conflicting)
  comply
  with
  both
  laws
  ,
  but
  the
  effect
  of
  the
  provincial
  law
  would
  be
  to
 
frustrate
 the
 purpose
 of
 the
 federal
 law,
 that
 is
 also
 a
 case
 of
 inconsistency
 
 
statutes
 the
 later
 is
 deemed
 be
 have
 impliedly
 repealed
 the
 earlier
 [UK]
 
! Step:
 determine
 purpose
 of
 federal,
 and
 effect
 of
 provincial
 on
 federal
 law.
 
! The
  doctrine
  applies
  in
  Canada
  to
  resolve
  conflicts
  between
  laws
  enacted
  by
 

 
the
 same
 legislative
 body.
 But
 in
 a
 federal
 system
 there
 is
 also
 the
 possibility
 of
 
conflict
 between
 the
 statutes
 of
 different
 legislative
 bodies
 within
 federation.
 
  ! ROTHMAN,
 BENSON
 &
 HEDGES
 INC
 v
 SASKATCHEWAN
 2005:
 

  • Tobacco
  Act
  (federal)
  prohibited
  the
  promotion
  of
  tobacco,
  except
  as
 
! Doctrine
  of
  implied
  repeal
  is
  of
  no
  help
  in
  resolving
  a
  federal-­‐
  provincial
  expressly
 authorized,
 and
 permitted
 retailers
 to
 display
 tobacco
 and
 post
 
conflict
  because
  neither
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  nor
  a
  provincial
  Legislature
  signs
 indicating
 availability/price
 
 
has
 the
 power
 to
 repeal
 either
 expressly
 or
 impliedly
 each
 other’s
 laws
 
  • Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 (Saskatchewan)
 banned
 all
 advertising,
 displays
 and
 

  promotions
 of
 tobacco
 in
 any
 premises
 in
 which
 persons
 under
 18
 years
 
! RULE
  that
  has
  been
  adopted
  by
  the
  courts
  is
  the
  doctrine
  of
  “federal
  are
 permitted,
 including
 retail
 stores
 
 
paramountcy”:
  where
  there
  are
  inconsistent
  (or
  conflicting)
  federal
  and
  • This
  meant
  that
  a
  retailer
  could
  comply
  with
  both
  laws,
  either
  by
  refusing
 
provincial
 laws,
 it
 is
 the
 federal
 law
 which
 prevails
 
  to
 admit
 persons
 under
 18
 or
 by
 not
 displaying
 tobacco
 products
 
 

  • Court
 held:
 
 that
 the
 provincial
 law
 did
 not
 frustrate
 the
 purpose
 (national
 
Applies
 where
 there
 is
 a
 fed/prov
 law
 are
 
 (1)
 each
 valid,
 and
 (2)
 inconsistent
 
  health)
 of
 the
 federal
 law,
 and
 therefore,
 was
 not
 rendered
 inoperative
 by
 
! Validity
 depends
 upon:
 does
 the
 “matter”
 (or
 pith
 and
 substance)
 of
 the
 law
  paramountcy
 
 
come
  within
  the
  “classes
  of
  subjects”
  (or
  heads
  of
  power)
  allocated
  to
  the
 
 
enacting
 Parliament
 or
 Legislature?
 If
 one
 law
 fails
 this
 test,
 then
 the
 problem
  Negative
 Implication
 
 
is
 resolved
 without
 recourse
 to
 the
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 
  (a) Covering
 the
 field
 
 [Prov
 law
 supplements
 or
 duplicates
 Fed,
 inapplicable?
 No]
 
! It
  is
  only
  if
  each
  law
  independently
  passes
  the
  test
  of
  validity
  that
  it
  is
  ! Narrow
  interpretation
  of
  paramountcy
  led
  to
  rejection
  of
  the
  ‘covering
  the
 
necessary
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 laws
 are
 inconsistent
 
  field
  method’:
  a
  federal
  law
  may
  be
  interpreted
  as
  covering
  the
  field
  and
 

  precluding
 any
 provincial
 laws
 in
 that
 field,
 even
 if
 they
 are
 not
 contradictory
 
nd
2
 Requirement:
 Definition
 of
 Inconsistency
 
 (or
 conflicting)
  of
 the
 federal.
 In
 Canada,
 this
 has
 been
 rejected
 (O’Grady
 v
 Sparling)
 

 
 
 
 Wide
 definition
 "
 
  result
  in
  defeat
  of
  provincial
  laws
  in
  ‘fields’
  covered
  by
  (b) Express
 extension
 of
 paramountcy
 
federal
 law
 [seen
 as
 judicial
 activism]
  ! Can,
 for
 example,
 Parliament
 extend
 the
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 beyond
 the
 

 
 
 
 Narrow
 definition
 "
  allow
  provincial
  laws
  to
  survive
  so
  long
  as
  they
  don’t
  case
 of
 an
 actual
 conflict
 in
 operation?
 Yes.
 
 
expressly
 contradict
 fed
 law
 [seen
 as
 judicial
 restraint]
 
 

  Overlap
 and
 Duplication
 
 
Express
 Contradiction
 
 =
 one
 law
 expressly
 contradicts
 the
 other
  (a) Constitutional
 significance
 
 
! Only
 express
 contradiction
 suffices
 to
 invoke
 the
 paramountcy
 doctrine
 
  ! Argument
  against
  duplication
  of
  federal
  and
  provincial
  laws
  can
  have
  little
 

  weight
 once
 overlapping
 is
 admitted
 
 
(a)
 Impossibility
 of
 dual
 compliance
  ! Duplication
 is
 not
 a
 test
 of
 inconsistency
 (Multiple
 Access
 Case)
 
o For
  laws
  which
  directly
  regulate
  conduct,
  an
  express
  contradiction
  (b) Double
 criminal
 liability
 
 
occurs
 when
 it
 is
 impossible
 for
 a
 person
 to
 obey
 both
 laws
 
  ! The
  existence
  of
  overlapping
  or
  duplicative
  penal
  provisions
  raises
  the
 
o Example-­‐
  where
  a
  federal
  law
  stipulates
  that
  Japanese
  citizens
  in
  possibility
 that
 a
 person
 may
 be
 liable
 to
 conviction
 under
 both
 a
 federal
 law
 
Canada
  are
  to
  be
  afforded
  the
  same
  employment
  opportunities
  as
  and
 a
 provincial
 law
 for
 the
 same
 conduct
 
Canadian
  citizens,
  and
  a
  provincial
  law
  stipulates
  that
  Japanese
  are
  ! There
  is
  nothing
  in
  paramountcy
  doctrine
  which
  precludes
  multiple
 
not
  to
  be
  employed
  in
  the
  mines,
  another
  express
  contradiction
  prosecutions
 or
 convictions
 under
 federal
 and
 provincial
 laws
 
 
occurs
 
 
  (c) Double
 civil
 liability
 
 

 
 Page
 19
 of
 86
 

 
! Double
 civil
 liability
 is
 also
 a
 possibility
 under
 overlapping
 or
 duplicative
 federal
  Paramountcy
 Argument:
 
and
 provincial
 laws
 
  ! The
 doctrine
 of
 federal
 paramountcy
 dictates
 that
 where
 there
 is
 an
 
! Like
 the
 possibility
 of
 double
 criminal
 liability,
 the
 issue
 of
 double
 civil
 liability
  inconsistency
 b/w
 validly
 enacted
 but
 overlapping
 provincial
 and
 federal
 
did
 not
 need
 to
 be
 resolved
 by
 the
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 
  legislation,
 the
 provincial
 legislation
 is
 inoperative
 to
 the
 extent
 of
 the
 

  inconsistency.
 
 
Effect
 of
 Inconsistency
 
  ! Provincial
 legislation
 that
 displaces
 or
 frustrates
 Parliament’s
 legislative
 
! Once
 it
 has
 been
 determined
 that
 a
 federal
 law
 is
 inconsistent
 with
 a
 provincial
  purpose
 is
 also
 inconsistent
 for
 the
 purposes
 of
 the
 doctrine.
 
 
law,
  the
  doctrine
  of
  federal
  paramountcy
  stipulates
  that
  the
  provincial
  law
 
must
 yield
 to
 the
 federal
 law
 
 
 (a)
 Impossibility
 of
 a
 Dual
 Compliance?
 Nope
 
! Most
 accurate
 way
 of
 describing
 the
 effect
 on
 the
 provincial
 law
 is
 to
 say
 that
  ! It
 is
 plain
 that
 dual
 compliance
 is
 possible
 in
 this
 case.
 A
 retailer
 can
 easily
 
it
 is
 rendered
 inoperative
 to
 the
 extent
 of
 inconsistency
 
  comply
 with
 both
 s.
 30
 of
 the
 Tobacco
 Act
 and
 s.
 6
 of
 The
 Tobacco
 Control
 
! Notice
  that
  the
  paramountcy
  doctrine
  applies
  only
  to
  the
  extent
  of
  the
  Act
 in
 one
 of
 two
 ways:
 by
 admitting
 no
 one
 under
 18
 years
 of
 age
 on
 to
 the
 
inconsistency
 
  premises
 or
 by
 not
 displaying
 tobacco
 or
 tobacco-­‐related
 products.
 
o The
  doctrine
  will
  not
  affect
  the
  operation
  of
  those
  parts
  of
  the
  ! For
 an
 impossibility
 of
 dual
 compliance
 to
 exist,
 s.
 30
 of
 the
 
 Tobacco
 Act
 
provincial
 law
 which
 are
 not
 inconsistent
 with
 the
 federal
 law,
 unless
  would
 have
 to
 require
 retailers
 to
 do
 what
 s.
 6
 of
 The
 
 Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 
the
  inconsistent
  parts
  are
  inseparably
  linked
  up
  with
  the
  consistent
  prohibits—i.e.,
 to
 display
 tobacco
 or
 tobacco-­‐related
 products
 to
 young
 
parts
 
  persons.
 
! Temporal
 limitation
 on
 the
 paramountcy
 doctrine.
 It
 will
 affect
 the
 operation
 
 
of
 the
 provincial
 law
 only
 so
 long
 as
 the
 inconsistent
 federal
 law
 is
 in
 force.
 
 
 (b)
 Frustration
 of
 Legislative
 Purpose?
 
o If
  the
  federal
  law
  is
  repealed,
  the
  provincial
  law
  will
  automatically
  ! Section
 6
 of
 the
 Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 does
 NOT
 frustrate
 the
 legislative
 
“revive”
 (come
 back
 into
 operation)
 without
 any
 reenactment
 by
 the
  purpose
 underlying
 s
 30
 of
 the
 federal
 Act.
 Both
 the
 general
 purpose
 of
 the
 
provincial
 Legislature
 
  Tobacco
 Act
 (to
 address
 a
 national
 public
 health
 problem)
 and
 the
 specific
 

  purpose
 of
 s.
 30
 (to
 circumscribe
 the
 Tobacco
 Act’s
 general
 prohibition
 on
 
promotion
 of
 tobacco
 products
 set
 out
 in
 s.
 19)
 remain
 fulfilled
 

 REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 PARAMOUNTCY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .
 
 

 
ROTHMANS,
 BENSON
 &
 HEDGES
 INC.
 v
 SASKATCHEWAN
 2005
  Therefore:
 
  There
 is
 no
 inconsistency
 between
 s.
 6
 of
 The
 Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 and
 s.
 
FACTS:
 
 Respondent
 of
 company
 sought
 a
 declaration
 that
 s.
 6
 of
 the
 Saskatchewan
  30
  of
  the
  Tobacco
  Act
  that
  would
  render
  the
  former
  inoperative
  pursuant
 
Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 is,
 by
 virtue
 of
 the
 paramountcy
 doctrine
 is
 inoperative
  to
 the
 doctrine
 of
 federal
 legislative
 paramountcy
 
in
 light
 of
 s.
 30
 of
 the
 federal
 Tobacco
 Act.
 Section
 30
 allows
 retailers
 to
 
display
 tobacco
 and
 
 signs
 indicating
 the
 availability
 and
 price
 of
 tobacco,
 
 
while
 s.
 6
 bans
 all
 advertising,
 display
 of
 tobacco-­‐related
 products
 in
 any
 
 
premises
 in
 which
 persons
 under
 18
 years
 of
 age
 are
 permitted.
 
 
 
 

 
ISSUE:
 
  Whether
 s.
 6
 of
 The
 Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 is
 sufficiently
 inconsistent
 with
 s.
 
 
30
 of
 the
 Tobacco
 Act
 so
 as
 to
 be
 rendered
 inoperative
 through
 the
 
 
paramountcy
 doctrine.
 2
 questions
 arise:
 1.
 can
 a
 person
 simultaneously
 
comply
 with
 s.
 6
 of
 The
 Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 and
 s.
 30
 of
 the
 Tobacco
 Act?
 2.
 
 
 
does
 s.
 6
 of
 The
 Tobacco
 Control
 Act
 frustrate
 Parliament’s
 purpose
 in
 
 
enacting
 s.
 30
 of
 the
 Tobacco
 Act?
 
 

 
HELD:
 The
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 does
 not
 apply.
 
 
 

 
 

 
 Page
 20
 of
 86
 

 
[3]
 Property
 &
 Civil
 Rights
 –
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1867
 S
 92(13)
  Regulating
 Business
 in
 General:
 
 

 
! The
 insurance
 cases
 discussed
 established
 the
 proposition
 that
 the
 regulation
 
Importance
 of
 Property
 and
 Civil
 Rights
  of
  business
  was
  ordinarily
  a
  matter
  within
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  in
  the
 
! S
  92(13),
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
  confers
  upon
  the
  provincial
  Legislatures
  the
 
province
 
 
power
 to
 make
 laws
 in
 relation
 to
 “property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province”
 

 
! The
  law
  relating
  to
  property,
  succession,
  the
  family,
  contracts
  and
  torts
  is
  EXCEPTIONS
 to
 this
 proposition:
 
mainly
 within
 provincial
 jurisdiction
 
 under
 s
 92(13)
  o Some
  industries
  fall
  within
  federal
  jurisdiction
  because
  they
  are
 
! HOGG:
 the
 most
 important
 of
 the
 provincial
 heads
 of
 power
  enumerated
  in
  s
  s.91,
  such
  as
  navigation
  and
  shipping
  (s91(10))
  and
 
! Distinct
 from
 civil
 liberties
  banking
  (s91(15)),
  or
  because
  they
  are
  excepted
  from
  s
  92(10),
  namely,
 
! Civil
  rights
  referred
  to
  in
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
  comprise
  primarily
  interprovincial
  or
  international
  transportation
  and
  communications
 
proprietary,
  contractual
  or
  tortious
  rights;
  these
  rights
  exist
  when
  a
  legal
  rule
 
undertakings
 (s92(10)(a)
 and
 (b)
 and
 works
 declared
 to
 be
 for
 the
 general
 
stipulates
  that
  in
  certain
  circumstances
  one
  person
  is
  entitled
  to
  something
 
advantage
 of
 Canada
 (s.
 92(10)(c)
 
from
 another
 
  o Some
  industries
  have
  been
  held
  to
  fall
  within
  federal
  jurisdiction
  under
 
! But
 civil
 liberties
 exist
 when
 there
 is
 an
 absence
 of
 legal
 rules:
 whatever
 is
 not
  the
 peace,
 order,
 and
 good
 government
 power,
 namely,
 aeronautics
 and
 
forbidden
 is
 a
 civil
 liberty
 
 (as
 per
 USA).
 
  the
 production
 of
 atomic
 energy
 
 

  o Other
  federal
  powers
  confer
  a
  limited
  power
  to
  regulate
  business,
  for
 
Insurance
  [not
 specifically
 characterized
 in
 s91/92]
  B/c
  of
  unequal
  field
  b/w
  insurers
  "
 
  example,
  trade
  and
  commerce
  (s91(2)),
  taxation
  (s91(3)),
  interest
 
insured,
 governments
 regulated
 early
 on.
  (s91(19)),
  the
  criminal
  law
  (s91(27))
  and
  peace,
  order
  and
  good
 
(a) Provincial
 power
  government
 (s91
 opening
 words)
 
! Leading
 Case-­‐
 CITIZENS’
 INSURANCE
 CO.
 v.
 PARSONS
 (1881):
 
 
o Privy
  Council
  upheld
  an
  Ontario
  statute
  which
  required
  that
  certain
  ! The
  gaps
  in
  federal
  power
  are
  very
  important
  and
  extensive:
  ie.:
  the
  trade
 
conditions
  be
  included
  in
  every
  policy
  of
  fire
  insurance
  entered
  into
  in
  and
 commerce
 power
 will
 authorize:
 
Ontario:
  regulation
  of
  the
  terms
  of
  contracts
  came
  within
  property
  and
  o A
  federal
  prohibition
  of
  the
  importation
  of
  margarine,
  but
  not
  a
 
civil
  rights
  in
  the
  province
  (s92(13),
  and
  did
  not
  come
  within
  trade
  and
  prohibition
 of
 its
 manufacture
 or
 sale;
 
 
commerce
 (s91(2)
  o The
  interest
  power
  may
  be
  used
  to
  control
  interest
  rates,
  but
  not
  other
 

  terms
 of
 loans.
 
! Leading
 Case:
 RE
 INSURANCE
 REFERENCE:
 
  o Trade
 Commerce
 regulates
 interprovincial
 marketing
 but
 not
 local.
 
 
o Fed
  statute
  prohibiting
  company
  from
  insuring
  unless
  licensed
  by
  Fed
  o The
  gaps
  in
  federal
  power
  are
  covered
  by
  the
  provincial
  power
  over
 
minister
 of
 
 Finance.
 Federal
 gov’t
 argued
 it
 was
 trade
 and
 commerce
 s91.
  property
 and
 civil
 rights
 
 
o The
  regulation
  of
  a
  particular
  industry
  comes
  within
  property
  and
  civil
  ! The
 point
 is
 that
 the
 regulation
 of
 an
 industry,
 or
 the
 more
 general
 regulation
 
rights
  in
  the
  province,
  even
  when
  the
  industry
  and
  particular
  firms
  of
  prices
  or
  profits
  or
  combinations,
  has
  traditionally
  been
  regarded
  by
  the
 
extended
  beyond
  the
  boundaries
  of
  any
  one
  province
  (Insurance
  courts,
  not
  in
  terms
  of
  its
  ultimate,
  often
  nation-­‐
  wide
  objectives,
  but
  in
  terms
 
Reference;
 Parsons)
  of
  its
  immediate
  impact
  upon
  freedom
  of
  contract
  and
  property
  rights.
  In
 

  these
 terms,
 of
 course,
 restraints
 on
 business
 fall
 into
 the
 category
 of
 property
 
(b) Federal
 power
  and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 
 
! Despite
 all
 these
 setbacks
 in
 the
 courts,
 the
 federal
 government
 continues
 to
 
 
regulate
  a
  substantial
  part
  of
  the
  insurance
  industry
  under
  statutes
  covering
  Regulating
 Professions
 and
 Trade:
 provincial
 property/civil
 rights
 
British
  and
  foreign
  companies,
  federally-­‐
  incorporated
  companies
  and,
  on
  a
  ! Regulations
 of
 professions
 and
 trade
 typically
 take
 the
 form
 of
 restrictions
 on
 
voluntary
 basis,
 provincially-­‐
 incorporated
 companies
 
  entry,
  coupled
  with
  rules
  of
  conduct,
  which
  often
  include
  fee-­‐
  setting,
  and
 
! Current
  federal
  statutes
  includes
  preambles
  which
  include
  that
  the
  powers
  administration
  by
  a
  governing
  body.
  Such
  regulations
  is
  no
  different
  for
 
over
  trade
  and
  commerce,
  aliens
  and
  insolvency
  are
  relied
  upon
  as
  supporting
  constitutional
  purposes
  than
  that
  of
  other
  industries,
  and
  comes
  within
 
their
 constitutionality
 
  property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 
 

 
 
 Page
 21
 of
 86
 

 
Labour
 Relations
 
 
 
(a) Provincial
 power
  Marketing
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [reason
 for
 regulate:
 interests
 consumers,
 quality,
 inspection]
 
! Regulation
 of
 labour
 relations
 over
 most
 of
 the
 economy
 is
 within
 provincial
  (a) Federal
 power
 
competence
 under
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 (Toronto
 Electric-­‐
  ! Early
 attempts
 by
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 to
 enact
 marketing
 schemes
 under
 
Snider
 leading
 case)
  the
  trade
  and
  commerce
  power
  (s.91(2))
  were
  struck
  down
  by
  the
  Privy
 
o Industrial
  peace
  (e.g.
  prevention
  of
  strikes,
  lockouts)
  falls
  within
  Council-­‐
  strong
  presumption
  that
  any
  interference
  with
  contracts
  was
  a
 
property
  and
  civil
  rights.
  Here
  the
  federal
  act
  required
  certain
  matter
 within
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 
 
procedures
  for
  settling
  disputes
  in
  all
  areas
  –
  including
  provincial
  ! But
 the
 Canadian
 courts
 have
 interpreted
 the
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 
areas.
 Held
 unconstitutional
 
 
  more
 liberally
 in
 recent
 times.
 
 Eg.
 Trans-­‐Canada/provincial
 oil
 regulation.
 
 
! Laws
  imposing
  labour
  standards
  came
  within
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  in
  the
 
 
province.
  (b) Provincial
 power
 
! Other
  decisions,
  such
  as
  Unemployment
  Insurance
  Reference;
  Oil,
  Chemical
  ! Contracts
  of
  sale
  and
  purchase
  are
  prima
  facie
  matters
  within
  “property
 
Workers,
  insist
  that
  the
  modification
  of
  the
  employment
  relationship
  is
  and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 &
 therefore
 amenable
 to
 province
 legislation
 
 
exclusively
  within
  property
  and
  civil
  rights,
  notwithstanding
  the
  important
  ! There
  is
  no
  doubt
  that
  under
  s92(13)
  the
  provinces
  have
  the
  power
  to
 
federal
 aspects
 presented
 by
 the
 relief
 of
 nation-­‐
 wide
 unemployment
 
  regulate
 INTERPROVINCIAL
 TRADE:
 
 

  ! The
  question
  is:
  to
  what
  extent
  should
  a
  province
  be
  permitted
  to
  burden
 
(b) Federal
 power
  INTERprovincial
 trade
 in
 the
 course
 of
 regulating
 INTRAprovincial
 trade?
 
! Despite
 affirmations
 of
 provincial
 power
 over
 labour
 relations,
 there
 is
 still
 a
 
 
substantial
  federal
  presence
  in
  the
  field.
  After
  Toronto
  Electric-­‐
  Snider,
  (i)
 Shannon
 v.
 Lower
 Mainland
 Dairy
 Products
 Board
 (1938):
 
 
changed
 act
 to
 specify
 any
 industry
 covered
 under
 Federal
 power.
 
  Provincial
 scheme
 for
 compulsory
 marketing
 of
 milk
 upheld
 and
 applied
 to
 
! Federal
  Parliament
  could
  regulate
  labour
  relations
  in
  those
  industries
  which
  milk
  sold
  in
  province,
  including
  milk
  made
  OUTSIDE
  province.
  That
  decision
 
are
  within
  federal
  legislative
  competence
  (whether
  in
  the
  public
  or
  private
  was
  followed
  by
  Carnation
  Co
  v
  Quebec,
  which
  decided
  that,
  if
  the
 
sector)
  marketing
 law
 merely
 AFFECTS
 interprovincial
 trade,
 that
 doesn’t
 mean
 the
 
o Stevedores
 Reference:
 SCC
 held
 that
 the
 federal
 law
 was
 valid
 and
 that
 it
  law
 is
 invalid
 (in
 this
 case,
 Carnation
 shipped
 the
 bulk
 of
 its
 product
 outside
 
was
  applicable
  to
  the
  stevedores
  because
  their
  work
  of
  loading
  and
  the
 province,
 and
 the
 SCC
 nevertheless
 held
 that
 the
 marketing
 law
 was
 “in
 
unloading
 ships
 was
 an
 essential
 part
 of
 navigation
 and
 shipping
 
  relation
 to”
 intraprovincial
 trade)
 
o Since
 this
 decision
 it’s
 clear
 that
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 has
 the
 power
 to
 
 
regulate
  employment
  in
  works,
  undertakings
  or
  businesses
  within
  the
  (ii)
 Manitoba
 Egg
 Reference
 (1971):
 
 
legislative
 authority
 of
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 
  SCC
 struck
 down
 a
 provincial
 scheme
 to
 regulate
 the
 marketing
 of
 eggs.
 The
 

  scheme
  applied
  to
  all
  eggs
  sold
  in
  Manitoba,
  including
  eggs
  produced
 
! The
  fact
  that
  employees
  are
  engaged
  in
  constructing
  a
  runway
  at
  an
  airport
  elsewhere.
  Court
  said
  that
  statute
  regulated
  marketing
  and
  not
  only
 
will
  not
  sweep
  them
  into
  federal
  jurisdiction,
  if
  their
  work
  is
  simply
  affected
  interprovincial
  trade,
  but
  it
  AIMED
  at
  regulating
  such
  trade
  and
  so
 
construction,
  unrelated
  to
  the
  tasks
  of
  design
  or
  operation
  that
  would
  be
  an
  it
  was
  invalid
  as
  an
  attempt
  to
  regulate
  such
  trade
  (Hogg
  thinks
  this
  is
  an
 
integral
  part
  of
  aeronautics.
  Same
  goes
  for
  hotel
  (Empress
  Case)
  that
  is
  not
  odd
 case
 and
 difficult
 to
 see
 why
 it
 didn’t
 follow
 Shannon)
 
connected
 to
 railway
 services.
 
 
 

  (iii)
 Re
 Agricultural
 Products
 Marketing
 Act
 (1978):
 
 
! The
  Court
  approaches
  these
  cases
  on
  the
  basis
  that
  provincial
  competence
  Upheld
  scheme
  regulating
  national
  marketing
  of
  eggs
  (which
  included
 
over
 labour
 relation
 is
 the
 RULE,
 and
 federal
 competence
 is
 the
 EXCEPTON
 
  federal
  and
  provincial
  acts).
  SCC
  upheld
  the
  scheme,
  and
  held
  that
  the
 
o Federal
 competence
 exists
 only
 where
 it
 is
 found
 that
 the
 work
 performed
  provincial
  statute
  could
  impose
  production
  quotas
  on
  all
  producers
 
by
  the
  employees
  is
  an
  integral
  part
  of
  an
  undertaking
  within
  federal
  irrespective
 of
 the
 destination
 of
 their
 output
 (this
 part
 is
 important).
 
 
jurisdiction,
 and
 that
 finding
 depends
 upon
 “legislative
 authority
 over
 the
 
 
operation,
 not
 over
 the
 person
 of
 the
 employer”
  When
 the
 law
 is
 aimed
 at
 conservation
 purposes,
 Spooner
 Oils
 (1933):
 there
 is
 NO
 

  doubt
 that
 the
 province
 has
 power.
 Province
 has
 power
 over
 conserving
 lands.
 
 
 Page
 22
 of
 86
 

 
Securities
 Regulation
 
  (c) Heritage
 property
 
 
(a) Provincial
 power
  ! In
 Kitkatla
 Band
 v.
 British
 Columbia
 (2002),
 the
 SCC
 held
 that
 the
 protection
 
! Province
 have
 the
 power
 to
 regulate
 the
 trade
 in
 corporate
 securities.
 This
  of
  heritage
  or
  cultural
  property
  was
  within
  provincial
  jurisdiction
  under
 
is
 a
 matter
 within
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 
  property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 (s92(13)
 
! Provinces
 have
 regulatory
 regimes
 which
 establish
 securities
 commissions,
 
 
and
  which
  provide
  for
  the
  licensing
  of
  brokers
  and
  the
  regulation
  of
  the
  Consumer
 Protection:
 
market
 for
 corporate
 securities
 
  • Many
 cases
 above
 deal
 with
 consumer
 protection.
 Demonstrates
 that
 most
 of
 it
 
! One
  exception
  to
  the
  generality
  of
  provincial
  power
  over
  the
  securities
  is
  under
  provincial
  property
  civil
  rights:
  for
  example,
  provincial
  restrictions
  on
 
industry:
  province
  has
  no
  power
  to
  confer
  upon
  a
  provincial
  agency
  advertising
 to
 children
 referenced
 “in
 relation
 to
 consumer
 protection
 (Irwin
 T)
 
discretionary
 power
 over
 the
 issue
 of
 securities
 by
 a
 federally-­‐
 incorporated
  • The
 phrase
 ‘consumer
 protection’
 is
 too
 broad
 and
 vague
 to
 serve
 as
 a
 ‘matter’
 
company,
  because
  the
  capacity
  to
  raise
  capital
  is
  an
  essential
  attribute
  of
  for
 the
 purposes
 of
 the
 federal
 distribution
 of
 powers.
 
 
corporate
 status
 
  • It
  must
  be
  broken
  down
  into
  smaller
  more
  distinct
  concepts
  before
  placed
  in
 
! See
 Reference
 Re
 Securities
 Act
 (2011)
 below
 
  correct
 constitutional
 slot.
 
 

 
 
Property
 
  Summary
 of
 Principles
 
(a) General
 
  (1)
 
 
 The
 regulation
 of
 a
 particular
 industry
 or
 business
 falls
 within
 the
 property
 and
 
! Creation
 of
 property
 rights,
 their
 transfer
 and
 their
 general
 characteristic
  civil
 rights
 power
 (Insurance
 Reference;
 Parsons)
 
are
  within
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  in
  the
  province.
  Thus,
  the
  law
  of
  real
 
 
personal
  property
  and
  all
  its
  various
  derivatives,
  such
  as
  landlord
  and
  (2)
 
  The
  regulation
  of
  contracts
  falls
  under
  the
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  power
 
tenant,
  trusts
  and
  wills,
  succession
  on
  intestacy,
  conveyancing
  and
  land
  (Parsons)
 
use
 planning
 are
 within
 provincial
 power
 
 
 
! Difficulty
  has
  arisen
  in
  cases
  where
  a
  province
  has
  sought
  to
  control
  the
  (3)
 
 
  The
  regulation
  of
  labour
  relations,
  as
  a
  general
  rule,
  falls
  within
  the
  property
 
ownership
  or
  use
  of
  property
  in
  order
  to
  accomplish
  a
  non-­‐
  proprietary
  and
 civil
 rights
 power
 (Toronto
 Electric
 etc),
 although
 federal
 government
 can
 
(exclusive)
 objective
 which
 it
 could
 not
 accomplish
 by
 more
 direct
 means:
  regulate
  labour
  relations
  which
  are
  a
  required
  part
  of
  a
  federal
  undertaking)
 

  (Stevedores
 Reference
 etc)
 
Switzman
 v
 Elbling:
 a
 provincial
 law
 which
 prohibited
 the
 use
 of
 a
 house
 to
 
 
propagate
  communism
  was
  characterized
  as
  either
  a
  (4)
 
 
  The
  regulation
  of
  INTRAprovincial
  trade
  falls
  within
  the
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
 
criminal
 law
 or
 law
 in
 relation
 to
 speech,
 not
 property
  power,
  even
  though
  it
  may
  have
  interprovincial
  effects
  (Shannon
  v
  Lower
 

  Mainland
  Dairy);
  to
  be
  valid,
  however,
  the
  legislation
  cannot
  be
  aimed
  at
 
Bedard
 v
 Dawson:
 
  a
 provincial
 law
 which
 prohibited
 the
 use
 of
 a
 house
 as
  regulating
  interprovincial
  marketing
  (Manitoba
  Egg
  Reference).
  But
  the
 
a
  “disorderly
  house”
  was
  characterized
  as
  a
  property
  provinces
 can
 regulate
 production
 schemes,
 regardless
 of
 whether
 the
 output
 
law,
  and
  not
  as
  a
  mere
  supplement
  to
  Criminal
  Code
  is
  interprovincial
  (since
  that
  is
  generally
  a
  provincial
  matter)
  (Re
  Agricultural
 
offences
 in
 respect
 of
 disorderly
 houses”
  Products),
 so
 long
 as
 the
 majority
 of
 the
 product
 is
 not
 being
 exported
 (Central
 

  Canada
 Potash)
 
(b) Foreign
 ownership
 
 
! The
 question
 whether
 a
 province
 can
 control
 foreign
 ownership
 of
 land
 was
  (5)
 
 
  Where
  production
  controls
  are
  imposed
  for
  physical
  conservation
  purposes,
 
litigated
  in
  Morgan
  v
  A-­‐G
  P.E.I
  in
  which
  the
  SCC
  upheld
  a
  statute
  of
  P.E.I
  then
 the
 matter
 falls
 within
 the
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 power
 (Spooner
 Oils)
 
which
  provided
  that
  “no
  person
  who
  is
  not
  a
  resident
  of
  the
  province”
  could
 
 
acquire
  holdings
  of
  real
  property
  of
  more
  than
  a
  specified
  size
 except
  within
  (6)
 
 
  The
  creation
  of
  property
  rights,
  their
  transfer
  and
  general
  characteristics
  are
 
the
 permission
 of
 the
 provincial
 cabinet.
  normally
  within
  the
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  power.
  Where
  a
  province
  seeks
  to
 
o The
  qualification
  for
  unrestricted
  landholding
  was
  residence,
  not
  control
  ownership
  or
  usage
  of
  property
  in
  order
  to
  accomplish
  a
  NON
 
citizenship,
 and
 so
 the
 prohibition
 applied
 to
 non-­‐
 resident
 citizens
 as
  proprietary
  objective,
  then
  there
  is
  a
  concern
  that
  it
  might
  be
  trampling
  on
 
well
 as
 non-­‐
 resident
 aliens
  another
 head
 of
 power
 (e.g.
 criminal
 law)
 (e.g.
 Switzman)
 
 Page
 23
 of
 86
 

 

 
REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 PROPERTY
 &
 CIVIL
 RIGHTS
  REFERENCE
 RE
 SECURITIES
 ACT
 2011
 

 
 
CITIZENS’
 INSURANCE
 CO.
 v.
 PARSONS
 [1881]
  FACTS:
 
  Canada
  (Federal)
  proposed
  to
  pass
  a
  law
  to
  nationally
  regulate
  the
 
FACTS:
 
  Citizens
 Insurance,
 a
 federally
 incorporated
 company,
 did
 not
 comply
 with
  Canadian
 securities
 industry.
 (via
 central
 authority).
 
 
provincial
  legislation
  to
  print
  variations
  in
  the
  provincial
  standard
  in
 
 Historically
 is
 solely
 regulated
 by
 provincial
 and
 territorial
 governments.
 
conspicuous
 type,
 which
 resulted
 in
 Parson’s
 failing
 to
 disclose
 information,
 
 
which
 in
 turn
 made
 his
 insurance
 claim
 invalid.
  ISSUE:
 
  At
  issue
  was
  the
  question
  of
  whether
  the
  regulation
  of
  the
  securities
 
ARGUEMENTS:
 
  industry
 is
 a
 valid
 exercise
 of
 the
 federal
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power?
 NO
 

 
• Insurance
  Company:
  As
  a
  federally
  regulated
  company,
  they
  should
  only
  be
 
ARGUE:
  Arguments
  focused
  on
  the
  applicability
  of
  the
  five
  criteria
  for
  such
  an
 
regulated
 by
 trade
 and
 commerce
 legislation,
 a
 federal
 head
 of
 power
 
analysis
 that
 were
 previously
 identified
 in
 General
 Motors
 of
 Canada
 Ltd.
 
• Parsons:
 Legislation
 falls
 within
 “Property/Civil,”
 a
 provincial
 head
 of
 power
 
v.
 City
 National
 Leasing.
 Federal
 Govt
 argued
 this
 is
 of
 national
 concern.
 
 

 

 
ISSUE:
 
 
  Was
  the
  provincial
  legislation
  ultra
  vires,
  making
  Parson’s
  failed
  claim
 
HELD:
 
  Proposed
 Act
 is
 not
 valid
 under
 the
 general
 branch
 of
 the
 federal
 power
 
illegitimate?
 NO
 
to
 regulate
 trade
 and
 commerce.
 It
 focused
 on
 the
 day-­‐to-­‐day
 regulation
 
REASONING:
 
of
 all
 aspects
 of
 contracts
 for
 securities
 within
 the
 provinces,
 including
 all
 
! The
  Act
  was
  NOT
  ultravires
  the
  power
  of
  the
  enacting
  government.
  The
  act
 
aspects
 of
 public
 protection
 and
 professional
 competences.
 Therefore
 the
 
regulated
  contracts,
  and
  contracts
  falls
  under
  the
  head
  of
  property
  and
  civil
 
Pith
  and
  substance
  of
  securities
  industry
  regulation
  is
  a
  matter
  of
 
rights.
 
property
 and
 civil
 rights
 
 

 

 
There
 are
 two
 important
 ratios
 to
 note
 about
 this
 case:
 
• Proposed
 Act
 overreaches
 genuine
 national
 concerns.
 
 Yet,
 does
 not
 justify
 
1)
 
  There
 is
 a
 limitation
 on
 s.
 91(2):
 s.
 91(2),
 dealing
 with
 trade
 and
 commerce,
 
a
 wholesale
 takeover
 of
 the
 regulation
 of
 the
 securities
 industry,
 which
 is
 
is
 limited
 to
 the
 following
 areas:
 
the
 ultimate
 consequence
 of
 the
 proposed
 federal
 legislation.
 
• International
 Trade
 and
 Interprovincial
 Trade;
 and
 

 
•
 Regulation
 of
 Trade
 affecting
 whole
 Dominion
 
• Adopted
 Parsons
 reasoning
 (ie,
 limit
 scope
 of
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 
o These
  are
  referred
  to
  as
  the
  two
  branches
  of
  the
  trade
  and
 
to
  avoid
  draining
  provincial
  powers
  over
  civil
  law).
  Federalism
  demands
 
commerce
 power
 (discussed
 below)
 
that
 a
 balance
 be
 struck,
 a
 balance
 that
 allows
 both
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 
o Section
 91(2)
 should
 not
 be
 read
 to
 include
 the
 power
 to
 regulate
 
and
 the
 provincial
 legislatures
 to
 act
 effectively
 in
 their
 respective
 spheres
 
by
 legislation
 the
 contracts
 of
 a
 particular
 business
 or
 trade,
 such
 
o Held
  that
  proposed
  law
  did
  not
  meet
  the
  last
  3
  General
  Motors
 
as
 the
 business
 of
 fire
 insurance
 in
 a
 single
 province
 
criteria
 for
 the
 “general”
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 :
 
2)
 
  Provinces
  Can
  Regulate
  Contracts:
  Provincial
  legislatures
  have
  the
 
! Concerned
 with
 a
 particular
 industry
 (not
 trade
 as
 a
 whole)
 
jurisdiction
 to
 regulate
 contracts
 of
 a
 particular
 business
 or
 trade
 as
 long
 as
 
! The
 provinces
 are
 capable
 of
 regulating
 the
 industry,
 and
 
it
  is
  within
  the
  province
  (including
  the
  ability
  to
  limit
  and
  control
  the
 
! Exclusion
  of
  some
  provinces
  from
  the
  regulatory
  scheme
  will
 
manner
 in
 which
 the
 property
 may
 be
 dealt
 with,
 including
 the
 terms
 and
 
not
 undermine
 its
 operation
 
 
conditions
 of
 the
 contracts)
 

 

 

 
RATIO:
 
  There
  can
  be
  no
  overlap
  between
  areas
  of
  jurisdiction,
  meaning
  that
  heads
 

 
of
 power
 must
 be
 mutually
 modified
 to
 prevent
 overlap.
 

 

 

 
HELD:
 
  Appeal
  was
  dismissed
  (legislation
  was
  intra
  vires).
  Feds
  do
  not
  have
  the
 

 
authority
 to
 regulate
 the
 contracts
 of
 a
 specific
 trade,
 and
 thus
 its
 authority
 

 
does
 not
 conflict
 or
 compete
 with
 92(13)
 provincial
 civil
 /property
 rights.
 
 

 
 Page
 24
 of
 86
 

 
CHATTERJEE
 V
 ONTARIO
 (ATTORNEY
 GENERAL),
 2009
 SCC
 
 
 

 
 
FACTS:
 
  Chatterjee
  was
  stopped
  for
  license
  plate
  infraction
  and
  car
  was
  searched.
 
 
He
  was
  arrested
  in
  Ontario
  for
  breach
  of
  bail
  for
  having
  29,900
  cash
  and
 
 
grow
 op
 equipment.
 Police
 seized
 money
 under
 Ontario
 law,
 “proceeds
 or
 
 
instruments
  of
  unlawful
  activity.”
  Though
  never
  charged
  with
  any
  offence
 
 
related
 to
 search.
 
 
 

 
 
ARGUE:
  Chatterjee
  claims
  that
  the
  province
  did
  not
  have
  the
  power
  to
  enact
  the
 
 
law.
  His
  point
  was
  that
  the
  law
  provides
  for
  the
  forfeiture
  of
  proceeds
 
 
of
 federal
 criminal
  offences
  and
  the
  federal
  Parliament,
  not
  the
  provinces,
 
 
has
 jurisdiction
 to
 make
 criminal
 law.
 
 

 
 
HELD:
  SCC
 "
 valid
 provincial
 law.
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 Pith
 and
 Substance:
 
 
• Court
 looked
 at
 the
 purpose
 clause
 and
 the
 debates
 before
 its
 enactment,
 
 
and
  concluded
  that
  its
  purpose
  is
  to
  use
  the
  proceeds
  of
  crime
  to
 
 
compensate
  victims
  and
  the
  public
  for
  the
  costs
  associated
  with
  criminal
 
 
activity
 
 
• In
 terms
 of
 effects,
 the
 law
 allows
 to
 the
 province
 to
 seize
 property
 that
 is
 
 
tainted
 by
 crime
 
 

 
 
Division
 of
 Powers:
 
 
• The
  Court
  concluded
  that
  the
  law
  focuses
  on
  property
  and
  the
  effects
  of
 
 
crime,
 rather
 than
 adding
 additional
 penalties
 to
 federal
 crimes
 
 
• Proceeds-­‐of-­‐crime
  law
  has
  both
  provincial
  and
  federal
  aspects.
  It
  falls
 
 
under
  the
  provincial
  power
  over
  “property
  and
  civil
  rights”
  and
  “matters
  of
 
 
a
  merely
  local
  and
  private
  nature.”
 
 As
  well,
  it
  has
  a
  federal
  aspect
  as
  it
 
 
touches
 upon
 criminal
 law.
 
 
o Court
  stated
  that
  the
  criminal
  law
  aspect
  is
  acceptable
  because
 
 
the
  law
  is
  primarily
  concerned
  with
  property
  and
  the
  effects
  of
 
 
crime.
 
 
 
• The
 only
 potential
 problem
 with
 the
 law
 would
 be
 if
 it
 interfered
 with
 the
 
 
forfeiture
 provisions
 in
 the
 Criminal
 Code
 
 
• If
  the
  Ontario
  law
  interfered
  with
  the
  operation
  of
  the
  federal
  law,
 
 
the
 doctrine
 of
 paramountcy
 would
 render
 the
 Ontario
 law
 inoperative
 to
 
 
the
 extent
 that
 it
 interferes.
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Page
 25
 of
 86
 

 
[4]
 Trade
 &
 Commerce
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1867,
 S
 91(2)
  (ii) In
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 of
 Canada
 

  ! Since
  the
  abolition
  of
  appeals
  to
  the
  Privy
  Council
  there
  has
  been
  a
 

 
 
 General
 /
 Intro:
 T&C:
  reappearance
 of
 the
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 
! Section
  91(2),
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
  confers
  upon
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  ! New
  attitude:
  Ontario
  Farm
  Products
  Marketing
  Reference
  1957:
  federal
 
power
  would
  extend
  to
  some
  transactions
  which
  were
  completed
  within
  a
 
the
  power
  to
  make
  laws
  in
  relation
  to
  “the
  regulation
  of
  trade
  and
 
province
 
 
commerce”
 

 
! S91(2)
  should
  be
  limited
  to
  “political
  arrangements
  in
  regard
  to
  trade
 
requiring
 the
 sanction
 of
 Parliament,
 regulation
 of
 trade
 in
 matters
 of
 inter-­‐ Key
 Principle
 in
 
 !
 R
 v
 Klassen
 1959:
 
 
 
 striking
 departure
 from
 PC
 decisions
 ^
 
provincial
 concern,
 and
 it
 may
 be
 that
 they
 would
 include
 general
 regulation
  o Principle:
  if
  impugned
  Act
  has
  incidental
  effect
  to
  intraprovincial
 
of
 trade
 affecting
 the
 whole
 dominion
 (citizens’
 insurance
 co
 v.
 Parsons)
  transactions
  (sale
  of
  grain
  by
  farmer
  to
  local
  store),
  that’s
  okay
  (so
 

  long
 that
 the
 intraprovincial
 effects
 were
 incidental
 to
 the
 purpose
 of
 

 Relationship
 to
 Property
 and
 Civil
 Rights
  the
 Act)
 here
 purpose
 was
 to
 regulate
 the
 interprovincial
 and
 export
 
trade
 in
 grain.
 
 
! Judicial
 interpretation
 has
 narrowed
 the
 scope
 of
 s
 91(2).
 (vs
 USA
 who
 ^)
 

 
! S
  91(2)
  and
  s
  92(13)
  (ie
  property
  and
  civil
  rights
  power
  of
  the
  provinces)
 
appear
 to
 overlap
 (trade
 and
 commerce
 is
 carried
 on
 by
 means
 of
 contracts
  ! Labatt
 Breweries
 v
 A-­‐G
 Can
 1979:
 
 
which
  give
  rise
  to
  “civil
  rights”
  over
  “property’),
  but
  Courts,
  by
  a
  process
  of
  o Federal
  trade
  and
  commerce
  power
  was
  rejected
  as
  a
  support
  for
 
mutual
  modification,
 have
  narrowed
  the
  2
  classes
  of
  subjects
  as
  to
  eliminate
  federal
  legislation.
  Court
  struck
  down
  compositional
  standards
  for
  beer
 
the
 overlapping
 and
 make
 each
 power
 exclusive
 
  enacted
  under
  the
  Food
  and
  Drugs
  Act.
  The
  standards
  on
  the
  beer
 

  industry
  were
  without
  regard
  for
  the
  product’s
  movements
  across
 
provincial
  boundaries
  AND
  the
  case
  reaffirmed
  the
  rule
  that
  the
  trade
 

 
 
 Since
 the
 PARSONS
 case,
 it
 has
 been
 accepted
 that:
 
and
 commerce
 power
 will
 not
 authorize
 the
 regulation
 of
 a
 single
 trade
 
(1)
 
  INTRAprovincial
  trade
  and
  commerce
  is
  a
  matter
  within
  provincial
  power,
 
or
 industry.
 
 
under
 “property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province”
 (s
 92(13))
 
(2)
 
 
 
 The
 federal
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 is
 confined
 to
 
 
(a)
  INTERprovincial
  (connecting
  or
  involving
  different
  provinces)
  or
  2. General
 Trade
 and
 Commerce
 
international
 trade
 and
 commerce,
 and
 
  ! General
  category
  of
  trade
  and
  commerce
  had
  previously
  been
  rejected
  as
  a
 
(b)
 
 
 “general”
 trade
 and
 commerce
 affecting
 the
 whole
 dominion
 
  support
 for
 federal
 policies
 of
 economic
 regulation.
 
 (until
 GM
 v
 National)
 
! Ex:
  rejected
  in
  insurance
  (Insurance
  Ref);
  labour
  regulations
  (Snider);
 

 
prohibition
 of
 products
 (Margarine).
 
 
1. Interprovincial
 or
 International
 Trade
 and
 Commerce
 
 
! Only
 example
 of
 valid
 exercise
 of
 general
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 was:
 
 

 
(i) In
 the
 Privy
 Council
 
 
 
! The
 Parson
 Case
 did
 not
 define
 when
 trade
 and
 commerce
 became
 sufficiently
  Canada
  Standard
  Trade
  Mark:
  The
  case
  seemed
  to
  decide
  that
  the
  general
 
interprovincial
 so
 as
 to
 come
 within
 the
 federal
 power.
  trade
  and
  commerce
  power
  would
  authorize
  federal
  standards
  of
  production
 
! Early
  cases
  suggested
  that
  unless
  a
  federal
  law
  attempted
  to
  control
  (not
  or
  manufacture
  for
  products
  traded
  locally,
  provided
  that
  the
  federal
 
particular
  trades)
  but
  more
  general
  aspects
  of
  the
  economy
  (combinations
  standards
 were
 tied
 to
 the
 voluntary
 use
 of
 a
 distinctive
 mark
 (Canada
 Standard)
 
 

 
prices,
  labour),
  which
  were
  governed
  by
  economic
  forces
  that
  ignored
 
Labatt
  Breweries:
  SCC
  struck
  down
  compositional
  standards
  for
  “light
  beer”
 
provincial
  boundaries,
  then
  they
  could
  not
  be
  held
  valid
  under
  the
  trade
  and
 
commerce
 power
 (Insurance
 Reference
 1916;
 Toronto
 Electric
 Commissioners
  which
 would
 become
 applicable
 only
 through
 the
 use
 of
 the
 voluntary
 phrase
 
v
 Snider
 1925).
  “light
  beer”.
  Majority
  basically
  held
  that
  this
  case,
  unlike
  Canada
  Standard
 

  Trade
  Mark
  case,
  involved
  the
  use
  of
  a
  common
  name
  (light
  beer).
  Which
  is
 
Margarine
 Reference:
 
  virtually
  mandatory
  and
  would
  affect
  producers
  who
  did
  not
  want
  to
  be
 
o Held
  unconstitutional
  a
  prohibition
  on
  sale,
  manufacture,
  import
  of
  affected.
 Common
 descriptive
 words
 are
 harder
 to
 avoid.
 
 
 

 
margarine
  b/c
  it
  affected
  both
  INTERprovincial
  and
  INTRAprovincial
 

 
dealings.
 However,
 importation
 was
 still
 valid
 law
 and
 severed
 
 Page
 26
 of
 86
 

 
!
 regulating
 business
 practices:
 
 
 
 
 GENERAL
 MOTORS
 OF
 CANADA
 LTD
 v.
 CITY
 NATIONAL
 LEASING
 1989:
 
 
! MacDonald
  v.
  Vapor
  Canada
  1976:
  a
  civil
  remedy
  for
  any
  business
  practice
  ! Upheld
  constitutionality
  of
  the
  federal
  competition
  legislation
  under
  the
 
which
 was
 contrary
 to
 honest
 industrial
 or
 commercial
 usage
 was
 said
 to
 not
  “general”
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 ie.
 The
 2nd
 of
 Parsons
 test
 for
 s
 91(2)
 
fall
 under
 the
 federal
 power-­‐
 the
 creation
 or
 extension
 of
 civil
 clauses
 of
 action
 
 
of
  an
  essentially
  contractual
  or
  tortious
  character
  was
  a
  matter
  within
  Analysis
 for
 whether
 a
 legislative
 provision
 is
 within
 the
 “general”
 branch
 of
 
property
  and
  civil
  rights.
  The
  only
  federal
  aspect
  was
  that
  the
  law
  applied
  the
 Trade
 and
 Commerce
 power:
 
throughout
 Canada,
 but
 this
 is
 insufficient.
 A
 central
 reg
 scheme
 would
 be
 ok.
 
  i. The
 presence
 of
 a
 general
 regulatory
 scheme;
 

  ii. Scheme
 monitored
 by
 oversight
 of
 regulatory
 agency;
 
Limits
 to
 general
 regulation
 of
 trade
 affecting
 nation:
  iii. Legislation
 concerned
 with
 trade
 as
 a
 whole,
 rather
 thn
 particular
 industry
 
 
! Insurance
 Reference:
 federal
 Parliament
 cannot
 enact
 “national”
 insurance
  iv. Legislation
  should
  be
  of
  a
  nature
  that
  the
  provinces
  jointly
  or
  severally
 
law
 simply
 because
 there
 are
 insurers
 located
 in
 various
 provinces
 
  would
 be
 constitutionally
 incapable
 of
 enacting;
 and
 
! Toronto
 Electric
 v.
 Snider:
 cannot
 enact
 federal
 labour
 law
 under
 s
 91(2)
  v. the
 failure
 to
 include
 one
 or
 more
 provinces
 or
 localities
 in
 the
 legislative
 
! Margarine
  Reference:
  cannot
  enact
  federal
  law
  to
  regulate
  sale
  of
  scheme
 would
 jeopardize
 the
 successful
 operation
 of
 the
 scheme
 in
 other
 
margarine
 in
 province
  parts
 of
 the
 country
 
 
! Labatt
 Breweries
 v.
 A-­‐G
 Canada:
 struck
 standards
 for
 beer
 under
 federal
 
 
Food
 and
 Drug
 Act
 as
 not
 properly
 regulating
 interprovincial
 trade,
 since
  ! Overall,
  the
  Competition
  Act
  was
  a
  valid
  exercise
  of
  the
  general
  trade
  and
 
imposed
 without
 regards
 to
 product
 movement
 across
 provincial
  commerce
 power.
 A
 5
 part
 test
 was
 adopted
 and
 employed
 (using
 part
 of
 the
 
boundaries
 
  Vapor
  test)
  in
  this
  case.
  The
  allegations
  that
  gave
  rise
  to
  litigation
  concerned
 

  price
 discrimination
 in
 the
 financing
 of
 the
 purchase
 of
 vehicles
 by
 companies
 
CONTEMPORARY
 INTERPRETTION
 -­‐
 Scope
 of
 the
 Trade
 and
 Commerce
 Power
  that
 lease
 fleets
 of
 automobiles
 and
 trucks
 within
 a
 single
 province.
 
 
under
 s.
 91(2)
  ! Thus,
 since
 the
 law
 was
 upheld,
 the
 conclusion
 was
 that
 Parliament
 has
 the
 

  constitutional
 power
 to
 regulate
 intraprovincial
 aspects
 of
 competition.
 
! Current
 scope
 of
 federal
 power
 has
 expanded-­‐
 SCC
 has
 allowed
 both
 branches
 
 
of
 s.91(2)
 to
 be
 broadened:
  REFERENCE
 RE
 SECURITIES
 ACT
 2011-­‐
 see
 above!
 

 
 
1. Extra
 territorial:
 
 
 
• Federal
 laws
 that
 are
 in
 pith
 and
 substance
 in
 relation
 to
 extra
  *NOTE:
 
  The
 above
 chapter
 on
 trade
 and
 commerce
 discussed
 the
 federal
 trade
 and
 
territoriality
 can
 be
 upheld
 notwithstanding
 their
 “incidental
 effects”
  commerce
 power
 in
 relation
 to
 general
 terms.
 When
 attention
 is
 directed
 
on
 intraprovincial
 transactions:
 per
 Klassen
 
  to
  more
  specific
  topics,
  for
  example,
  the
  regulation
  of
  businesses,
  the
 

  regulation
  of
  professions
  and
  trades,
  labour
  relations,
  marketing
  and
 
2. General
 regulation
 of
 trade:
  securities
  regulation,
  it
  is
  found
  that
  trade
  and
  commerce
  is
  not
  the
 
• Even
 if
 federal
 economic
 regulation
 is
 predominantly
 in
 relation
 to
  dominant
  source
  of
  power:
  legislative
  power
  is
  for
  the
  most
  part
 
interprovincial
 trade,
 it
 can
 be
 upheld
 if
 in
 pith
 and
 substance
 it
 meets
  provincial,
 under
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province.
 
 
the
 criteria
 for
 validity
 pursuant
 to
 the
 general
 regulation
 of
 trade
 
 
power:
 per
 General
 Motors-­‐
 scheme
 of
 regulation
 must
 be
 truly
 
 
general
 and
 national
 in
 scope;
 provinces
 must
 lack
 the
 ability
 to
 
 
effectively
 regulate
 the
 subject
 matter
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Page
 27
 of
 86
 

 

 
 
 
 REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 TRADE
 &
 COMMERCE:
  PRINCIPLE:
  Analysis
  for
  whether
  a
  legislative
  provision
  is
  within
  the
  “general”
 

  branch
 of
 the
 Trade
 and
 Commerce
 power:
 5
 Step
 TEST
 
GENERAL
 MOTORS
 v.
 CITY
 NATIONAL
 LEASING:
 
 
FACTS:
 
  During
 the
 1970s
 General
 Motors
 (GM)
 sold
 vehicles
 to
 both
 City
 National
  1. Presence
 of
 a
 General
 Regulatory
 Scheme".
 
 
Leasing
  (CNL)
  and
  to
  CNL's
  competitors.
  It
  was
  discovered
  that
  GM
  was
  a. In
 this
 case—s
 31.1
 does
 infringe
 because
 creates
 a
 civil
 action
 (suing)
 
giving
 CNL's
 competitor
 a
 better
 interest
 rate
 than
 CNL,
 which
 violated
 the
  which
 is
 generally
 a
 provincial
 matter
 b/w
 contracting
 parties.
 
 
federal
  Combines
  Investigation
  Act.
  In
  its
  defence
  GM
  argued
  that
  the
  2. Scheme
 must
 be
 monitored
 by
 oversight
 of
 regulatory
 agency.
 
 
provision
 in
  the
  Act
  that
  created
  the
  civil
 cause
 of
 action
 was
 outside
 the
  3. Legislation
  concerned
  with
  trade
  as
  a
  whole,
  rather
  than
  with
  a
  particular
 
legislative
 competence
 of
 the
 federal
 government.
 
  industry
 "
 if
 scheme
 is
 valid
 must
 determine
 whether
 the
 impugned
 provision
 

  is
  sufficiently
  integrated
  with
  the
  scheme
  that
  it
  can
  be
  upheld
  by
  virtue
  of
  that
 
HELD:
 
  Upheld
 federal
 Combines
 Investigation
 Act
 (now
 Competition
 Act)
  as
 a
 valid
  relationship.
 
 
exercise
 of
 trade
 and
 commerce
 power
 under
 s
 91(2)
  4. Legislation
 should
 be
 of
 a
 nature
 that
 the
 provinces
 jointly
 or
 severally
 would
 
• Federal
  has
  power
  over
  international
  and
  interprovincial
  trade/
  be
 constitutionally
 incapable
 of
 enacting;
 
 
commerce
 affecting
 the
 entire
 nation.
 
 
 
• Section
  31.1
  is
  intra
  vires
  parliament
  by
  virtue
  of
  its
  relationship
  to
  the
  5. The
  failure
  to
  include
  one
  or
  more
  provinces
  or
  localities
  in
  the
  legislative
 
scheme
  of
  economic
  regulation
  found
  in
  the
  Combines
  Investigation
  scheme
  would
  jeopardize
  the
  successful
  operation
  of
  the
  scheme
  in
  other
 
Act.
 
  parts
 of
 the
 country
 

 
 
Test
 when
 challenging
 a
 provision
 of
 an
 act
 (not
 the
 entire
 act):
  OVERALL
 
 

  • In
  this
  case—the
  act
  as
  a
  whole
  embodies
  a
  complex
  scheme
  of
  economic
 
1. Court
 must
 determine
 whether
 the
 impugned
 provision
 can
 be
 viewed
 as
  regulation.
  The
  purpose
  of
  the
  act
  is
  to
  eliminate
  activities
  that
  reduce
 
intruding
 on
 provincial
 powers,
 and
 if
 so
 to
 what
 extent
 (if
 no
 intrusion
 -­‐
 ends):
  competition
 in
 the
 market
 place.
 
 
"
 Do
 a
 pith
 and
 substance
 analysis
 of
 the
 provision
 –
 what
 does
 it
 do,
 why,
 etc.
  • The
 validity
 of
 s31.1
 –
 the
 provision
 must
 be
 related
 to
 the
 scheme
 for
 it
 to
 be
 

  constitutionally
 justified.
 
 
2. Court
 must
 establish
 whether
 the
 act
 is
 valid
 (go
 through
 analysis
 of
 
 
classification
 of
 the
 act
 –
 do
 pith
 and
 substance
 of
 entire
 act):
  Ask
 is
 it
 “functionally
 related”
 to
 the
 general
 objective
 (HERE
 YES
 it
 was)
 
 
→
 a.
 If
 not
 valid,
 end
 of
 inquiry;
 
 
→
 b.
 If
 valid
 move
 on
 to
 3.
  Overall
 
 

  # So
 GM
 was
 fucking
 with
 competition
 and
 the
 Combines
 Act
 was
 there
 to
 
3. Court
 must
 determine
 whether
 the
 impugned
 provision
 is
 sufficiently
 integrated
  eliminate
  activities
  that
  messed
  with
  competition.
  Therefore
  s
  31.1
  was
 
w/
 the
 scheme
 that
 it
 can
 be
 upheld
 by
 virtue
 of
 that
 relationship
 (subjective):
  FUNCTIONALLY
  RELATED
  to
  that
  objective
  of
  encouraging
  competition
 
→
 
  Requires
 considering
 the
 seriousness
 of
 the
 encroachment
 on
 prov
 powers,
  and
 thus
 held
 to
 be
 valid.
 
 
in
 order
 to
 decide
 proper
 standard
 for
 such
 relationship:
 
⇒
 If
 deeply
 instructive
 provisions
 only
 saved
 if
 it
 is
 necessarily
 incidental
  Note:
 Follows:
 
 The
 leading
 case
 on
 s
 91(2)
 is
 Parsons
 established
 3
 propositions:
 
(act
 cannot
 function
 w/o
 that
 provision); 1. it
 does
 not
 correspond
 to
 the
 literal
 meaning
 of
 the
 words
 "regulation
 of
 trade
 
and
 commerce";
 
 
⇒
 If
 it
 is
 a
 lower
 level
 of
 intrusion
 the
 provision
 can
 be
 saved
 it
 is
 has
 a
 
2. it
  includes
  not
  only
  arrangements
  with
  regard
  to
  international
  and
 
rational,
 functional
 connection
 –
 further
 the
 operation
 of
 the
 act
 in
 
interprovincial
  trade
  but
  "it
  may
  be
  that
  .
  .
  .
  (it)
  would
  include
  general
 
some
 way
 (ensuring
 the
 provision
 is
 not
 just
 tacked
 on
 or
 colourable)
 
regulation
 of
 trade
 affecting
 the
 whole
 dominion";
 
 

 
3. it
 does
 not
 extend
 to
 regulating
 the
 contracts
 of
 a
 particular
 business
 or
 trade
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
!
 REFERENCE
 RE
 SECURITIES
 ACT
 2011-­‐
 see
 above!
 
 Page
 28
 of
 86
 

 
[5]
 Peace,
 Order
 &
 Good
 Government-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1867,
 S
 91
 
 

  (2) The
 “National
 Concern”
 Branch
 
Residuary
 Nature
 of
 Power
  ! Matters
 which
 begin
 as
 local
 but
 acquire
 national
 dimensions
 or
 concern
 
 
! Opening
 words
 of
 s91,
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 confer
 on
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 
 
the
 power:
  Local
 Prohibition
 Case
 (1986):
 the
 idea
 that
 some
 matter
 of
 legislation,
 in
 their
 
o “to
  make
  laws
  for
  the
  peace,
  order,
  and
  good
  government
  of
  Canada,
  local
  and
  provincial
  origin,
  could
  acquire
  “national
  dimensions”
  or
  “national
 
in
 relation
 to
 all
 matters
 not
 coming
 within
 the
 classes
 of
 subjects
  by
  concern”
 and
 thereby
 come
 within
 the
 federal
 Parliament’s
 p.o.g.g
 power
 
this
 Act
 assigned
 exclusively
 to
 the
 Legislatures
 of
 the
 provinces;…
 
 
! Accommodates
  matters
  which
  do
  not
  come
  within
  any
  of
  the
  enumerated
  CURRENT
 TEST:
 national
 concern
 
provincial
 or
 federal
 provincial
 or
 federal
 heads
 of
 power
 
 
! In
 Canada,
 the
 provincial
 heads
 of
 power
 include
 one
 of
 great
 importance
  Canada
  Temperance
  Federation
  case:
  a
  new
  test
  was
  formulated
  (and
  the
 
o S
 92(13),
 “property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province”,
 a
 phrase
 which
 is
  requirement
 that
 only
 an
 emergency
 could
 serve
 as
 the
 basis
 for
 an
 exercise
 of
 
apt
 to
 include
 most
 of
 the
 private
 law
 of
 property,
 contracts
 and
 torts
  the
  pogg
  power/
  the
  requirement
  that
  national
  concern
  amount
  to
  an
 
and
 their
 many
 derivatives.
 
  emergency
 as
 stated
 in
 Russell
 was
 
 now
 rejected):
 
 
o At
  the
  hands
  of
  the
  Privy
  Council
  s92(13)
  became
  a
  kind
  of
  residuary
 
 
power
  itself,
  and
  one
  which
 
  was
  much
  more
  important
  than
  the
  “if
 the
 legislation
 is
 such
 that
 it
 goes
 beyond
 local
 or
 provincial
 concern
 or
 
nd
federal
  peace,
  order,
  and
  good
  government
  power.
  A
  2
  potentially
  interests
  and
  must
  from
  its
  inherent
  nature
  be
  the
  concern
  of
  the
 
sweeping
 head
 of
 provincial
 power
 is
 s
 92(16),
 “generally
 all
 matters
 of
  Dominion
  as
  a
  whole
  (ie
  aeronautics
  case;
  radio
  case),
  then
  it
  will
  fall
 
a
 merely
 local
 or
 private
 nature
 in
 the
 province”
  within
  this
  head
  of
  power
  (within
  the
  competence
  of
  the
  Dominion
 
! The
 P.O.G.G
 power
 has
 given
 rise
 to
 3
 branches
 of
 legislative
 power:
  Parliament
  as
  a
  matter
  affecting
  peace,
  order
  and
  good
  government
  of
 

  Canada),
 although
 it
 may
 in
 another
 aspect
 touch
 on
 other
 matters
 over
 
(1) The
 “Gap”
 Branch
 
  which
 the
 province
 has
 authority”.
 [THIS
 IS
 THE
 ESTABLISHED
 DEFINITION
 
! Purpose:
 
 fill
 gaps/lacunas
 in
 the
 scheme
 of
 distribution
 of
 powers.
 
 Gap
 Exists:
  OF
 THE
 ‘NATIONAL
 CONCERN’
 BRANCH]
 

 
 
Gap
 exists
 in
 the
 provision
 for
 the
 incorporation
 of
 companies:
 
  o If
 this
 test
 is
 satisfied,
 then
 the
 matter
 comes
 within
 the
 pogg
 power
 
! Constitution
  Act
  1867
  by
  s
  92(11),
  empowers
  the
  provincial
  Legislatures
  to
  in
 its
 national
 concern
 branch
 
 
make
  laws
  in
  relation
  to
  “the
  incorporation
  of
  companies
  with
  provincial
  o This
  case
  established
  that
  there
  was
  a
  national
  concern
  branch
  of
 
objects”,
 but
 there
 is
 no
 equivalent
 enumerated
 federal
 power
 of
 incorporation.
 
  pogg
 as
 well
 as
 an
 emergency
 branch
 
 
! The
  courts
  have
  held
  that
  the
  power
  to
  incorporate
  companies
  with
  objects
 
 
other
 than
 provincial
 must
 fall
 within
 the
 federal
 residuary
 powers.
 
  ! The
  national
  concern
  branch
  of
  pogg
  has
  provided
  the
  sole
  basis
  for
  the
 

  decision
 in
 3
 cases
 in
 the
 SCC:
 
Gap
 in
 treaty
 power
 (some
 controversy
 on
 this)
 
 
! S
 132,
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 confers
 upon
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 the
 power
 to
  a.
 
 Johannesson
 v
 West
 St
 Paul
 (SCC
 Case):
 Aeronautics
 satisfied
 the
 national
 
enact
  laws
  for
  performing
  the
  obligations
  of
  Canada
  “as
  part
  of
  the
  British
  concern
  branch
  (eg.
  Rapid
  growth
  of
  passenger
  and
  freight
  traffic
  by
  air,
 
Empire,
  towards
  foreign
  countries,
  arising
  under
  treaties
  between
  the
  Empire
  the
 use
 of
 aircraft
 for
 the
 carriage
 of
 mails
 especially
 to
 remote
 parts
 of
 the
 
and
 such
 foreign
 countries
 
  country,
  and
  the
  necessity
  for
  the
  development
  of
  air
  services
  are
  to
  be
 
! The
  framers
  of
  the
  Act
  did
  not
  contemplate
  that
  Canada
  would
  eventually
  controlled
 by
 a
 national
 government
 responsive
 to
 the
 need
 of
 the
 nation
 
acquire
 the
 power
 to
 enter
 into
 treaties
 on
 its
 own
 behalf
  as
 a
 whole”)
 

 
 
Other
 Examples
 of
 the
 Gap
 Test:
  b.
 
  Munro
 v
 National
 Capital
 Commission:
 the
 national
 capital
 region,
 an
 area
 
! In
 the
 Official
 Languages
 Act
 :
 equal
 status
 of
 French/Eng
 in
 Parliament
 
  around
 Ottawa
 that
 had
 been
 designated
 by
 federal
 legislation
 satisfied
 the
 
! In
  the
  jurisdiction
  over
  offshore
  mineral
  resources
  (seabed
  covered
  via
  national
 concern
 test
 
 
province,
 but
 extended
 beyond
 provincial
 borders,
 gap
 filled
 by
 federal
 law)
 
 Page
 29
 of
 86
 

 
c.
 
  R
 v.
 CROWN
 ZELLERBACH
 (1988):
 held
 that
 marine
 pollution
 satisfied
 the
  were
  affected
  by
  coastal
  environments
  making
  this
  power
  intrude
 
national
 concern
 test
  into
 industrial
 and
 municipal
 activity
 and
 resource
 develop
 (prov
 pwr).
 
o the
  federal
  Ocean
  Dumpling
  Control
  Act,
  which
  prohibited
  dumping
 
 
“at
  sea”,
  was
  upheld
  in
  its
  application
  to
  marine
  waters
  within
  the
  THE
  REQUIREMNT
  OF
  “DISTINCTNESS”
  IS
  A
  NECESSARY
  BUT
  NOT
  A
 
boundaries
 of
 B.C
  SUFFICIENT
  CONDITION
  for
  a
  matter
  to
  be
  admitted
  to
  the
  national
 
o Le
  Dain
  J
  for
  the
  majority
  of
  the
  Court
  held
  that
  “marine
  pollution,
  concern
 branch
 of
 pogg
 
because
  of
  its
  predominantly
  extra-­‐
  provincial
  as
  well
  as
 
 
international
  character
  and
  implications,
  is
  clearly
  a
  matter
  of
  A
 distinct
 matter
 would
 also
 have
 to
 satisfy
 the
 provincial
 inability
 test
 (or
 
concern
 to
 Canada
 as
 a
 whole”
  other
 definition
 of
 national
 concern)
 
 

  o a
  distinct
  matter
  would
  come
  within
  the
  provincial
  power
  if
  it
  came
 
Definition
 of
 National
 Concern:
 
  within
 “property
 and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province”
 (s
 92(13)
 or
 if
 it
 were
 
WHEN
  DOES
  A
  SUBJECT
  MATTER
  OF
  LEGISLATION
  BECOME
  “THE
  CONCERN
  “of
 a
 merely
 local
 or
 private
 nature
 in
 the
 province”
 (s92(16))
 
OF
  THE
  DOMINION
  AS
  A
  WHOLE”
  TO
  SATISFY
  THE
  NATIONAL
  CONCERN
 
 
TEST??
  (3) The
 “Emergency”
 Branch
 
 
 

  ! Emergency
 must
 be
 temporary
 
 
R
 v
 .
 Crown
 Zellerbach
 –
 
 [1]
 Provincial
 Inability
  ! Until
 1940,
 the
 pogg
 power
 was
 only
 valid
 for
 emergencies
 
 
• Relied
 on
 the
 provincial
 inability
 test
 as
 a
 reason
 for
 finding
 that
 marine
 
 
pollution
  was
  a
  matter
  of
  national
  concern.
  “it
  is
  because
  of
  the
  (A)
 Non-­‐
 emergencies:
 Early
 Case
 Law
 
interrelatedness
  of
  the
  intraprovincial
  and
  extra-­‐
  provincial
  aspects
  of
  ! Haldane:
  Emergency
  test
  first
  emerged
  in
  Board
  of
  Commerce
  case
  (1922):
 
the
  matter
  that
  It
  requires
  a
  single
  or
  uniform
  legislative
  treatment.”
  For
  rejected
  the
  pogg
  power
  as
  authority
  for
  the
  statute
  on
  the
  ground
  that
 
example,
 the
 failure
 of
 one
 province
 to
 protects
 its
 waters
 would
 probably
  “highly
  exception”
  or
  “abnormal’
  circumstances
  would
  be
  required
  to
  justify
 
lead
  to
  the
  pollution
  of
  the
  waters
  of
  other
  provinces
  as
  well
  as
  the
  the
 invocation
 of
 pogg:
 as
 examples,
 they
 suggested
 “war
 or
 famine”
 
(federal)
 territorial
 sea
 and
 high
 sea
 
  ! Toronto
  Electric
  Commissioners
  v.
  Snider
  (1925):
  pogg
  power
  was
  available
 

  only
  in
  “cases
  arising
  out
  of
  some
  extraordinary
  peril
  to
  the
  national
  life
  of
 
• Another
 example
 of
 the
 above
 test
 is
 a
 case
 of
 an
 epidemic
 –
 the
 failure
 of
  Canada,
 such
 as
 the
 cases
 arising
 out
 of
 war”
 
one
  province
  to
  take
  preventative
  measures
  would
  probably
  lead
  to
  the
  ! Margarine
  Reference
  (1951):
  federal
  legislation
  prohibiting
  manufacture
  and
 
spreading
  of
  the
  disease
  into
  those
  provinces
  which
  had
  taken
  sale
 of
 margarine
 was
 struck
 down,
 rejecting
 emergency
 argument.
 
 
preventative
 measures.
 
 
 

 
 (B)
 War:
 
• Therefore
  an
  important
  element
  of
  national
  concern
  is
  a
  need
  for
  one
  ! Fort
  Frances:
  federal
  legislation
  (War
  Measures
  Act)
  enacted
  during
  First
 
national
  law
  which
  cannot
  realistically
  be
  satisfied
  by
  cooperative
  World
  War
  that
  dealt
  with
  economic
  responses
  to
  the
  war
  was
  held
 
provincial
 action
 because
 the
 failure
 of
 one
 province
 to
 cooperate
 would
  constitutional
 under
 this
 power
 
carry
 with
 it
 adverse
 consequences
 for
 the
 residents
 of
 other
 provinces.
 A
  o Privy
  Council
  held
  that
  the
  regime
  of
  price
  control
  which
  had
  been
 
subject
  matter
  of
  legislation
  which
  has
  this
  characteristic
  has
  the
  established
  during
  the
  first
  world
  war,
  and
  which
  continued
 
necessary
 national
 concern
 to
 justify
 invocation
 of
 the
 pogg
 power
  temporarily
 after
 the
 war,
 was
 constitutional
 

  o In
 a
 “sufficiently
 great
 emergency
 such
 as
 that
 arising
 out
 war”,
 the
 
#2:
 DISTINCTIVENESS:
 cannot
 be
 broad
 subject
 matter
 (ie
 ‘inflation)
  pogg
  power
  would
  authorize
  laws
  which
  in
  normal
  times
  would
  be
 
o In
 order
 to
 qualify
 as
 a
 “matter”
 coming
 within
 the
 national
 concern
  competent
 only
 to
 the
 provinces
 
 
branch
 of
 the
 pogg
 power,
 a
 topic
 must
 be
 “distinct”:
 it
 must
 have
 a
 
 
nd
“degree
 of
 unity
 that
 makes
 it
 inadvisable,
 an
 identity
 which
 makes
  ! Rent
  control
  during
  and
  after
  the
  2
  world
  war
  was
  upheld
  on
  the
  same
  basis
 
it
 distinct
 from
 provincial
 matters”
 (Anti-­‐inflation
 Reference)
  by
 the
 SCC
 in
 the
 Wartime
 Leasehold
 Regulations
 Reference
 (1950)
 
o In
  R
  v
  .
  Crown
  Zellerbach,
  La
  Forest
  Dissented
  –
  said
  marine
  pollution
 
 
lacked
  distinctiveness
  –
  marine
  waters
  went
  into
  fresh
  water
  and
 
 Page
 30
 of
 86
 

 
nd
! Deportation
  of
  Japanese
  Canadians
  after
  the
  2
  world
  war
  was
  help
  on
  the
  (2) Second,
  the
  pogg
  power
  gives
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  TEMPORARY
 
same
 basis
 by
 the
 Privy
 Council
 (Japanese
 Canadians
 Reference
 1947)
  jurisdiction
  over
  all
  subject
  matters
  (including
  general
  ones
  like
  inflation)
 

  needed
  to
  deal
  with
  an
  emergency,
  so
  long
  as
  the
  legislation
  operates
  as
  a
 
! In
 all
 cases,
 legislation
 outlived
 the
 war,
 but
 was
 still
 held
 to
 be
 valid.
 In
 Fort
  partial
  and
  temporary
  alteration
  of
  the
  distribution
  of
  power
  between
 
Frances
  case
  ,
  Viscount
  Haldane
  deferred
  to
  the
  federal
  government
  on
  this
  Parliament
 and
 provincial
 legislatures
 (Anti-­‐Inflation
 Reference)
 
point,
 saying
 that
 “very
 clear
 evidence”
 would
 be
 required
 to
 justify
 the
 court
 
 
“in
 overruling
 the
 decision
 of
 the
 Government
 that
 exceptional
 measures
 were
  • This
  theory
  does
  explain
  most
  cases.
  Leading
  emergency
  cases
  did
  involve
 
still
 requisite”
  legislation
 asseting
 new
 category
 of
 federal
 power
 over
 property,
 prices,
 wages
 

  (Fort
 Frances,
 Snider,
 Wartime
 Leasing).
 
 In
 these
 cases
 only
 upheld
 if
 there
 was
 

  an
 emergency.
 
 
(C)
 Apprehended
 Insurrection
 
  • Leading
  ‘national
  concern
  cases
  each
  involved
  legislation
  over
  more
  distinct
 
! The
 War
 Measures
 Act
 was
 held
 constitutional
 in
 one
 other
 context
 other
 than
  and
 spate
 subject
 matter,
 ie
 aeronautics,
 marine
 pollution.
 
 No
 emergency
 and
 
war,
  namely
  during
  the
  “October
  Crisis”
  of
  October
  1970
  when
  a
  violent
  upheld
 if
 it
 was
 of
 national
 concern.
 
 
Quebec
 separatist
 group
 kidnapped
 a
 British
 diplomat;
 the
 federal
 government
 
 
responded
  by
  issuing
  a
  proclamation
  declaring
  that
  an
  “apprehended
 
insurrection
  exists,”
  bring
  into
  force
  War
  Measures
  Act.
  Constitutionality
  of
  REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 P.O.G.G.
 
this
 was
 however
 never
 brought
 before
 courts.
 
 

 
 
(D)
 Inflation
 
  R
 V
 CROWN
 ZELLERBACH
 CANADA
 (Dealing
 with
 the
 national
 concern
 branch)
 
! MOST
 RECENT
 APPLICATION
 OF
 THE
 EMERGENCY
 DOCTRINE
 IS
 TO
 BE
 FOUND
  Facts:
  The
 federal
 Ocean
 Dumpling
 Control
 Act,
 which
 prohibited
 dump
 “at
 sea”,
 
IN
  THE
  ANTI-­‐INFLATION
  RFERENCE
  1976,
  in
  which
  the
  federal
  Anti-­‐Inflation
  was
 upheld
 in
 its
 application
 to
 marine
 waters
 within
 the
 boundaries
 of
 B.C
 
Act
  was
  upheld
  as
  an
  emergency
  measure.
  Period
  of
  months
  with
  double
 
 
inflation.
 Act
 was
 temporary.
  Held:
 
  s
 4(1)
 is
 constitutionally
 valid
 :
 Le
 Dain
 J
 for
 the
 majority
 of
 the
 Court
 held
 
! The
  case
  indicates
  that
  all
  you
  need
  to
  show
  is
  that
 a
  rational
  basis
  for
  finding
  that
  “marine
  pollution,
  because
  of
  its
  predominantly
  extra-­‐
  provincial
  as
 
that
 an
 emergency
 exists-­‐
 don’t
 need
 definitive
 conclusions
 
  well
  as
  international
  character
  and
  implications,
  is
  clearly
  a
  matter
  of
 
! Case
 shows
 the
 courts
 show
 deference
 in
 these
 types
 of
 non-­‐definitive
 factual
  concern
 to
 Canada
 as
 a
 whole”
 
situations
 to
 the
 government.
  • Principles
 and
 Rational
 
! Hogg
 says:
 Federal
 Parliament
 can
 use
 its
 emergency
 power
 almost
 at
 will.
 
  o Relied
 on
 the
 provincial
 inability
 test
 
 as
 a
 reason
 for
 finding
 that
 

  marine
 pollution
 was
 a
 matter
 of
 national
 concern.
 “it
 is
 because
 
(E)
 Temporary
 character
 of
 law:
  of
 the
 interrelatedness
 of
 the
 intraprovincial
 and
 extra-­‐
 provincial
 
! Limitation
  of
  the
  federal
  emergency
  power:
  it
  will
  support
  only
  temporary
  aspects
 of
 the
 matter
 that
 It
 requires
 a
 single
 or
 uniform
 legislative
 
measures
 
  treatment.”
 For
 example,
 the
 failure
 of
 one
 province
 to
 protects
 its
 
! No
  permanent
  measure
  has
  ever
  been
  upheld
  under
  the
  emergency
  power.
  waters
 would
 probably
 lead
 to
 the
 pollution
 of
 the
 waters
 of
 other
 
Yet,
  government
  decides
  whether
  still
  in
  emergency,
  and
  can
  thus
  drag
  out
  provinces
 as
 well
 as
 the
 (federal)
 territorial
 sea
 and
 high
 sea
 
 
 
temporary
 for
 a
 long
 time.
 
  ANALYSIS:
 

  STEP
 1:
 Pith
 and
 substance
 of
 the
 Act
 
Relationship
 Between
 National
 Concern
 and
 Emergency:
  ! Its
  purpose
  is
  to
  require
  a
  permit
  so
  that
  the
  regulatory
  authority
  may
 
! Lederman
  and
  Beetz
  J
  in
  Anti-­‐inflation:
  POGG
  power
  performs
  two
  separate
  determine
  before
  the
  proposed
  dumping
  has
  occurred
  whether
  it
  may
  be
 
functions
 in
 the
 constitution:
  permitted
 upon
 certain
 terms
 and
 conditions.
 
(1) The
  pogg
  power
  gives
  to
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  the
  PERMANENT
  STEP
 2:
 Which
 head
 of
 power
 does
 it
 fall
 under?
 
jurisdiction
 over
 distinct
 subject
 matters
 which
 do
 not
 fall
 within
 any
 of
 the
  ! Can
 it
 be
 upheld
 under
 POGG
 
 
enumerated
  heads
  of
  s
  92,
  and
  which
  by
  nature
  are
  of
  national
  concern
  Principles:
 
 
eg.,
 aeronautics,
 the
 national
 capital
 region
 (Anti-­‐Inflation
 Reference)
 
 Page
 31
 of
 86
 

 
1.
  The
  national
  concern
  doctrine
  is
  separate
  and
  distinct
  from
  the
  national
 
 
emergency
  doctrine
  of
  the
  peace,
  order
  and
  good
  government
  power,
  which
  is
  REASONING:
 Laskin
 CJ’s
 Judgment
 
chiefly
 distinguishable
 by
 the
 fact
 that
 it
 provides
 a
 constitutional
 basis
 for
 what
 is
  ! Court
  needs
  to
  find
  that
  there
  is
  a
  rational
  basis
  for
  the
  emergency
 
necessarily
 legislation
 of
 a
 temporary
 nature;
  legislation
  (not
  definitive
  proof
  that
  there
  was
  an
  emergency)
 
2.
 The
 national
 concern
 doctrine
 applies
 to
 both
 new
 matters
 which
 did
 not
 exist
 at
  [REQUIREMENT]
 
Confederation
 and
 to
 matters
 which,
 although
 originally
 matters
 of
 a
 local
 or
 private
 
 
nature
  in
  a
  province,
  have
  since,
  in
  the
  absence
  of
  national
  emergency,
  become
  ! Fed
  legislation
  can
  be
  upheld
  under
  the
  emergency
  test
  of
  the
  pogg
  power
 
matters
 of
 national
 concern;
  even
 if
 it
 was
 enacted
 after
 the
 emergency
 had
 ended
 (because
 the
 effects
 
3.
  For
  a
  matter
  to
  qualify
  as
  a
  matter
  of
  national
  concern
  in
  either
  sense
  it
  must
  of
 the
 emergency
 may
 still
 be
 operative)
 [RULE]
 
have
  a
  singleness,
  distinctiveness
  and
  indivisibility
  that
  clearly
  distinguishes
  it
 
 
from
 matters
 of
 provincial
 concern
 and
 a
 scale
 of
 impact
 on
 provincial
  ! Fed
  legislation
  can
  be
  upheld
  under
  the
  emergency
  test
  of
  the
  pogg
  power
 
jurisdiction
  that
  is
  reconcilable
  with
  the
  fundamental
  distribution
  of
  legislative
  even
 if
 it
 intrudes
 on
 provincial
 territory
 [RULE]
 
power
 under
 the
 Constitution;
 
 
4.
 In
 determining
 whether
 a
 matter
 has
 attained
 the
 required
 degree
 of
 singleness,
  ! It
 isn’t
 for
 the
 Court
 to
 assess
 whether
 the
 Act
 will
 in
 fact
 have
 the
 effect
 to
 
distinctiveness
  and
  indivisibility
  that
  clearly
  distinguishes
  it
  from
  matters
  of
  mitigate
 against
 the
 emergency.
 Deference
 to
 parliament.
 
 
provincial
  concern,
  it
  is
  relevant
  to
  consider
  what
  would
  be
  the
  effect
  on
  extra-­‐
 
provincial
  interests
  of
  a
  provincial
  failure
  to
  deal
  effectively
  with
  the
  control
  or
  ! The
  Anti-­‐Inflation
  Act
  is
  valid
  legislation
  for
  the
  peace,
  order
  and
  good
 
regulation
 of
 the
 intra-­‐provincial
 aspects
 of
 the
 matter
 [I.e.the
 “provincial
 inability”
  government
 of
 Canada
 and
 does
 not,
 in
 the
 circumstances
 under
 which
 it
 
test]:
 
  was
  enacted
  and
  having
  regard
  to
  its
  temporary
  character,
  invade
 

  provincial
 legislative
 jurisdiction
 
 
Court
 says
 that
 marine
 pollution,
 because
 of
 its
 predominantly
 extra-­‐provincial
 as
 
 
well
 as
 international
 character
 and
 implications,
 is
 clearly
 a
 matter
 of
 concern
 to
  ! The
 word
 emergency
 need
 not
 be
 used
 in
 the
 Act
 for
 the
 Act
 to
 be
 upheld
 
Canada
 as
 a
 whole.
  under
 the
 emergency
 test
 of
 the
 pogg
 power
 

 
 
HELD:
 s
 4(1)
 is
 constitutionally
 valid
 as
 enacted
 in
 relation
 to
 a
 matter
 falling
 w/iin
  Richie
 J’s
 Judgment:
 
the
 national
 concern
 branch
 of
 the
 peace
 order
 and
 good
 government
 power
  ! An
 “emergency”
 exists
 where
 there
 can
 be
 said
 to
 be
 an
  urgent
 and
 critical
 

  situation
 adversely
 affecting
 all
 Canadians
 and
 being
 of
 such
 proportions
 as
 
ANTI
 INFLATION
 REFERENCE
 (Deals
 with
 the
 emergency
 branch)
  to
  transcend
  the
  authority
  vested
  in
  the
  Legislatures
  of
  the
  Provinces
  and
 
FACTS:
 
  The
  Anti-­‐Inflation
  Act
  passed
  in
  1975,
  on
  recommendation
  of
  the
  Bank
  of
  thus
 presenting
 an
 emergency
 which
 can
 only
 be
 effectively
 dealt
 with
 by
 
Canada,
 to
 control
 the
 growing
 inflation
 of
 the
 past
 several
 years.
 
  Parliament
 in
 the
 exercise
 of
 the
 powers
 conferred
 upon
 it
 by
 s.
 91
 of
 the
 

  British
  North
  America
  Act
  "to
  make
  laws
  for
  the
  peace,
  order
  and
  good
 
ISSUE:
 Whether
 the
 social
 /
 economic
 circumstances
 allow
 parliament
 to
 use
 POGG
  government
 of
 Canada
 
HELD:
 
  Act
 was
 not
 ultra
 vires
 to
 the
 federal
 parliament.
 
 
 
! The
  Anti-­‐Inflation
  Act
  is
  valid
  legislation
  for
  POGG
  having
  regard
  to
  its
  [DEFINITION
 OF
 EMERGENCY]
 
temporary
  character
  it
  doesn’t
  invade
  provincial
  legislative
  jurisdiction
  [So,
  ! The
 authority
 of
 Parliament
 is
 limited
 to
 dealing
 with
 critical
 conditions
 and
 
the
  legislation
  must
  be
  temporary
  in
  nature,
  otherwise
  it
  would
  be
  seen
  as
  the
  necessity
  to
  which
  they
  give
  rise
  must
  be
  confined
  to
  legislation
  of
  a
 
invading
 provincial
 jurisdiction)
  TEMPORARY
 CHARACTER
 [REQUIREMENT]
 

 
 
PRINCIPLE:
 
 
  all
  you
  need
  to
  show
  is
  that
  a
  rational
  basis
  for
  finding
  that
  an
  ! In
  order
  to
  determine
  whether
  the
  legislation
  in
  question
  was
  enacted
  to
 
emergency
 exists-­‐
 don’t
 need
 definitive
 conclusions
 
  combat
 such
 an
 emergency,
 it
 is
 necessary
 to
 examine
 the
 legislation
 itself
 
• It
  is
  not
  necessary
  for
  the
  proponents
  of
  the
  legislation
  to
  establish
  a
  (i.e.
  look
  at
  the
  preamble
  etc)
  [Here,
  the
  preamble
  recognized
  the
  fact
  that
 
rational
  basis,
  it
  is
  for
  the
  opponents
  of
  the
  legislation
  to
  establish
  the
  inflation
  at
  current
  levels
  was
  contrary
  to
  the
  interest
  of
  all
  Canadians]
 
absence
 of
 a
 rational
 basis
 
 
  [RULE]
 
 Page
 32
 of
 86
 

 
[6]
 Criminal
 Law-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT
 ,
 1867,
 S
 91(27),
 S
 92(15)
  o When
  the
  margarine
  legislation
  was
  first
  enacted
  by
  fed
  parliament
 

  the
 preamble
 asserted
 that
 margarine
 was
 “injurious
 to
 health”-­‐
 if
 it
 
Distribution
 of
 Powers
  had
  been
  the
  continuing
  basis
  of
  the
  legislation,
  it
  would
  have
 
! S
 91(27),
 Constitution
 Act
 1867,
 confers
 on
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 the
 power
  satisfied
 the
 requirement
 of
 criminal
 public
 purpose
 
 
o Medical
 facts
 that
 margarine
 was
 not
 injurious
 to
 health-­‐
 destroyed
 
to
 make
 laws
 in
 relation
 to:
 
 the
 criminal
 law,
 except
 the
 constitution
 of
 courts
 
what
  was
  originally
  a
  secure
  criminal
  law
  foundation
  for
  the
 
of
 criminal
 jurisdiction,
 but
 including
 the
 procedure
 in
 criminal
 matters
 
legislation
 
 
! Under
 this
 provision
 criminal
 law=
 federal
 responsibility
 
 

 
 
! However,
 for
 the
 most
 part,
 Criminal
 Code
 is
 enforced
 by
 the
 provinces;
 and
  ! Food
 and
 drug
 legislation
 making
 illegal
 the
 manufacture
 or
 sale
 of
 dangerous
 
the
  decisions
  to
  investigate,
  charge
  and
  prosecute
  offences
  are
  therefore
  products,
  adulterated
  products
  is
  within
  the
  criminal
  law
  power
  (R
  v
 
matters
  of
  provincial
  policy
  which
  will
  no
  doubt
  be
  framed
  in
  response
  to
  local
  Wetmore)
 
conditions
 and
 sentiments.
 
 
 
! If
  the
  purpose
  of
  the
  federal
  food
  and
  drug
  standard
  is
  related
  to
  health
 

 
 
and/or
 the
 minimization
 of
 deception,
 then
 the
 law
 can
 be
 upheld
 under
 the
 
! Provincial
 role
 in
 criminal
 justice
 derives
 from
 s
 92(14)
 which
 confers
 on
 the
 
provincial
  Legislatures
  the
  power
  to
  make
  laws
  in
  relation
  to:
  the
  criminal
 power
 (Labatt
 Breweries
 v
 A-­‐G
 Canada)
 
administration
  of
  justice
  in
  the
  province,
  including
  the
  constitution,
 
 
maintenance
 and
 organization
 of
 provincial
 courts,
 both
 of
 civil
 and
 of
 criminal
  (b) Illicit
 Drugs
 
jurisdiction,
 and
 including
 procedure
 in
 civil
 matters
 in
 those
 courts
 
 

  ! Schneider
  v.
  The
  Queen:
  SCC
  upheld
  the
  BC
  Heroin
  Treatment
  Act,
  which
 
provided
  for
  the
  compulsory
  apprehension,
  assessment
  and
  treatment
  of
  drug
 
! Provinces
  have
  “ancillary”
  (secondary/supplementary)
  power
  to
  punitive
 
addicts;
 the
 treatment
 could
 include
 compulsory
 detention
 for
 up
 to
 6
 months.
 
 
provisions
 (“fine,
 penalty
 or
 imprisonment”)
 in
 valid
 provincial
 laws
 (s
 92(15))
 
o Argument
  that
  this
  was
  really
  a
  criminal
  law
  was
  based
  on
  the
 

 
Definition
 of
 Criminal
 Law
  deprivations
 of
 liberty
 that
 were
 authorized
 by
 the
 Act.
 

 
 3
 ingredients
 to
 the
 criminal
 law
 power:
  o Yet
  the
  coercive
  elements
  of
  the
  Act
  were
  incidental
  to
  its
  public
 
(1) A
 prohibition;
 
  health
 purpose.
 Held
 to
 be
 a
 local
 or
 private
 matter
 (provincial).
 
 
(2) Coupled
 with
 a
 penalty;
 
 
(c) Tobacco
 
 
(3) With
 a
 criminal
 public
 purpose:
 

 
! e.g.
  non-­‐
  exhaustive
  list:
  public
  peace,
  order,
  security,
  health,
  morality,
 
! RJR
  MacDonald
  v
  Canada:
  prohibition
  on
  advertising
  cigarettes
  falls
  with
 
etc
 (Margarine
 reference)
 

  criminal
 law
 power-­‐
 parliament
 can
 use
 indirect
 means
 
! **Note:
 there
 is
 no
 harm
 requirement
 for
 a
 law
 to
 be
 valid
 (Malmo-­‐
  o Federal
 Tobacco
 Act
 did
 2
 things:
 require
 placement
 of
 health
 warning
 
Levine);
  the
  criminal
  law
  power
  can
  serve
  economic
  ends
  (eg
  PATA
  labels
 on
 cigarette
 packs
 and
 prohibited
 the
 advertising
 of
 cigarettes
 
case);
  a
  criminal
  purpose
  may
  be
  pursued
  by
  indirect
  means
  (RJR-­‐
  and
  other
  tobacco
  products.
  For
  the
  warning
  label
  requirement,
  the
 
MacDonald
  v
  Canada,
  eg
  health
  risks
  of
  tobacco
  did
  not
  require
  the
  law
 was
 valid
 because
 the
 valid
 criminal
 purpose
 of
 protecting
 health.
 
 
o The
  ban
  on
  advertising?
  Parliament
  clearly
  can
  prohibit
  the
  sale,
 
outright
  banning
  of
  cigarettes,
  and
  could
  have
  been
  pursued
  by
 
possession
 and
 manufacture
 of
 dangerous
 products
 (Irwin
 Toy),
 but
 it
 
limiting
 advertising)
 
Food
 &
 Drugs
  had
 not
 done
 that
 here.
 Yet,
 majority
 said
 the
 power
 to
 prohibit
 the
 
(a) Food
 and
 drug
 standards:
 
 
 
 
  use
  of
  tobacco
  on
  account
  of
  its
  harmful
  effects
  encompassed
  the
 

  power
  to
  take
  the
  lesser
  step
  of
  prohibiting
  advertising
  (so,
  the
 

 
 
 
 
 MARGARINE
 REFERENCE
 1949
  criminal
  law
  power
  can
  be
  used
  indirectly
  to
  achieve
  a
  criminal
  law
 
A
  prohibition
  on
  the
  manufacture
  or
  sale
  of
  margarine
  was
  struck
  down
  on
  purpose)
 
o Struck
 down
 on
 freedom
 of
 expression.
 But
 held
 to
 be
 criminal
 valid.
 
the
  basis
  that
  the
  purpose
  of
  the
  legislation
  was
  the
  economic
  one
  of
 

 
protecting
 the
 dairy
 industry
 
 (invalid)
 –
 Rand
 J.
 
 Page
 33
 of
 86
 

 
Health
 
  Gun
 Control
 
! Health
  is
  not
  a
  single
  matter
  assigned
  by
  the
  Constitution
  exclusively
  to
  one
  ! In
  1995,
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  amended
  Code
  provisions,
  by
  enacting
  the
 
level
 of
 government-­‐
 it
 is
 distributed
 depending
 on
 the
 purpose
 and
 effect
 of
  Firearms
 Act
 which
 expanded
 rules
 by
 requiring
 ALL
 gun
 owners
 to
 be
 licensed
 
 
the
 particular
 heath
 measure
 
  ! The
 SCC
 upheld
 the
 validity
 of
 this
 legislation
 under
 the
 criminal
 law
 power
 in
 
! As
  the
  above
  food
  and
  drugs
  illustrates,
  there
  is
  a
  criminal
  law
  aspect
  of
  Re
 Firearms
 Act
 
 
health,
 authorizing
 federal
 legislation
 under
 s
 91(27)
 to
 punish
 conduct
 that
 is
  ! Public
 purpose
 of
 the
 Act:
 guns
 inherently
 dangerous,
 Act
 directed
 at
 safety
 
dangerous
 to
 health
  to
 restrict
 access
 to
 inherently
 dangerous
 things
 
 

 
 
Environmental
 Protection
  Prevention
 of
 Crime
 
! The
  protection
  of
  the
  environment
  (which
  extends
  beyond
  the
  protection
  of
  (a) Prevention
 in
 general
 
 
human
 health)
 is
 a
 public
 purpose
 that
 would
 support
 a
 federal
 law
 under
 the
  ! A
  law
  may
  be
  validly
  enacted
  “in
  relation
  to”
  criminal
  law,
  although
  the
  law
 
criminal
 law
 power
 (R
 v
 Hydro-­‐
 Quebec)
  itself
 does
 not
 have
 the
 characteristics
 of
 a
 criminal
 law
 

  ! Laws
 aimed
 at
 the
 prevention
 of
 crime,
 for
 example,
 binding
 over
 a
 person
 to
 
Competition
 Law
 
  keep
 the
 peace
 or
 controlling
 the
 possession
 of
 guns
 
 
! Economic
  activity
  ignores
  provincial
  boundaries
  and
  labour,
  capital
  and
  ! Laws
 of
 this
 kind
 are
 valid,
 although
 they
 depart
 from
 the
 traditional
 format
 of
 
technology
 are
 highly
 mobile
 –
 difficult
 to
 regulate
 anti-­‐competitive
 practice
 at
  criminal
 law
 
 
provincial
 levels.
 
  (b) Young
 offenders
 [preamble
 said
 ‘not
 criminals’]
 
! Originally
  invalid
  under
  criminal
  law
  power
  (Board
  of
  Commerce)
  then
  valid
  ! Young
  Offenders
  Act
  made
  provision
  for
  diversion
  programs
  under
  which
 
(P.A.T.A)
 (Atkin
 –
 if
 parliament
 believes
 bad
 to
 public
 then
 so
 be
 it)
  young
 offenders
 could
 be
 diverted
 from
 criminal
 courts
 –
 these
 programs
 were
 
o The
 P.A.T.A
 case
 established
 that
 the
 criminal
 law
 power
 was
 capable
  upheld
 as
 an
 exercise
 of
 the
 preventative
 aspect
 of
 the
 criminal
 law
 power
 
 
of
  expansion
  into
  the
  world
  of
  commerce
  after
  it
  upheld
  federal
 
 
legislation
 which
 dealt
 with
 restraint
 of
 trade
 issues
 
  Criminal
 Law
 and
 Civil
 Remedy
 
 

  (a) Federal
 power
 generally
 to
 create
 civil
 remedies
 
! BUT
 Now
 upheld
 under
 Trade
 and
 Commerce
 clause
 
  ! The
  federal
  Parliament
  has
  no
  independent
  power
  to
  create
  civil
  remedies
 
o The
  criminal
  aspect
  of
  the
  Act
  in
  PATA,
  due
  to
  changes
  in
  competition
  similar
  to
  its
  power
  over
  criminal
  law.
  This
  means
  that
  if
  the
  pith
  and
 
law,
  have
  diminished,
  and
  the
  relevant
  power
  for
  the
  most
  part
  is
  substance
 of
 a
 federal
 law
 is
 the
 creation
 of
 a
 new
 civil
 cause
 of
 action,
 the
 law
 
trade
 and
 commerce.
 
  will
 be
 invalid
 as
 coming
 within
 the
 provincial
 head
 of
 power
 of
 property
 and
 

  civil
 rights
 (MacDonald
 v
 Vapor
 Canada)
 
Sunday
 Observance
 Law
  ! Where
  the
  pith
  and
  substance
  of
  a
  federal
  law
  is
  not
  the
  creation
  of
  a
  civil
 
! Religious
  purpose
  of
  Lord’s
  Day
  Act
  originally
  makes
  it
  valid
  federal
  law,
  remedy,
 but
 is
 some
 other
 matter
 within
 federal
 power,
 there
 is
 no
 reason
 to
 
eventually
 invalidate
 it
 under
 Charter.
 
 (prohibits
 work
 on
 Sundays)
  doubt
 the
 validity
 of
 a
 civil
 remedy
 provided
 for
 enforcement
 of
 the
 law-­‐
 the
 

  remedy
 is
 valid
 as
 incidental
 to
 the
 main
 purpose
 of
 the
 law
 (Papp
 v
 Papp)
 
(a) Federal
 power
 [religious
 purpose]
 
 
o Big
  M
  Drug
  Mart:
  confirmed
  that
  the
  criminal
  law
  power
  can
  be
  used
  to
  ! Since
 Papp
 v
 Papp
 the
 SCC
 has
 used
 the
 ‘functional
 connection”
 test
 to
 uphold
 
legislate
  in
  relation
  to
  the
  purpose
  of
  preserving
  the
  sanctity
  of
  the
  a
  civil
  remedy
  in
  federal
  corporation
  law,
  against
  persons
  who
  engage
  in
 
Christian
 Sabbath
 (and
 observance
 of
 days
 of
 religious
 significance)-­‐
 comes
  insider
 trading,
 a
 civil
 remedy
 in
 federal
 competition
 law
 etc
 
 
within
  safeguarding
  morality
  "
  [religious
  purpose
  crucial
  to
  federal
  o Case
 about
 fed
 divorce
 act
 "
 provision
 about
 child
 custody
 (prov).
 
 
power]
 
 

  (b) Criminal
 law
 power
 to
 create
 civil
 remedies
 
 
(b) Provincial
 power
 [secular
 purpose]
 [Edwards
 Books
 –
 REL
 "
 Secular
 >
 time]
  ! In
  R
  v
  Zelensky,
  the
  SCC
  upheld
  a
  provision
  of
  the
  Criminal
  Code
  that
 
o Laws
 which
 provide
 “pause
 days”
 or
 restrict
 business
 hours,
 and
 which
 have
  authorized
  a
  criminal
  court,
  upon
  convicting
  an
  accused
  of
  an
  indictable
 
secular
 purposes,
 are
 valid
 under
 the
 property
 and
 civil
 rights
 prov
 power
  offence,
 to
 order
 the
 accused
 to
 pay
 the
 victim
 compensation
 for
 any
 loss
 or
 

  damage
 
 
 Page
 34
 of
 86
 

 
Criminal
 Law
 and
 Regulatory
 Authority
 
  ! The
  elusiveness
  of
  that
  distinction
  creates
  uncertainty
  about
  the
  scope
  of
 
! Criminal
  power
  generally
  wont
  sustain
  a
  regulatory
  regime/
  scheme
  which
  provincial
 power
 under
 s
 92(15)
 as
 well
 as
 the
 scope
 of
 federal
 power
 s
 91(27)
 
relies
 upon
 more
 sophisticated
 tools
 than
 a
 simple
 prohibition
 and
 penalty
 
 
 

  Provincial
 /
 Federal
 Distinction
 in
 making
 Criminal
 Laws:
 
! E.g
  Nova
 Scotia
 Board
 of
 Censors
 v
 McNeil:
 
  SCC
 held
 that
 the
 censorship
  of
  ! Provincial
  power
  to
  create
  offences
  under
  s
  92(15)
  is
  not
  as
  broad
  as
  the
 
films
 was
 not
 criminal.
 Court
 upheld
 censorship
 law
 as
 being
 the
 regulation
 of
  federal
 power
 to
 create
 offences
 under
 s
 91(27)
 
an
 industry
 within
 the
 province
 (property
 and
 civil
 rights)
 
 
 

  ! Where
  the
  penalties
  are
  imposed
  in
  respect
  of
  matters
  over
  which
  the
 
! R
  v
  Hydro-­‐
  Quebec:
  HQ
  was
  prosecuted
  for
  violating
  an
  interim
  order
  that
  provinces
  ordinarily
  have
  legislative
  jurisdiction
  (eg.,
  property,
  streets,
  parks,
 
restricted
  the
  emission
  of
  a
  substance
  to
  one
  gram
  per
  day.
  Majority
  upheld
  businesses
 activity),
 the
 provincial
 law
 is
 likely
 to
 be
 valid.
 
 
the
 Act
 as
 a
 criminal
 law.
 “because
 the
 administrative
 procedure
 for
 assessing
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐VS-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
the
 toxicity
 of
 the
 substances
 culminated
 in
 a
 prohibition
 enforced
 by
 a
 penal
  ! Where
 the
 provincial
 offence
 cannot
 safely
 be
 anchored
 in
 property/
 civil
 right
 
sanction,
  the
  scheme
  was
  sufficiently
  prohibitory
  (Re
  Firearms
  Act
  affirms
  or
 some
 other
 head
 of
 provincial
 power,
 then
 It
 will
 be
 invalid
 (Westendorp)
 
this
 reasoning
 –
 regulation
 of
 firearms
 (licensing)
 scheme
 =
 prohibition).
 
 
 

  Chatterjee
 v
 Ontario
 [2009]
 SCC
 
REFERENCE
 RE
 ASSISTED
 HUMAN
 REPRODUCTION
 ACT
 2010
  o Police
 pulled
 car
 over
 and
 found
 money
 that
 smelled
 of
 marijuana
 
 
o 1989
  the
  federal
  government
  established
  the
  Royal
  Commission
  on
  New
  o The
  police
  laid
  no
  charges
  but
  sought
  to
  keep
  the
  money
  through
  a
 
Reproductive
 Technologies
 (“Baird
 Commission”)
 to
 study
 assisted
 human
  provincial
  act
  that
  allowed
  them
  to
  keep
  “proceeds
  of
  unlawful
 
reproduction.
 The
 commission
 expressed
 concern
 about
 certain
 practices
  activity”
 
in
 the
 field
 and
 pressed
 for
 legislation
 
 
  o Its’
  stated
  purpose
  was
  to
  prevent
  persons
  from
  profiting
  from
 
o Between
  1993-­‐
  1995
  the
  federal
  government
  consulted
  with
  the
  unlawful
 activity
 
 
provinces,
  the
  territories
  and
  independent
  groups
  for
  advice
  which
  o The
  driver
  applied
  for
  a
  declaration
  that
  the
  Civil
  Remedies
  Act
  was
 
resulted
 in
 the
 passage
 of
 the
 Assisted
 Reproduction
 Act
 2004
  unconstitutional
 
 
o The
  Act
  contains
  prohibitions
  and
  other
  provisions
  designed
  to
  administer
  o He
 relied
 solely
 on
 the
 federalism
 argument,
 and
 argued
 that
 the
 Act
 
and
 enforce
 them
 (eg
 prohibiting
 cloning…)
  was
 an
 intrusion
 into
 the
 federal
 realm
 of
 Criminal
 law
 
 
o The
  A-­‐G
  of
  Quebec
  argued
  that
  although
  some
  of
  the
  provisions
  were
  o Held
 that
 the
 pith
 and
 substance
 of
 the
 law
 was
 related
 to
 property
 
invalid
 criminal
 law,
 certain
 sections
 were
 attempts
 to
 regulate
 the
 whole
  o Forfeiture
  measures
  in
  the
  Criminal
  Code
  were
  only
  related
  to
 
sector
  of
  medical
  practice
  and
  research
  related
  to
  assisted
  reproduction
  sentencing
  so
  the
  provincial
  forfeiture
  measures
  were
  considered
 
and
  thus
  were
  ultra
  vires.
  The
  Quebec
  Court
  of
  Appeal
  held
  that
  the
  independent
 
 
impugned
  sections
  were
  not
  valid
  criminal
  law
  since
  their
  pith
  and
  o Held
 it
 was
 within
 provincial
 competence
 and
 the
 Act
 was
 upheld
 
 
substance
  was
  the
  regulation
  of
  medical
  practice
  and
  research
  to
 
assisted
 reproduction
  MAIN CASES FOR CRIMINAL LAW:
o Held
  the
  appeal
  should
  be
  allowed
  in
  part
  and
  some
  of
  the
  provisions
 
were
 struck
 down
 
 
RE: FIREARMS ACT

  FACTS: Alberta directs a reference to the Alberta Superiour Court to examine constitutionality
Provincial
 Power
 to
 Enact
 Penal
 Laws
 
  of the legislation (not its desirability).

  ISSUE: Does the act, in P&S, refer to criminal law powers? YES—regulatory aspects are
! Provincial
 Legislatures
 have
 the
 power
 under
 s
 92(15)
 to
 impose
 ‘punishment
  secondary to the form of prohibition and penalty.
by
  fine,
  penalty,
  or
  imprisonment’
  for
  the
  purpose
  of
  enforcing
  otherwise
  valid
  REASONS:
provincial
 laws
 
  • The legislation’s dominant characteristic is public safety, which is a traditional
! However,
  the
  power
  requires
  the
  courts
  to
  draw
  a
  distinction
  between
  a
  valid
  criminal law purpose. There’s also a form of prohibition and penalty.
provincial
 law
 with
 an
 ancillary
 penalty
 and
 a
 provincial
 law
 which
 is
 invalid
 as
 
being
 In
 pith
 and
 substance
 a
 criminal
 law
 
 IMPORTANT
 
 Page
 35
 of
 86
• It doesn’t matter that the regulatory regime is complex. Here, there’s no regulatory
agency or administrator, not an official with broad discression. What discression they
have is restricted.
• Unlike regulation of cars and property, guns have a dangerous nature.
• It doesn’t matter it there are incidental effects onto provincial jurisdiction over
property and civil rights here—the law’s dominant feature is still federal.
• The provinces may still regulate guns via hunting laws if they want to—there are no
watertight compartments here.
• A dbl aspect area has been created here, which doesn’t exactly prohibit Alberta’s
ability to legislate regarding a gun registry—they might just end up at paramountcy or
IJI.
• It doesn’t matter if this act is discriminatory against northern and rural communities,
because the court is not to look at the desirability of the legislation in question.
MARGARINE REFERENCE
FACTS: the feds banned the import of margarine
REASONS:
• Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament receives exclusive
powers to legislate in regard to the criminal law.
• The precise meaning of the criminal law power, however, had proved controversial.
In the Board of Commerce case, the JCPC seemingly chose to define criminal law
power as limited to prohibiting only what was criminal in 1867.
• This was overturned in Proprietary Articles Trade Assn. v. A.-G. Can. (1931), in
which it was found criminal law means Parliament could legitimately prohibit any act
"with penal consequences." The problem with the latter decision was that it gave
Parliament an excuse to legislate in regard to many matters.
• In this case, Parliament had legislated against the production and trade of
margarine, in order to give dairy businesses assurances that margarine would not
threaten their existence
• This legislation actually dated back to 1886, and it was claimed in the law that the
real purpose was to target a product that was "injurious to health.
HELD:
• The prohibition of manufacture, offer, sale or possession for sale of the goods
mentioned is ultra vires of Parliament, as it is legislation in relation to property
• The prohibition of importation of the goods mentioned in the section is intra
vires of Parliament as legislation in relation to foreign trade
From this, two requirements must be met for a law to be criminal in nature:
(1) The law must be a prohibition with a penal sanction; and
(2) The law must be directed towards a public purpose.
o Rand also listed a few objectives that would qualify as legitimate public
purposes, namely "Public peace, order, security, health, morality."
REFERENCE RE ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION ACT, 2010 SCC
FACTS:
• The Court of Appeal was asked by the Government of Quebec to answer the following
question:
Are sections 8 to 19, 40 to 53, 60, 61 and 68 of th eAssisted Human Reproduction
Act, S.C. 2004, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada in whole or in part under
the Constitution Act, 1867?
HELD: The Court ruled in the affirmative in all respects of the question. (Rare 4-4-1 split)
REASONS:
The McLachlin opinion: constitutionally valid
• The dominant purpose and effect of the legislative scheme is to prohibit (Prohibition)
practices that would undercut moral values, produce public health evils, and threaten the
security of donors, donees, and persons conceived by assisted reproduction.
• Here, the matter of the statutory scheme, viewed as a whole, is a valid exercise of the
federal power over criminal law.
The LeBel/Deschamps opinion: unconstitutional
• The impugned provisions represent an overflow of the exercise of the federal criminal law
power.
• Their pith and substance is connected with the provinces’ exclusive jurisdiction over
hospitals, property and civil rights, and matters of a merely local nature.
The Cromwell opinion: constitutional, to extent that they relate to constitutionally valid
• The matter of the impugned provisions is regulation of virtually every aspect of research
and clinical practice in relation to assisted human reproduction. The matter of the
challenged provisions is best classified as relating to the establishment, maintenance and
management of hospitals, property and civil rights in the province and matters of a merely
local or private nature in the province. However, ss. 8, 9 and 12 in purpose and effect
prohibit negative practices associated with assisted reproduction and fall within the
traditional ambit of the federal criminal law power.
 Page
 36
 of
 86
 

 
HUMAN
 RIGHTS
 &
 FREEDOMS
  ! In
 this
 case
 the
 challenged
 provisions
 were
 in
 relation
 to
 commerce
 within
 the
 
province,
  which
  was
  a
  matter
  within
  the
  provincial
  jurisdiction
  over
  property
 

  and
 civil
 rights
 in
 the
 province
 (s92(13))
 
[1]
 Language
 Rights-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT
 1867,
 S
 133
 
 

  Language
 of
 Constitution
 
 
2
 major
 areas
 of
 discussion:
  ! Constitution
 Act
 1867
 was
 enacted
 in
 English
 only
 (the
 French
 version
 that
 is
 
 
i.
 
 Distribution
 of
 powers
 over
 language
 
  to
 be
 found
 in
 the
 Appendix
 to
 the
 Revised
 Statutes
 of
 Canada
 is
 unofficial)
 
ii.
 Constitutional
 protections
 for
 minority
 languages
  ! S
 55,
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 directs
 the
 Minister
 of
 Justice
 to
 prepare
 a
 French
 

  version
  of
  the
  English-­‐only
  parts
  of
  the
  Constitution
  of
  Canada,
  and
  to
  put
  it
 
! English
 and
 French
 (languages
 of
 European
 founders
 of
 Canada)
 have
 special
  forward
  for
  adoption
  as
  an
  official
  text
  by
  the
  appropriate
  amending
 
constitutional
 recognition
  procedures.
 
! Right
 to
 speak
 Aboriginal
 languages
 is
 probably
 protected
 by
 s
 35,
 Constitution
  ! So
 long
 as
 the
 French
 version
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 remains
 unofficial
 
Act
 1982
  any
  discrepancy
  between
  the
  English
  and
  French
  version
  would
  have
  to
  be
 
! Immigrant
 groups
 have
 language
 interests
 
  resolved
  by
  recourse
  to
  the
  English
  version,
  because
  that
  is
  the
  only
 

  authoritative
 one
 
 
Distribution
 of
 Powers
 over
 Language
 
  ! Canada
 Act
 and
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 were
 enacted
 by
 UK
 in
 BOTH
 languages
 
 

  ! S
  57,
  Constitution
  Act
  1982,
  provides
  that
  the
  English
  and
  French
  versions
  of
 
! Language
 is
 NOT
 one
 of
 the
 classes
 of
 subjects
 (or
 heads
 of
 legislative
 power)
  that
 Act
 are
 “equally
 authoritative”
 
 
which
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
  enumerates
  and
  distributes
  to
  the
  2
  levels
  of
  ! The
 rule
 of
 equal
 authority
 is
 the
 only
 appropriate
 one
 for
 a
 bilingual
 country,
 
government.
 
  but
 it
 does
 not
 tell
 us
 how
 to
 resolve
 discrepancies
 between
 the
 English
 and
 
! Cases
  decide
  that
  language
  is
  NOT
  an
  independent
  matter
  of
  legislation
  (or
  French
 versions
 
 
constitutional
 value)
  ! Since
  confederation,
  federal
  statues
  have
  been
  enacted
  in
  both
  languages,
 
! A
 law
 prescribing
 that
 a
 particular
 language
 or
 languages
 must/may
 be
 used
 in
  because
 that
 was
 required
 by
 s
 133
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 
 
certain
 situations
 will
 be
 classified
 not
 as
 a
 law
 in
 relation
 to
 language,
 but
 as
 a
 
 
law
 in
 relation
 to
 the
 institutions
 or
 activities
 that
 the
 provision
 covers
 
  Discrepancies
 Arise:
 

  ! Courts
 have
 held
 that
 the
 English
 and
 French
 versions
 are
 equally
 authoritative
 
Jones
 v
 Attorney
 General
 of
 New
 Brunswick
 1974:
  (king
  v
  Dubois)
  and
  have
  developed
  rules
  for
  resolving
  discrepancies:
  (these
 
! SCC
  upheld
  the
  federal
  Official
  Languages
  Act
  which
  purported
  to
  make
  the
  rules
 should
 be
 applied
 to
 the
 bilingual
 texts
 of
 the
 Constitution
 of
 Canada)
 
English
  and
  French
  languages
  the
  official
  languages
  of
  Canada
  “in
  the
  ! Where
  one
  language
  version
  is
  doubtful
  or
  ambiguous
  and
  the
  other
  is
  clear;
 
institutions
 of
 the
 Parliament
 and
 Government
 of
 Canada
 
  the
 doubt
 or
 ambiguity
 is
 resolved
 by
 reference
 to
 the
 clear
 version
 (king
 v
 
! Court
  held
  that
  the
  law
  was
  authorized
  by
  federal
  power
  over
  federal
  Dubois)
 
governmental
  and
  parliamentary
  institutions
  (which
  stemmed
  from
  the
  pogg
  ! Where
  there
  is
  a
  divergence
  between
  the
  2
  language
  versions,
  that
  meaning
 
power).
 Also
 stemmed
 from
 enumerated
 classes
 (procedure,
 courts
 –
 federal).
 
  should
 be
 selected
 that
 is
 compatible
 with
 both
 versions
 (Jones
 and
 Maheux
 
! Since
  Jones
  was
  decided,
  the
  court
  has
  held
  that
  the
  pogg
  power
 
  should
  be
  v.
  Gamache)=
  general
  rule
  (however,
  the
  meaning
  selected
  must
  be
 
confined
 to
 subjects
 of
 legislation
 that
 are
 relatively
 narrow
 and
 specific,
 and
 it
  reasonable
 in
 the
 context
 of
 the
 statute)
 
seems
 likely
 that
 the
 subject
 of
 language
 would
 be
 too
 broad
 to
 qualify
 
  ! If
 one
 language
 version
 gives
 better
 effect
 to
 the
 purpose
 of
 the
 statute,
 then
 

  that
  version
  should
  be
  selected,
  even
  if
  a
  narrower
  meaning
  would
  be
 
Devine
 v.
 Quebec
 1988
  common
 to
 both
 versions
 (The
 Queen
 v.
 Compagnie
 Immobiliere)
 
! SCC
 upheld
 various
 provisions
 of
 Quebec’s
 Charter
 of
 the
 French
 Language
 that
 
 
regulated
  the
  language
  of
  commerce;
  they
  required
  the
  use
  of
  the
  French
 
 
language
 in
 public
 signs,
 commercial
 advertising,
 brochures
 etc
 
 
 

 

 
 Page
 37
 of
 86
 

 
Language
 of
 Statutes
 
  !Reason
 for
 s
 23
 was
 to
 guarantee
 the
 rights
 of
 the
 French-­‐
 speaking
 minority
 
(a) Constitutional
 requirements
 
  in
 Manitoba
 
 
! Only
  explicit
  guarantee
  of
  language
  rights
  in
  the
  Constitution
  Act,
  1867
  is
 
 
contained
 in
 s
 133:
  ! The
  Manitoba’s
  Official
  Language
  Act
  1890
  provided
  that
  “the
  English
 

  language
  only”
  shall
  be
  used
  in
  the
  records
  and
  journals
  of
  the
  Legislatures,
 
“English
  or
  French
  to
  be
  used
  in
  debates
  in
  the
  Houses
  of
  the
  federal
  and
 in
 pleading
 and
 process
 in
 Manitoba
 courts.
 In
 effect,
 an
 attempt
 to
 repeal
 
Parliament
 and
 Quebec
 Legislature;
 it
 requires
 both
 English
 and
 French
 to
 be
  most
 of
 s
 23
 of
 Manitoba
 Act
 
 
used
 in
 the
 records
 and
 journals
 of
 those
 Houses;
 and
 it
 requires
 the
 statutes
 
 
of
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 and
 Quebec
 Legislature
 to
 be
 printed
 and
 published
  In
 Re
 Manitoba
 Language
 Rights
 1985
 case,
 held
 the
 statue
 was
 invalid
 
in
 both
 languages.
 It
 also
 provides
 that
 either
 English
 or
 French
 may
 be
 used
 in
  o SCC
 confirmed
 that
 the
 failure
 to
 comply
 with
 s
 23’s
 requirement
 of
 
any
 pleading
 or
 process
 in
 the
 federal
 courts
 of
 Quebec
 courts)
  bilingual
 enactment
 resulted
 in
 the
 invalidity
 of
 the
 purported
 statute
 
 

  o Almost
  all
  Manitoba
  Statutes
  were
  held
  invalid
  because
  enacted
  in
 
! Applies
 ONLY
 to
 the
 legislative
 bodies
 (and
 courts)
 of
 the
 federal
 government
  English
 only,
 contrary
 to
 s
 23
 
and
  of
  Quebec.
  S
  133
  does
  not
  apply
  to
  the
  Legislature
  (and
  courts)
  of
  any
  ! Temporary
 suspension
 of
 invalidity
 -­‐
 Court
 declared
 that
 the
 
province
 other
 than
 Quebec.
  province’s
  statutes
  were
  to
  be
  “deemed
  to
  have
  temporary
 

  force
 and
 effect
 for
 the
 minimum
 period
 necessary
 for
 their
 
! HOWEVER,
 the
 Manitoba
 Act
 1870
  includes,
 as
 s
 23,
 a
 provision
 that
 provides
  translation,
 re-­‐enactment,
 printing
 and
 publication”
 
for
 the
 use
 of
 English
 and
 French
 in
 the
 Legislature
 
 (and
 courts)
 of
 Manitoba
 in
  ! Could
  not
  allow
  English
  to
  prevail
  over
  French
  if
  conflict-­‐
 
terms
 very
 similar
 to
 s
 133
  equal
 authority
 given
 to
 both,
 no
 inferiority
 of
 one
 language
 
 
! The
 Charter
 of
 Rights,
 which
 is
 Part
 I
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982
 incudes
 as
 
 
ss
 16
 to
 23
 a
 variety
 of
 language
 provisions
 
  (d) Incorporation
 by
 Reference
 
 

  ! General
 rule:
 where
 a
 statute
 makes
 reference
 to
 another
 document
 so
 as
 to
 
(b) Quebec’s
 Charter
 of
 the
 French
 language
 
  incorporate
 (or
 adopt)
 the
 document
 as
 part
 of
 the
 statute,
 then
 if
 there
 is
 a
 
A-­‐G
 of
 Quebec
 v.
 Blaikie
 1979:
 
  constitutional
  requirement
  that
  the
  incorporating
  statute
  be
  in
  both
 
o Quebec’s
  Charter
  of
  the
  French
  Language
  (making
  French
  the
  sole
  languages,
  then
  the
  requirement
  will
  apply
  to
  the
  incorporated
  document
  as
 
language
 of
 the
 legislature)
 does
 not
 supersede
 s
 133-­‐
 must
 be
 official
  well
 (not
 an
 absolute
 rule
 though).
 
statutes
 in
 both
 languages
 in
 Quebec
 
  ! A-­‐G
 of
 Quebec
 v
 Collier
 1985:
 2
 Quebec
 statutes
 (enacted
 in
 both
 English
 and
 
o Held
 unofficial
 ENG
 translations
 did
 not
 meet
 the
 s
 133
 requirement
  French)
  were
  held
  unconstitutional
  as
  they
  incorporated
  by
  reference
 
! s
  133’s
  requirement
  that
  the
  statutes
  be
  “printed
  and
  published’
  in
  both
  unilingual
 session
 papers
 (in
 French
 only)
 (which
 were
 an
 integral
 part
 of
 the
 
languages
  should
  be
  interpreted
  as
  a
  requirement
  of
  “enactment
  in
  both
  statutes)
 
 and
 thus
 infringed
 s
 133
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 
 
languages”,
  especially
  in
  light
  of
  the
  requirement
  that
  the
  ‘records
  and
 
 
journals”
 of
 the
 Legislature
 should
 be
 in
 both
 languages
  (e) Delegated
 legislation
 
 
! Statutes
 enacted
 in
 French
 only
 were
 invalid
 
  ! S
 133
 requirements,
 as
 a
 general
 rule,
 apply
 to
 delegated
 legislation,
 as
 well
 as
 

  to
 statutes.
 Thus,
 delegated
 legislation
 must
 be
 in
 ENG
 and
 FRENCH.
 
 
(c) Manitoba’s
 Official
 Language
 Act
 
  ! A-­‐G
 of
 Quebec
 v.
 Blaikie:
 bilingualism
 requirement
 under
 s
 133
 of
 Constitution
 
! Manitoba
  Act
  1870
  s
  23-­‐
  provides
  for
  the
  use
  English
  and
  French
  in
  the
  Act
 1867
 applied
 to
 statutes
 and
 regulations
 
 
Legislature
 (and
 courts)
 of
 Manitoba
 in
 terms
 similar
 to
 s
 133
  ! A-­‐G
  of
  Quebec
  v.
  Blaikie
  (no
  2)
  (1981):
  s
  133
  only
  applied
  to
  the
  provincial
 

  government
  (ie,
  excluded
  municipal
  by-­‐
  laws
  and
  school
  boards),
  courts
  and
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 s
 23:
 
 either
  the
  English
  or
  the
  French
  languages
  may
  be
  used
  by
  any
  person
  in
  the
  quasi-­‐judicial
 tribunals
 (eg
 rules
 of
 practice)
 
 
debates
 of
 the
 Houses
 of
 the
 Legislature,
 and
 both
 those
 languages
 shall
 be
 used
  ! Re
 Manitoba
 Language
 Rights
 (No
 3)
 (1992):
 SCC
 held
 that
 s
 23
 applied
 only
 
in
  the
  respective
  records
  and
  journals
  of
  those
  Houses;
  and
  either
  of
  those
  to
  “instruments
  of
  a
  legislative
  nature”.
  An
  instrument
  would
  have
  3
 
languages
 may
 be
 used
 by
 any
 person,
 or
 in
 any
 pleading
 or
 process,
 in
 or
 issuing
  characteristic:
 (1)
 it
 would
 establish
 a
 “rule
 of
 conduct”;
 (2)
 it
 would
 have
 the
 
from
  any
  Court.
  The
  Acts
  of
  the
  Legislature
  shall
  be
  printed
  and
  published
  in
  both
 
“force
 of
 law”;
 (3)
 it
 would
 be
 “of
 general
 application
 rather
 than
 directed
 at
 
those
 languages.
 
 
 Page
 38
 of
 86
 

 
specific
 individuals
 or
 situations”
 (the
 obligation
 of
 bilingual
 enactment
 applied
  o But
 the
 fair-­‐
 hearing
 right
 to
 be
 heard
 and
 understood
 by
 a
 court
 was
 
only
 to
 instruments
 possessing
 those
 3
 characteristics)
  not
  a
  language
  right
  and
  it
  extended
  to
  those
  who
  spoke
  or
 

  understood
 neither
 official
 language
 
 
Language
 of
 Courts
  o It
  had
  not
  been
  breached
  in
  this
  case
  because
  the
  judge’s
  alleged
 

  incompetence
 in
 French
 had
 not
 been
 established
 as
 a
 matter
 of
 fact
 
 
(a) Constitutional
 requirements
 
  o Court’s
  CURRENT
  position:
  language
  rights
  deserve
  large,
  liberal
 
! S
 133
 of
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 requires
 that
 either
 French
 or
 English
 “may
 be
  interpretation
 (DesRochers,
 SCC
 2009)
 
used
 by
 any
 person
 or
 in
 any
 pleading
 or
 process
 in
 or
 issuing
 from
 any
 Court
 
 
of
  Canada
  established
  under
  this
  Act,
  and
  in
  or
  from
  all
  or
  any
  of
  the
  Courts
  of
  Language
 of
 Government
 
 
Quebec
  ! Previous
  sections
  addressed
  the
  constitutional
  requirements,
  in
  the
  federal
 
! S
 23
 of
 the
 Manitoba
 Act
 1870
 imposes
 similar
 requirement
 on
 the
 courts
 of
  jurisdiction,
 Quebec,
 Manitoba,
 and
 New
 Brunswick,
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 use
 of
 
Manitoba
 
  the
 English
 and
 French
 languages
 in
 legislative
 bodies
 and
 courts
 
 
! Section
  19(2)
  of
  the
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  imposes
  a
  similar
  requirement
  on
  the
  ! We
 have
 noticed
 that
 limited
 form
 of
 bilingualism
 that
 is
 required
 by
 s
 133
 of
 
courts
 of
 New
 Brunswick
 
  Constitution
  Act
  1867,
  s
  23
  Manitoba
  Act
  1870,
  and
  ss
  16
  to
  20
  of
  Charter
 
! The
  courts
  of
  the
  other
  7
  provinces
  are
  under
  NO
  similar
  constitutional
  Rights.
 
 
obligation
  ! But
 two
 provisions
 of
 the
 Charter
 –
 ss
 16
 and
 20
 go
 beyond
 legislative
 bodies
 
! Quebec’s
  Charter
  of
  the
  French
  Language
  provide
  that,
  in
  the
  courts
  of
  and
 courts
 
 
Quebec,
  French
  was
  to
  be
  the
  language
  of
  pleading
  and
  process,
  except
  in
 
 
certain
 defined
 circumstances
  S
 16
 of
 the
 Charter
 provides:
 ENG
 and
 FRENCH
 “Official
 Lang
 of
 Canada”
 
! But…
  A-­‐G
  of
  Quebec
  v
  Blaikie
  1979:
  court
  held
  litigants
  in
  the
  courts
  of
  16(1):
 
  English
 and
 French
 are
 the
 official
 languages
 of
 Canada
 and
 have
 equality
 of
 
Quebec
 able
 to
 have
 the
 option
 of
 using
 English
 in
 any
 pleading
 or
 process)
 
 
  status
 rights
 and
 privileges
 as
 to
 their
 use
 in
 all
 institutions
 of
 the
 Parliament
 

  and
 government
 of
 Canada
 
 
16(2):
 
  English
  and
  French
  are
  the
  official
  languages
  of
  New
  Brunswick
  and
  have
 
(b) Language
 of
 Process
 
 
equality
  of
  status
  and
  equal
  rights
  and
  privileges
  as
  to
  their
  use
  in
  all
 
! Can
 be
 in
 either
 English
 or
 French
 
 
institutions
 of
 the
 legislature
 and
 government
 of
 New
 Brunswick
 
 

  16(3):
 
  Nothing
  in
  this
  Charter
  limits
  the
  authority
  of
  Parliament
  or
  a
  legislature
  to
 
MacDonald
 v.
 City
 of
 Montreal
 1986:
 
  advance
 the
 equality
 of
 status
 or
 use
 of
 English
 and
 French
 (in
 other
 words,
 
! An
 English-­‐
 speaking
 person
 issued
 French
 summon
 for
 speeding.
 Challenged.
 
  legislatures
 can
 provide
 rights
 beyond
 those
 guaranteed
 in
 the
 Charter)
 
! Majority:
 s
 133
 does
 not
 give
 the
 right
 to
 choose
 the
 language
 of
 the
 process
 
 
or
 right
 to
 be
 understood
 
  Section
 20
 of
 Charter
 :Obligation
 on
 Gov’t
 to
 provide
 bilingual
 services
 to
 pub
 
Beetz
 J:
 
  language
  rights
  are
  different
  than
  other
  human
  rights-­‐
  it
  flows
  from
  20(1):
 
  any
 member
 of
 the
 public
 in
 Canada
 has
 the
 right
 to
 communicate
 with,
 and
 
politics,
 not
 principle
 =
 narrower
 interpretation
 
  to
 receive
 available
 services
 from,
 any
 head
 or
 central
 office
 of
 an
 institution
 
Wilson
 J.
 
 (Dissent):
  s
  133
  implies
  a
  duty
  to
  accommodate
  English
  and
  French
  of
 the
 Parliament
 or
 government
 of
 Canada
 in
 English
 or
 French,
 and
 has
 the
 
same
 right
 with
 respect
 to
 any
 other
 office
 of
 any
 such
 institution
 where
 
speakers
 (wide
 interpretation).
 
 
(a)
 
  there
  is
 
  a
  significant
  demand
  for
  communications
  with
  and
  services
  from
 

 
that
 office
 in
 such
 language;
 or
 
 
(c) Language
 of
 proceedings
 
  (b)
 
  Due
 to
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 office,
 it
 is
 reasonable
 that
 communications
 with
 
Societe
 des
 Acadiens
 v.
 Association
 of
 Parents
 1986:
 
  and
 services
 from
 that
 office
 be
 available
 in
 both
 English
 and
 French
 
! Claimed
 one
 of
 the
 3
 judges
 did
 not
 understand
 French
 
  21(2):
 
  any
 member
 of
 the
 public
 in
 New
 Brunswick
 has
 the
 right
 to
 communicate
 
! Beetz
 J
 repeats
 MacDonald
 view
 for
 majority
 (case
 above)
  with,
  and
  to
  receive
  available
  services
  from,
  any
  head
  or
  central
  office
  of
  an
 
! Makes
 a
 distinction
 between
 language
 rights
 and
 right
 to
 fair
 hearing:
  institution
 of
 the
 Parliament
 or
 government
 of
 New
 Brunswick
 in
 English
 or
 
! Beetz
  J
  in
  this
  case
  points
  out
  that
  a
  right
  to
 
  a
  fair
  hearing,
  which
  was
  French
 
recognized
  by
  the
  common
  law
  rules
  of
  natural
  justice
  and
  which
  was
 
 
protected
  by
  ss
  7
  to
  14
  of
  the
  Charter,
  would
  be
  offended
  by
  a
  presiding
 
 
judge’s
 failure
 to
 comprehend
 the
 evidence
 or
 argument
 
 
 
 Page
 39
 of
 86
 

 
DesRochers
 v
 Canada
 2009:
  language
  at
  school,
  then
  constitutionally
  protected
  by
  s93.
  Yet
  the
 
! English
 and
 French
 services
 must
 be
 of
 equal
 quality
 
  court
 held
 that
 classes
 of
 peoples
 is
 specific
 to
 Roman
 Catholic
 class
 
! Equality
 is
 substantive
 –
 users
 of
 service
 must
 be
 getting
 equal
 benefits
 
  and
 NOT
 language
 or
 race
 classes.
 
 
! Like
  other
  language
  rights,
  s20
  should
  be
  given
  a
  liberal
  and
  purposive
 
 
interpretation
 –
 when
 s20
 applies,
 the
 principle
 of
 equality
 of
 both
 languages
  S
 23
 of
 Charter:
 Minority
 Language
 Rights
 
guaranteed
 by
 s16
 must
 be
 respected.
 
  o Minority
 language
 rights
 have
 now
 been
 provided
 for
 in
 s
 23
 

  o Confers
  upon
  citizens
  of
  Canada
  who
  are
  members
  of
  the
  English
 
Language
 of
 Commerce
  speaking
  minority
  in
  Quebec
  or
  the
  French
  speaking
  minority
  in
  the
 
! None
 of
 the
 language
 rights
 in
 the
 Constitutions
 of
 Canada
 protects
 the
 use
  other
 provinces
 ‘the
 right
 to
 have
 their
 children
 receive
 primary
 and
 
of
 the
 English
 or
 French
 language
 in
 commercial/
 private
 settings.
 
  secondary
  school
  instruction
  in
  the
  minority
  language
  in
  that
 
BUT
  province.”
  This
  right
  is
  possessed
  by
  parents
  who
  fit
  into
  1
  of
  3
 
! Language
 laws
 may
 offend
 the
 freedom
 of
 expression
 (Charter
 s2(b))
  categories:
 

  (1)
 the
 mother
 tongue
 of
 the
 parent
 
 
Ford
 v
 Quebec
 1988:
 
  ! Does
 not
 apply
 in
 Quebec
 unless
 Quebec
 decides
 to
 adopt
 it
 (s
 
• SCC
  struck
  down
  the
  provisions
  of
  Quebec’s
  Charter
  of
  the
  French
  Language
  59
 of
 Constitution
 Act
 1982)
 
that
 required
 commercial
 signs
 and
 advertisements
 to
 be
 in
 French
 only.
 
  (2)
  the
  language
  of
  primary
  school
  instruction
  in
  Canada
  of
  the
 
• The
  court
  held
  that
  freedom
  of
  expression
  included
  “the
  freedom
  to
  express
  parent
 
 
oneself
 in
 the
 language
 of
 one’s
 choice.”
 
  ! AG
 Quebec
 Protestant
 School
 
 
• It
 followed
 that
 the
 prohibition
 of
 the
 use
 of
 any
 language
 other
 than
 French
  (3)
 The
 language
 of
 instruction
 in
 Canada
 of
 one
 child
 of
 the
 parent
 
was
 a
 breach
 of
 freedom
 of
 expression.
 
  ! There
  is
  a
  qualification
  to
  s93
  though.
  The
  right
  is
  not
  an
 
• The
 court
 also
 held
 that
 while
 s
 1
 would
 save
 some
 laws,
 a
 total
 prohibition
 of
  absolute
 one
 (can
 be
 invoked
 “only
 where
 numbers
 warrant”)
 
other
 languages
 on
 commercial
 signs/advertisements
 was
 a
 disproportionately
 
 
severe
 measure
 that
 could
 not
 be
 saved
 under
 s
 1.
 Thus
 held
 to
 be
 invalid.
 
 
 
! Devine
  v
  Quebec
  1988:
  requirement
  of
  French
  without
  prohibition
  on
  other
 
 
languages
 offends
 s
 2(b)
 of
 Charter
 but
 is
 saved
 by
 s
 1.
 Thus
 proportionate.
 
 
 

 
 
Language
 of
 Education
 
 
 
! s
  93,
  Constitution
  Act
  1867-­‐
  confers
  on
  provincial
  legislatures
  the
  power
  to
 
 
make
 laws
 in
 relation
 to
 education,
 and
 the
 ancillary
 power
 over
 language
 of
 
 
instruction
 in
 the
 schools.
 But
 if
 a
 particular
 language
 of
 instruction
 was
 a
 right
 
 
or
  privilege
  of
  separate
  schools
  in
  a
  particular
  province
  at
  the
  time
  of
 
 
confederation,
  then
  the
  province
  would
  be
  disabled
  from
  compelling
  such
 
 
schools
 to
 instruct
 in
 a
 different
 language
 
 
o This
  section
  applies
  to
  each
  of
  the
  original
  confederating
  provinces,
 
 
namely,
  Ontario,
  Quebec,
  New
  Brunswick,
  and
  Nova
  Scotia
  and
  B.C
 
 
and
  P.E.I
  /
  slightly
  different
  versions
  apply
  to
  Manitoba,
  Alberta,
 
 
Saskatchewan,
 and
 Newfoundland
 
 
 

 
 
Roman
 Catholic
 Separate
 School
 Trustees
 v
 Mackell
 1916:
 
 
 
o Ontario
  can
  require
  English
  to
  be
  language
  of
  instruction
  in
  Catholic
 
 
schools.
 Even
 in
 French
 catholic
 schools.
 
 
 
o Content
 of
 right
 depends
 on
 laws
 in
 force
 at
 confederation.
 If
 at
 time
 
 
of
  confederation,
  there
  was
  class
  of
  peoples
  practicing
  another
 
 
 Page
 40
 of
 86
 

 

  ! St.
  Catherines’s
  Milling
  case
  1889:
  Privy
  Council
  held
  that
  lands
  reserved
  for
 
[2]
 Aboriginal
 &
 Treaty
 Rights
  the
 Indians
 were
 not
 among
 the
 properties
 transferred
 to
 the
 Dominion
 by
 the
 

  property
  provisions
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867.
  Thus
  the
  underlying
  title
  to
 
FEDERAL
 LEGISLATIVE
 POWER
  the
  land
  remained
  in
  the
  Crown
  in
  right
  of
  the
  province,
  subject
  to
  the
 
aboriginal
  rights
  of
  the
  Indians
  (which
  are
  subject
  to
  federal
  legislative
 

 
authority)
 
Section
 91(24),
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 
 
! BUT
 if
 the
 Indians
 surrender
 their
 rights
 over
 particular
 lands,
 which
 they
 can
 
! Confers
 upon
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 to
 make
 laws
 in
 relation
 to
 “Indians,
 and
 
lands
  reserved
  or
  the
  Indians”
  (ie
  “rationally
  relate”
  to
  legislative
  policy
  in
  only
 do
 to
 the
 Crown,
 then
 full
 title
 to
 the
 lands
 is
 assumed
 by
 the
 province,
 
regard
 to
 Indians)
  not
 the
 Dominion
 
 
! Contains
 2
 heads
 of
 power:
 (1)
 a
 power
 over
 “Indians”
 and
 
 (2)
 a
 power
 over
 
 
“lands
 reserved
 for
 the
 Indians”
  (c) Charter
 of
 Rights
 
 
st
! 1
 power=
 may
 be
 exercised
 in
 respect
 of
 ONLY
 Indians
 whether
 or
 not
 they
  ! S.
 15-­‐
 contains
 an
 equality
 guarantee
 
! The
 Indian
 Act
 has
 not
 yet
 been
 challenged
 under
 s
 15
 by
 reason
 of
 its
 use
 of
 
reside
 on,
 or
 have
 any
 connection
 with,
 lands
 reserved
 for
 the
 Indians
 
 
nd the
 “Indian”
 classification
 
 
! 2
 power=
 may
 be
 exercised
 in
 respect
 of
 Indians
 and
 non-­‐
 Indians
 so
 long
 as
 
the
 law
 is
 related
 to
 lands
 reserved
 for
 the
 Indians.
  ! The
  term
  “Indian”
  under
  the
  federal
  Indian
  Act
  distinguishes
  on
  the
  basis
  of
 
! Idea:
 Fed
 government
 maintain
 uniform
 respect,
 better
 able
 to
 be
 unbiased.
 
  race,
  although
  it
  may
  not
  infringe
  s
  15(1)
  of
  the
  Charter
  as
  it
  may
  not
 

  “discriminate”
 by
 promoting
 prejudice
 or
 stereotyping
 
 
(a) Indians
 
  ! Any
 s
 15(1)
 infringement
 could
 be
 justified
 under
 s
 1
 of
 the
 Charter
 
 
! Refers
 to
 aboriginal
 peoples
 living
 in
 Canada
 before
 European
 contact
 
  ! Indian
 Act
 like
 any
 other
 statute
 is
 vulnerable
 to
 attack.
 
 

 
! “status
  Indians”-­‐
  under
  federal
  Indian
  Act
  enjoy
  right
  to
  live
  on
  Indian
 
(d) Treaties:
 
reserves,
  and
  have
  other
  privileges
  under
  the
  Act,
  and
  all
  are
  captured
  by
  s
 
91(24)
 (approx.
 700,000)
  • General
  rule:
  have
  no
  effect
  internally
  in
  canada
  unless
  they
  are
  implemented
 
! “non-­‐
 status
 Indians”-­‐
 are
 not
 captured
 by
 the
 Indian
 Act
 definition,
 but
 can
 be
  via
 legislation.
 
 
“Indians”
 under
 s
 91(24)
 (approx.
 200,000)
  • Before
 1982
 they
 could
 not
 stand
 against
 inconsistent
 federal
 legislation
 
! Metis
 (intermarriage
 between
 French
 Canadian
 men
 and
 Indian
 women
 during
  • Sect
 35
 of
 1982
 Constitution
 Act
 now
 gives
 constitutional
 protection
 to
 rights
 
fur
 trade
 period)
 are
 probably
 “Indians”
 under
 s
 91(24)
 (approx.
 300,000)
 but
  created
 by
 treaties
 entered
 into
 in
 past.
 
 
are
 not
 governed
 by
 the
 Indian
 Act
 
  • Operates
 as
 a
 limitation
 on
 powers
 of
 federal
 government
 and
 provincial.
 
 
! Inuit
 –
 are
 “Indians”
 under
 s
 91(24)
 (approx.
 50,000)
 but
 not
 governed
 by
 the
 
 
Indian
 Act
 
  PROVINCIAL
 LEGISLATIVE
 POWER
 
! Federal
 Government
 can
 make
 laws
 for
 Indians
 on
 matters
 which
 otherwise
 lie
 
 
outside
 its
 legislative
 competence,
 and
 on
 which
 it
 cannot
 leg
 for
 non-­‐Indians.
 
  ! GENERAL
  RULE:
  provincial
  laws
  apply
  to
  Indians
  and
  lands
  reserved
  for
  the
 

  Indians
 
 
(b) Lands
 reserved
 for
 Indians
  ! Four
 B
 Manufacturing
 (1979)
 
! Includes
 the
 lands
 set
 aside
 as
 Indian
 reserves
 before
 and
 after
 Confederation
 
  o SCC
  held
  that
  provincial
  labour
  law
  applied
  to
  a
  shoe-­‐
  manufacturing
 
! Also
 includes
 the
 huge
 area
 of
 land
 recognized
 by
 the
  Royal
 Proclamation
 of
  business,
  which
  was
  located
  on
  a
  reserve,
  which
  was
  owned
  (through
  a
 
1763
  as
  “reserved”
  for
  the
  Indians,
  that
  is,
  all
  land
  within
  the
  territory
  covered
  corporation)
  by
  Indians,
  employed
  mainly
  Indian,
  and
  funded
  by
  the
 
by
 the
 Proclamation
 that
 was
 in
 the
 possession
 of
 the
 Indians
 and
 that
 had
 not
  Department
 of
 Indian
 Affairs.
 
 
been
 ceded
 to
 the
 Crown
 
  ! R
 v.
 Francis
 (1988)
 

  o court
  held
  that
  provincial
  traffic
  laws
  applied
  to
  an
  Indian
  driving
  a
  vehicle
 
DELGAMUUKW
  V
  BRITISH
  COLUMBIA
  1997:
  SCC
  went
  further
  holding
  that
  it
  on
 an
 Indian
 reserve
 
 
extends
 to
 all
 “lands
 held
 pursuant
 to
 aboriginal
 title”
 (for
 that
 reason,
 only
 the
  ! These
 decisions
 establish
 that
 the
 provincial
 Legislatures
 have
 the
 powers
 to
 
federal
 Parliament
 had
 the
 power
 to
 extinguish
 aboriginal
 title)
  make
  their
  laws
  applicable
  to
  Indians
  and
  on
  Indian
  reserves,
  so
  long
  as
  the
 
law
 is
 in
 relation
 to
 a
 matter
 coming
 within
 a
 provincial
 head
 of
 power
 
 
 Page
 41
 of
 86
 

 
! The
  2
  above
  cases
  rejected
  the
  theory
  that
  Indian
  reserves
  are
  federal
  Section
 88
 of
 the
 Indian
 Act
 
 
“enclaves”
 from
 which
 provincial
 laws
 are
 excluded
 
  Provides
 that:
 
  ‘subject
  to
  the
  terms
  of
  any
  treaty
  and
  any
  other
  Act
  of
  the
  Parliament
  of
 

  Canada,
  all
  laws
  of
  general
  application
  from
  time
  to
  time
  in
  force
  in
  any
 

 EXCEPTIONS
 to
 the
 general
 rule
 that
 provincial
 laws
 don’t
 apply
 to
 Indians
 (5):
  province
 are
 applicable
 to
 and
 in
 respect
 of
 Indians
 in
 the
 province,
 except
 to
 

 
  the
  extent
  that
  such
  laws
  are
  inconsistent
  with
  this
  Act
  or
  any
  order,
  rule,
 
regulation
 or
 by-­‐law
 made
 thereunder,
 and
 except
 to
 the
 extent
 that
 such
 laws
 
1.
 Singling
 out
 
make
 provision
 for
 any
 matter
 for
 which
 provision
 is
 made
 by
 or
 under
 this
 Act.’
 
! Provincial
  law
  cannot
  target
  Indians
  or
  lands
  reserved
  for
  the
  Indians
  for
 

 
special
 treatment
 (ultra
 vires)
 and
 therefore
 would
 be
 invalid.
 This
 is
 b/c
 only
 
! Makes
 clear
 that
 provincial
 “laws
 of
 general
 application”
 apply
 to
 “Indians”
 
federal
 parliament
 can
 legislate
 “in
 relation
 to
 Indians”
 
and
  makes
  no
  reference
  to
  lands
  reserved
  for
  the
  Indians,
  but
  it
  does
  extend
 

 
to
 Indians
 on
 reserve
 
 
2.
 Indianness
 
! Operates
  as
  a
  federal
  adoption,
  or
  incorporation
  by
  reference,
  of
  provincial
 
! A
  provincial
  law
  cannot
  affect
  an
  integral/
  vital/
  core
  part
  of
  primary
  federal
 
laws,
 making
 the
 provincial
 laws
 applicable
 as
 part
 of
 federal
 law
 
 
jurisdiction
 over
 Indians
 and
 lands
 reserved
 for
 the
 Indians
 (ie.,
 cannot
 affect
 

 
aboriginal
  rights
  or
  treaty
  rights,
  or
  right
  to
  possession
  of
  land
  on
  Indian
 
Not
 only
 a
 declaration
 of
 previous
 case
 law:
 
reserves,
 or
 some
 uses
 of
 land
 on
 reserve,
 or
 buildings
 on
 reserves)
 
o Extends
 body
 of
 provincial
 law
 that
 is
 applicable
 to
 Indians.
 
 

 
o Provincial
 laws
 affecting
 Indianness,
 which
 do
 not
 apply
 to
 Indians
 of
 
! Natural
 Parents
 v.
 Superintendent
 of
 Child
 Welfare
 (1975):
 SCC
 held
 that,
 
their
 own
 force
 are
 applicable
 by
 s88.
 (Dick
 v
 The
 Queen)
 (provincial
 
while
  provincial
  adoption
  law
  would
  permit
  white
  parents
  to
  adopt
  an
 
laws
 of
 general
 application
 can
 infringe
 aboriginal
 rights
 but
 not
 as
 
Indian
 child,
 the
 provincial
 law
 had
 to
 be
 read
 down
 so
 as
 not
 to
 deprive
 
far
 as
 to
 extinguish
 aboriginal
 rights)
 
the
 child
 of
 his
 Indian
 status
 
 

 

 
! Provides
  absolute
  protection
  against
  any
  significant
  infringement
  of
  treaty
 
! Kitkatla
  Band
  v
  British
  Columbia
  2002:
  unsuccessful
  challenge
  to
 
rights
 by
 provincial
 law
 (note:
 treaty
 rights
 also
 protected
 by
 s
 35
 Constitution
 
provincial
  heritage
  conservation
  law
  which
  allowed
  licensed
  logging
 
Act
 1982)
 
companies
  to
  destroy
  “culturally
  modified
  trees”-­‐
  no
  aboriginal
  right
  or
 
! Preserves
 paramountcy:
 any
 conflict
 b/w
 federal
 statute
 and
 provincial
 law
 of
 
title
 to
 the
 trees
 (on
 Crown
 land)-­‐
 despite
 cultural
 significance,
 application
 
general
 application
 resolved
 in
 favour
 of
 federal
 statute.
 
 
of
 the
 act
 to
 the
 trees
 did
 not
 affect
 Indianness
 
 

 

 
ABORIGINAL
 RIGHTS:
 
3.
 Paramountcy
 
 
Overview:
 
! If
  a
  Provincial
  law
  is
  inconsistent
  with
 
  a
  provision
  of
  the
 
  Indian
  Act
  (or
  any
 
! Aboriginal
 rights
 are
 distinct
 and
 arise
 from
 Aboriginal
 occupation
 of
 lands
 in
 
other
 federal
 law),
 the
 provincial
 law
 is
 rendered
 inoperative
 
 
Canada
 in
 organized/
 governing
 societies
 (“nations”)
 prior
 to
 European
 contact
 
 

 
! Aboriginal
  rights
  include
  concept
  of
  Aboriginal
  title,
  which
  is
  a
  unique
 
4.
 Natural
 resources
 agreements
 
 
communally
 held
 property
 right
 
 
! The
  right
  of
  Indians
  to
  take
  game
  and
  fish
  for
  food,
  which
  is
  defied
  and
 
! The
  scope
  of
  an
  Aboriginal
  right
  depends
  on
  specific
  facts
  related
  to
  the
 
protected
  in
  the
  3
  prairie
  provinces
  (Manitoba,
  Saskatchewan,
  and
  Alberta)
  by
 
Aboriginal
 group
 and
 its
 historic
 relationship
 to
 the
 land
 in
 question
 
the
  Natural
  Resources
  Agreement.
  Provincial
  laws
  cannot
  deprive
  Indians
  of
 
! S
 35,
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 protects
 Aboriginal
 rights
 and
 title
 
 
 
this
 right
 

 

 
(a) Recognition
 of
 Aboriginal
 Rights
 
5.
 Section
 35,
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 

 
! Since
 1982,
 aboriginal
 and
 treaty
 rights
 are
 constitutionally
 protected
 by
 s
 35
 
 
! s
  35,
  Constitution
  Act
  1982
  gives
  constitutional
  protection
  to
  “the
  existing
 
! Even
  before
  1982
  aboriginal
  rights
  and
  treaty
  rights
  were
  not
  vulnerable
  to
 
aboriginal
 and
 treaty
 rights
 of
 the
 aboriginal
 peoples
 of
 Canada”
 
provincial
 law,
 because
 of
 the
 Indianness
 exception
 .
 

 
! S35
 is
 examined
 later
 in
 chapter.
 
 

 
 Page
 42
 of
 86
 

 
! Aboriginal
  rights
  that
  have
  not
  been
  extinguished
  are
  recognized
  by
  the
  TEST:
 
 (1)
 
 in
  order
  to
  be
  an
  aboriginal
  right,
  an
  activity
  must
  be
  an
  element
  of
  a
 
common
  law
  and
  are
  enforceable
  by
  the
  courts.
  Guerin
  v
  The
  Queen
  is
  the
  practice,
  custom
  or
  tradition,
  integral
  (ie
  sufficiently
  central)
  to
  the
 
leading
 case
 on
 this
 matter.
 
  distinctive
 culture
 of
 the
 aboriginal
 group
 asserting
 the
 right
 
 
Facts:
 
  Musquem
 Indian
 Band
 surrendered
 land
 to
 Crown
 to
 enable
 lease
  ! Integral
  "
  the
  practice
  must
  be
  of
  central
  significance
  to
  the
 
to
 a
 golf
 club
  society,
 must
 be
 defining
 and
 distinctive
 characteristic
 to
 society.
 
Held:
 
  Aboriginal
  rights
  exists
  at
  common
  law
  and
  confirmed
  they
  are
  (2)
 
  The
 practice
 must
 have
 developed
 before
 “contact”,
 ie
 before
 the
 arrival
 
enforceable
 by
 the
 courts
 (a
 pre
 s
 35
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 case)
  of
 Europeans
 in
 North
 America
 
Recognized
 Aboriginal
 title
 to
 land
 in
 B.C
 as
 “a
 legal
 right
 derives
  (3)
  The
  practice
  could
  evolve
  over
  the
  years
  as
  the
  result
  of
  contact,
  but
  a
 
from
 the
 Indians’
 historic
 occupation
 and
 possession
 of
 their
 lands”
  practice
 that
 has
 evolved
 into
 modern
 forms
 must
 trace
 its
 origins
 back
 

  to
 the
 pre-­‐
 contact
 period
 (ie
 bow
 and
 arrow
 by
 the
 gun).
 Contemporary
 
! Sparrow
 follows
 Guerin
 and
 recognized
 the
 aboriginal
 right
 of
 a
 member
 of
 the
  practices
 that
 developed
 “solely
 as
 a
 response
 to
 Europeans
 influences”
 
Musqueam
  Indian
  Band
  to
  fish
  for
  salmon
  in
  the
  Fraser
  River.
  Sparrow
  also
  do
 not
 qualify
 
recognized
  that
  in
  all
  dealings
  with
  aboriginal
  peoples,
  the
  Government
  has
 
 
the
 responsibility
 to
 act
 in
 fiduciary
 capacity,
 and
 also
 decides
 that
 aboriginal
  o In
  the
  above
  case
  s
  35
  did
  not
  apply
  (thus
  accused
  was
  convicted)
 
rights,
  including
  the
  fiduciary
  duty,
  are
  now
  constitutionally
  guaranteed
  because
  Aboriginal
  right
  is
  based
  on
  existence
  of
  an
  Aboriginal
  practice
 
st
through
 s
 35
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 (this
 was
 the
 1
 s35
 case)
  before
 “contact
 
 

 
 
(b) Definition
 of
 Aboriginal
 Rights
 
  ! R
  v.
  Sapper
  2006:
  Aboriginal
  right
  to
  harvest
  timber
  to
  construct
  permanent
 

  dwellings
  based
  on
  Maliset
  and
  Mi’kmaq
  pre-­‐contact
  ancestral
  practices
  of
 
! Aboriginal
 RIGHTS
 are
 rights
 held
 by
 aboriginal
 peoples,
 not
 by
 virtue
 of
 Crown
  harvesting
  wood
  for
  temporary
  shelter
  and
  domestic
  uses
  (they
  cut
  down
 
grant,
 legislation
 or
 treaty,
 but
 “by
 reason
 of
 the
 fact
 that
 aboriginal
 peoples
  Crowns
  wood/trees
  for
  canoes,
  tools,
  firewood)
  –
  was
  immaterial
  that
 
were
 once
 independent,
 self-­‐
 governing
 entities
 in
 possession
 of
 most
 of
 the
  practices
  developed
  as
  necessity
  of
  survival,
  thus
  s
  35
  invoked
  and
  accused
 
lands
 now
 making
 up
 Canada.”
  were
  successful
  in
  establishing
  their
  aboriginal
  right
  and
  entitled
  to
  be
 

  acquitted
 
 
! Lamer
  C.J.
  in
  R
  v
  Van
  der
  Peet
  (1996)
  pointed
  out
  that
  “when
  Europeans
 
 
arrived
  in
  North
  America,
  aboriginal
  peoples
  were
  already
  here,
  living
  in
  (c) Aboriginal
 Self-­‐
 Government
 
 
communities
 on
 the
 land,
 and
 participating
 in
 distinctive
 cultures,
 as
 they
 had
 
 
done
  for
  centuries.”
  This
  fact
  distinguishes
  aboriginal
  peoples
  from
  all
  other
  ! The
  aboriginal
  right
  of
  self-­‐
  government
  must
  exist
  by
  virtue
  of
  the
  fact
  that
 
minority
 groups
 in
 Canada,
 and
 explains
 why
 aboriginal
 rights
 have
 a
 special
  aboriginal
 people
 were
 living
 in
 self-­‐
 governing
 communities
 before
 the
 arrival
 
legal,
 and
 now
 constitutional
 status.
  of
 Europeans
 
 

  ! According
 to
 Pamajewon
 1996
 case
 ,
 the
 aboriginal
 right
 of
 self-­‐
 government
 
R.
 v.
 VAN
 DER
 PEET
 [previously
 SCC
 recognized,
 here
 they
 defined
 chara]
  extends
  only
  to
  activities
  that
  took
  place
  before
  European
  contact,
  and
  then
 
FACTS:
 
  Aboriginal
  def
  convicted
  selling
  fish
  she
  caught
  under
  Indian
  food
  fish
  only
  to
  those
  activities
  that
  were
  an
 integral
  part
  of
  the
  aboriginal
  society(
  did
 
licence.
  Licence
  restricted
  fishing.
  Question
  whether
  there
  was
  aboriginal
  not
  include
  gambling,
  which
  was
  informal
  and
  small
  scale
  and
  not
 
right
 to
 sell
 fish
 for
 money
 or
 other
 goods.
 
  economically
  sustaining
  for
  Aboriginal
  communities)
 
  (ie
  must
  meet
  the
  Van
 
HELD:
  Exchange
  of
  goods
  did
  occur
  in
  their
  society
  before
  contact,
  but
  was
  der
 Peet
 test)
 
incidental
  to
  practices
  of
  fishing
  for
  food.
  Practice
  of
  selling
  fish
  was
  not
 
 
integral
 part
 of
 their
 culture.
 Only
 after
 EU
 influence
 did
 market
 arise.
 
 
 

 
 
CASE
 CREATED
 TEST
 FOR
 ABORIGINAL
 RIGHTS
 DEFINITION:
 
 
! Articulated
  the
  legal
  test
  that
  was
  to
  be
  used
  to
  identify
  an
  “existing
 
 
aboriginal
 right”
 within
 the
 meaning
 of
 s
 35
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1982:
 
 
 

 
 Page
 43
 of
 86
 

 
(d)
 Aboriginal
 Title:
  The
 right
 to
 exclusive
 occupation
 of
 land,
 which
 permits
 the
  ! Because
  of
  s
  35,
  legislation
  cannot
  extinguish
  aboriginal
  rights,
  but
  it
  can
 
aboriginal
 owners
 to
 use
 the
 land
 for
 a
 variety
 of
 purposes
  regulate
 them,
 so
 long
 as
 the
 test
 of
 justification
 is
 passed
 

 
 
!The
 SCC
 in
 Calder
 
 and
 
 Guerin
 recognized
 that
 At
 common
 law,
 aboriginal
 title
  TREATY
 RIGHTS:
 
survived
 European
 settlement
 and
 assumption
 of
 sovereignty
 by
 British
 Crown,
 
 
unless
 surrendered
 or
 lawfully
 extinguished
 
  <1982,
 Indian
 treaty
 rights
 protected
 from
 Provincial
 legislation
 by
 s.88
 Indian
 Act
 

  >1982,
 Treaty
 rights
 protected
 by
 s35
 CA
 from
 Prov
 and
 Federal
 legislation.
 
 
! Aboriginal
  title
  was
  recognized
  by
  the
  Royal
  Proclamation
  of
  1763,
  which
 
 
governed
 British
 imperial
 policy
 for
 the
 settlement
 of
 British
 North
 America.
 
  (a) History
 
 
o As
  settlement
  advanced
  across
  the
  country,
  treaties
  were
  entered
  ! Historically,
 from
 approximately
 1850
 to
 1920,
 a
 series
 of
 treaties
 were
 signed
 
into
  with
  the
  aboriginal
  people,
  who
  surrendered
  portions
  of
  their
  ceding
 Indian
 lands
 to
 the
 Crown
 in
 exchange
 for
 (among
 other
 things)
 hunting
 
land
  to
  the
  Crown,
  thereby
  freeing
  up
  the
  surrendered
  land
  for
  and
 fishing
 rights,
 and
 the
 reservation
 of
 certain
 portions
 of
 treaty
 lands
 
 
settlement
 and
 development
 by
 non-­‐
 aboriginal
 people
 
  ! After
  SCC
  in
  Calder
  (1973)
  recognized
  validity
  of
  Aboriginal
  rights,
  Canada
 

  resumed
  modern
  land
  claims
  process,
  to
  negotiate
  surrender
  of
  Aboriginal
 
! Since
 1982,
 Aboriginal
 title
 is
 protected
 by
 s
 35,
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
  rights
  over
  non-­‐settlement
  lands
  in
  exchange
  for
  reserves,
  payment,
 

  development,
 land
 use
 planning,
 resource
 management
 etc
 
 
DELGAMUUKW
 V
 BRITISH
 COLUMBIA
 1997
 (Leading
 case
 on
 aboriginal
 title)
 
 
 
Facts:
 
  Action
  by
  Aboriginal
  group
  for
  declaration
  of
  aboriginal
  title
  to
  tract
  of
  land
  (b) Definition
 of
 Treaty
 
in
 northern
 B.C
  ! Indian
 treaty=
 unique
 (sui
 generis)
 agreement
 between
 Aboriginal
 nation
 and
 
Held:
 
  Aboriginal
 title
 is
 proved
 by
 showing
 that
 Aboriginal
 people
 occupied
 the
  Crown
  with
  intention
  to
  create
  legally
  binding
  obligations
  for
  consideration
 
land
 prior
 to
 sovereignty
 (not
 contact,
 which
 is
 earlier
 and
 less
 certain)
  featuring
 a
 measure
 of
 solemnity
 
 

  ! Surrender
  of
  Aboriginal
  rights
  or
  title
  is
  not
  necessary
  for
  a
  valid
  treaty,
  and
 
Aboriginal
  title
  confers
  the
  right
  to
  exclusive
  use
  and
  occupation
  of
  the
  does
 not
 have
 to
 involve
 territory
 
 
land
  includes
  right
  to
  engage
  in
  activities
  on
  land,
  and
  not
  just
  traditional
  ! R
 v
 Simon
 1985:
 
activities
 e.g.,
 can
 engage
 in
 oil
 or
 gas
 exploitation)
 
  o SCC
 held:
 a
 “peace
 and
 friendship”
 treaty
 signed
 in
 1752
 by
 Governor
 of
 

  Nova
 Scotia
 and
 Chief
 of
 Micmac
 Indians
 was
 binding
 given
 intention
 to
 
Aboriginal
  title
  is
  inalienable
  (unchallengeable)
  except
  to
  the
  Crown
  (ie
  to
  create
 legally
 binding
 obligations
 
 
pass
  title,
  Aboriginal
  owners
  must
  first
  voluntarily
  surrender
  land
  to
  o Gave
 Micmacs
 liberty
 to
 hunt
 and
 fish
 in
 the
 treaty
 area,
 in
 exchange
 for
 
Crown),
  and
  Crown
  then
  under
  fiduciary
  duty
  to
  deal
  with
  land
  in
  best
  ceasing
  hostilities.
  THUS
 
  (per
  s
  88
  Indian
  Act)
  exempted
  Micmac
 
interests
 of
 surrendering
 Aboriginals
 
  defendant
 from
 provincial
 game
 laws
 
 

 
 
Aboriginal
 title
 only
 held
 communally
 by
 all
 members
 of
 Aboriginal
 nation
  (c) Interpretation
 of
 Treaty
 Rights
 
 

 
 
 
(d) Extinguishment
 of
 Aboriginal
 Rights
 
  ! Broad
  and
  generous
  interpretation
  of
  what
  constitutes
  a
  treaty-­‐
  “should
  be
 

  liberally
  construed
  with
  doubtful
  expressions
  resolved
  in
  favour
  of
  the
 
! Aboriginal
 rights
 (including
 aboriginal
 title)
 can
 be
 extinguished
 in
 2
 ways:
 
  Indians”
 –Nowegikick
 v
 Queen
 
 
(1)
 by
 surrender
 and
 (2)
 by
 constitutional
 amendment
 (not
 that
 it
 is
 now
 clear
  ! The
  reason
  for
  this
  rule
  include
  the
  unequal
  bargaining
  power
  of
  the
  Crown
 
that
  it
  would
  be
  a
  breach
  of
  Crown’s
  fiduciary
  duty
  to
  the
  aboriginal
  people
  to
  and
 the
 aboriginal
 people
 
proceed
  with
  a
  constitutional
  amendment
  affecting
  aboriginal
  rights
  without
 
 
at
 least
 the
 active
 participation
 of
 the
 affected
 aboriginal
 people)
  ! The
 honour
 of
 the
 Crown
 and
 the
 fiduciary
 duty
 of
 the
 Crown
 demand
 a
 rule
 
! Extinguishment,
 whether
 by
 voluntary
 surrender
 or
 constitutional
 amendment,
  that
  removes
  even
  the
  appearance
  or
  suspicion
  of
  sharp
  practice
  in
  treating
 
will
 not
 be
 inferred
 from
 unclear
 language.
 Only
 a
 “clear
 and
 plain”
 intention
  with
 aboriginal
 people
 
 
to
 extinguish
 is
 accepted
 by
 courts
 (Sparrow)
 
 
 Page
 44
 of
 86
 

 
! Remarkable
 example
 of
 generous
 interpretation
 of
 an
 Indian
 treaty:
  4. Aboriginal
  and
  treaty
  rights
  could
  be
  modified
  or
  extinguished
  by
 

  constitutional
  amendment,
  whereby
  aboriginal
  peoples’
  representatives
 

 R
 v
 Marshall
 (No
 1)
 1999
  were
  not
  entitled
  to
  participate
  in
  the
  decisive
  phases
  of
  the
  amending
 
o Issue:
 whether
 M
 Indian
 charged
 with
 fishing
 for
 eels
 and
 selling
 them
  process
 (unlike
 now
 with
 s
 35)
 
without
  a
  license
  had
  a
  treaty
  right
  to
  do
  so
  (brief
  “peace
  and
  The
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
 has
 taken
 steps
 to
 eliminate
 these
 4
 infirmities
 
 
!
friendship”
  treaty
  from
  1760
  between
  British
  Governor
  of
  Nova
  Scotia
  See
 section
 35,
 25,
 and
 35.1
 
!
and
  M
  Chief
  did
  not
  directly
  discuss
  fishing,
  and
  limited
  discussion
  of
 
 
“truck
 house”
 trade
 with
 British)
 
 
 
 
 SECTION
 35,
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT
 1982
 
o SCC
  held:
  “truck
  house”
  provision
  conferred
  a
  treaty
  right
  under
  s
  35
 
 
Constitution
  Act
  1982
  to
  “hunt,
  fish
  and
  gather”
  to
  make
  “moderate
  ! Provides
 an
 additional
 layer
 of
 constitutional
 protection
 for
 Aboriginals:
 
livelihood”
  as
  these
  historic
  activities
  gave
  Indians
  commodities
  to
  bring
  (1) The
  existing
  aboriginal
  and
  treaty
  rights
  of
  the
  aboriginal
  peoples
  of
 
to
  truck
  house
  for
  trade,
  THUS
  treaty
  right
  prevailed
  over
  provincial
  law
  Canada
 are
 hereby
 recognized
 and
 affirmed
 
 
and
 defendant
 acquitted
 
  (2) In
 this
 Act,
 “aboriginal
 peoples
 of
 Canada”
 includes
 the
 Indian,
 Inuit
 and
 

  Metis
 peoples
 of
 Canada
 
! R
 v
 Marshall
 No
 3
 2005:
 SCC
 rejected
 application
 of
 “truck
 house”
 argument
 to
  (3) For
  greater
  clarity,
  in
  subsection
  (1)
  “treaty
  right”
  includes
  rights
  that
  now
 
Mi’kmaq
  commercial
  logging
  operations
  on
  Crown
  lands
  without
  provincial
  exist
 by
 way
 of
 land
 claims
 agreements
 or
 may
 be
 so
 acquired
 
 
statutory
 authority-­‐
 logging
 (unlike
 eel
 fishing)
 was
 not
 a
 traditional
 Mi’kmaq
  (4) Notwithstanding
 any
 other
 provision
 of
 this
 Act,
 the
 aboriginal
 and
 treaty
 
activity
 in
 1760
 and
 modern
 logging
 was
 not
 the
 natural
 evolution
 of
 the
 minor
  rights
  referred
  to
  in
  subsection
  (1)
  are
  guaranteed
  equally
  to
  male
  and
 
trade
  in
  wood
  products
  at
  time
  of
  treaty,
  THUS
  defendants
  had
  no
  treaty
  right
  female
 persons.
 
 
to
 cut
 down
 trees
 for
 commercial
 purposes
 without
 a
 license.
 
 
 

  ! S
 35
 is
 outside
 the
 Charter,
 thus
 

  o Protections
 under
 s
 35
 are
 not
 subject
 to
 justification
 under
 s
 1
 of
 the
 
(d) Extinguishment
 of
 Treaty
 Rights
 
  Charter
  (rights
  are
  not
  subject
  to
  “such
  reasonable
  limits
  prescribed
  by
 
! 2
 ways
 to
 extinguish
 (same
 as
 Aboriginal
 rights):
  law
 as
 can
 be
 demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society”)
 
 
o 1.
 Voluntary
 surrender
 to
 the
 Crown
  o The
 rights
 are
 not
 subject
 to
 legislative
 override
 under
 s
 33
 of
 Charter
 
 
o 2.
 Constitutional
 amendment
 
  o The
  disadvantage
  of
  the
  location
  of
  s
  35
  outside
  the
  charter
  is
  that
  the
 
o Prior
  to
  1982,
  could
  also
  be
  extinguished
  by
  federal
  legislation
  (not
  rights
  are
  enforceable
  under
  s
  24,
  a
  provision
  that
  permits
 
provincial)
 but
 no
 longer
 possible
 given
 s
 35,
 Constitution
 Act
 1982
  enforcements
 only
 of
 Charter
 rights
 
 
! Require
 “clear
 and
 plain”
 intention
 to
 extinguish
 
 
 
o Crown
 must
 show
 that
 it
 had
 a
 clear
 and
 plain
 intention
 to
 completely
  [1]
 
 “Aboriginal
 Peoples
 of
 Canada”
 
 "
 
 “Indian,
 Inuit,
 Metis”
 
remove
 the
 ability
 to
 exercise
 the
 right
  R
 v
 Powley
 (2003)
 SCC:
 

  o Facts:
 Father
 and
 son
 in
 Sault
 Ste.
 Marie
 charged
 with
 shooting
 moose
 
THE
 NEED
 FOR
 CONSTITUTIONAL
 PROTECTION:
  without
 required
 provincial
 hunting
 license
 
 

  o Defence
 =
 they
 were
 Metis
 with
 aboriginal
 right
 to
 hunt
 for
 food
 in
 the
 
Aboriginal
  and
  treaty
  rights
  suffered
  from
  4
  serious
  infirmities
  prior
  to
  receiving
  Sault
 Ste
 Marie
 area
 (hunting
 was
 integral
 to
 historic
 Metis
 culture)
 
constitutional
 protection:
  o Held:
 “Metis”=
 distinct
 peoples,
 who,
 in
 addition
 to
 mixed
 Indian
 and
 
1. Uncertainty
 to
 the
 precise
 legal
 status
 of
 the
 rights
 
  European
  ancestry,
  developed
  own
  customs,
  way
  of
  life
  and
 
2. Doctrine
  of
  parliamentary
  sovereignty
  which
  meant
  that
  aboriginal
  rights
  recognizable
 group
 identity
 (apart
 from
 Indian,
 Inuit
 or
 European)
 prior
 
were
  vulnerable
  to
  change
  or
  abolition
  by
  the
  action
  of
  the
  competent
  to
 “time
 of
 effective
 European
 control”
 
 
legislative
 body
 
  3
 factors
 indicating
 Metis
 identity:
 
3. Equality,
  under
  the
  Charter,
  suggested
  that
  special
  status
  might
  be
 
 
 (1)
 
 Self-­‐
 identification
 as
 Metis
 community
 member;
 
unconstitutional
 
 
 (2)
 
 Ancestral
 connection
 to
 historic
 Metis
 community;
 and
 
 

 
 (3)
 Community
 acceptance
 (participant
 in
 modern
 Metis
 community)
 
 Page
 45
 of
 86
 

 

 “existing”
 s
 35(1)
 
 
! Right
  are
  “existing”
  if
  they
  were
  not
  validly
  extinguished
  prior
  to
  1982-­‐
  see
 
 
Sparrow
 (held
 word
 existing
 =
 unextinguished)
 
 

 
“recognized
 and
 affirmed”
 s
 35(1)
 

 
! =
 interpreted
 (as
 per
 Sparrow)
 
 
! Liberally
 construed-­‐
 doubtful
 expression
 resolved
 in
 favour
 of
 Indians
 
 
 
! Incorporating
 fiduciary
 duty
 that
 government
 owes
 to
 Aboriginal
 peoples
 
 
 

 
 

 S
 35(1)
 is
 a
 constitutional
 guarantee
 of
 Aboriginal
 and
 treaty
 rights
 
 
! Federal
  and
  provincial
  governments
  may
  not
  interfere
  with
  the
  exercise
  of
 

 
existing
 Aboriginal
 rights
 or
 treaty
 rights
 
 
 
! Unless
  they
  are
  pursuing
  a
  compelling
  and
  substantial
  objective
  in
  a
  manner
 
 
compatible
 with
 the
 honour
 of
 the
 Crown
 (Sparrow)=
 (sparrow
 places
 limits
 on
 
 
aboriginal
 and
 treaty
 rights)
 
 

 

 

 
ABORIGINAL
 RIGHTS:
 DUTY
 TO
 CONSULT
 
 
Duty
 to
 consult
 and
 accommodate:
 
 
! Duty
  to
  engage
  in
  meaning
  consultation
  and
  accommodation
  as
  part
  of
  a
 
 
process
 or
 reconciliation
 flowing
 from
 the
 Crown’s
 duty
 of
 honorable
 dealing:
 
 
 

 
HAIDA
 NATION
 v
 B.C
 2004;
 
 

 
o Exists
  prior
  to
  (Haida)
  and
  after
  (Mikisew
  Cree)
 the
  legal
  recognition
  of
 
 
Aboriginal
 or
 treaty
 rights
 
 
 
o 35.1
 of
 CA
 1982
 
 
o Based
  on
  March
  1983
  agreement
  with
  Aboriginal
  representatives
  at
 
 
constitutional
 conference
 of
 first
 ministers
 
 
o New
  s
  35.1
  introduced
  –
  declares
  that
  federal
  and
  provincial
 

 
governments
  committed
  to
  principle
  that
  before
  any
  amendment
 
 
made
  to
  s
  91(24)
  or
  s
  35
  or
  s
  25,
  a
  constitutional
  conference
  will
  be
 
 
convened
  and
  Aboriginal
  representatives
  invited
  to
  discuss
  proposed
 
 
amendments
  (privilege
  accorded
  to
  no
  other
  group
  outside
 
 
government-­‐
 emphasizes
 special
 status
 of
 Aboriginal
 peoples)
 

 

 
SECTION
 25,
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT
 1982
 [interpretation
 provision]
 
 

 
 
! Does
 not
 create
 new
 rights
 "
 it
 is
 an
 interpretive
 provision,
 and
 part
 of
 the
 
 
Charter,
  included
  to
  make
  clear
  that
  the
  Charter
  is
  not
  to
  be
  construed
  as
 
 
derogating
 (detracting)
 from
 any
 aboriginal
 treaty
 or
 other
 rights
 etc
 
 
! In
  the
  absence
  of
  s
  25,
  it
  would
  perhaps
  have
  been
  arguable
  that
  rights
 

 
attaching
 to
 groups
 defined
 by
 race
 were
 invalidated
 by
 s
 15
 (equality
 clause)
 
 
of
 the
 Charter
 
 
 
 Page
 46
 of
 86
 

 
[3]
 Interpreting
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 &
 Freedoms
 
  (c) Role
 of
 s.
 1
 

  ! Because
 of
 s
 1,
 judicial
 review
 of
 legislation
 under
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 is
 a
 
2
 stage
 process:
 
! The
  Charter
  limited
  the
  powers
  of
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  as
  well
  as
  the
 
 
provincial
 Legislatures
 
 
[1]
 
  First
 stage
 of
 judicial
 review:
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 challenged
 
! Enhances
 national
 unity:
 uniform
 national
 standards
 for
 protection
 of
 liberties
  law
 derogates
 from
 a
 Charter
 right
 (if
 it
 does
 not,
 then
 the
 review
 is
 

  over,
 and
 the
 law
 must
 be
 upheld).
 
Protection
 of
 Civil
 Liberties
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
 
! The
  Charter
  of
  Rights,
  like
  any
  other
  bill
  of
  rights,
  guarantees
  a
  set
  of
  civil
  [2]
 
  If
 the
 law
 does
 derogate
 from
 a
 Charter
 right,
 then
 the
 second
 stage
 is
 
liberties
 that
 are
 regarded
 as
 so
 important
 that
 they
 should
 receive
 immunity,
  to
 determine
 whether
 the
 law
 is
 justified
 under
 s
 1
 as
 a
 reasonable
 
or
 at
 least
 special
 protection,
 from
 state
 action
 
  limit
 prescribed
 by
 law
 that
 can
 be
 demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 
! The
 Charter
 will
 never
 become
 the
 main
 safeguard
 of
 civil
 liberties
 in
 Canada.
 
  democratic
 society
 
! The
  main
  safeguards
  will
  continue
  to
  the
  democratic
  character
  of
  Canadian
 
 
political
 institutions,
 the
 independence
 of
 the
 judiciary
 and
 a
 legal
 tradition
 of
  "
 
  Striking
 down
 a
 law
 b/c
 failed
 s1,
 most
 always
 means
 that
 a
 different
 
respect
  for
  civil
  liberties.
  The
  Charter
  is
  no
  substitute
  for
  any
  of
  these
  things,
  law,
 one
 that
 has
 same
 objective
 but
 which
 encroaches
 less
 on
 the
 
and
 would
 be
 ineffective
 if
 any
 of
 these
 things
 disappeared.
 
  Charter
 right,
 would
 be
 a
 reasonable
 limit.
 
 

 
 
Expansion
 of
 Judicial
 Review
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
  (d) Role
 of
 s.
 33
(a) New
 grounds
 of
 review
 
  ! The
 Charter
 includes,
 as
 s
 33,
 an
 override
 power,
 which
 enables
 the
 
! The
 major
 effect
 of
 the
 Charter
 has
 been
 the
 expansion
 of
 judicial
 review.
  Parliament
 or
 a
 Legislature
 to
 enact
 a
 law
 that
 will
 override
 the
 guarantees
 
The
 Charter
 adds
 a
 new
 set
 of
 constitutional
 provisions
 that
 will
 invalidate
  in
 s
 2,
 and
 ss
 7
 –
 15
 
inconsistent
 laws
 
 
! Judicial
  review
  is
  also
  more
  policy
  driven
  given
  the
  vagueness
  of
  the
  Dialogue
 with
 Legislative
 Branch
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
terms
 of
 the
 Charter
 
  (a) The
 idea
 of
 dialogue
 

  ! The
 presence
 in
 the
 Charter
 of
 the
 power
 to
 override
 s
 33
 means
 that
 most
 
(b) Vagueness
 of
 concepts
 “thought,
 belief,
 expression”
  decisions
  striking
  down
  statutes
  on
  Charter
  grounds
  can
  be
  reversed
  by
 
! Because
 of
 the
 vagueness
 of
 the
 Charter,
 the
 role
 of
 the
 law,
 lawyers
 and
  the
  competent
  legislative
  body.
  For
  example,
  a
  prohibition
  of
  the
  use
  of
 
judges
 in
 the
 public
 life
 of
 the
 country
 has
 greatly
 increased
 
  English
 in
 commercial
 signs
 that
 was
 struck
 down
 as
 a
 breach
 of
 freedom
 of
 
! The
 SCC
 has
 willingly
 embraced
 new
 powers
 conferred
 on
 it
 b/c
 vagueness
 
  expression
 was
 revived
 by
 the
 Quebec
 Legislature,
 invoking
 s
 33
 
! The
 period
 of
 judicial
 activism
 since
 1982
 has
 been
 described
 as
 the
 Charter
  ! Helpful
 to
 think
 of
 the
 Court’s
 Charter
 decisions,
 not
 as
 imposing
 a
 veto
 on
 
revolution
 
  desired
  legislative
  policies,
  but
  rather
  as
  starting
  a
  “dialogue”
  with
  the
 

  legislative
 branch
 as
 to
 how
 to
 best
 reconcile
 the
 individualistic
 values
 of
 
! Review
 on
 Charter
 grounds
 rarely
 defeats
 a
 desired
 legislative
 objective.
  the
  Charter
  with
  the
  accomplishment
  of
  social
  and
  economic
  policies
  for
 
After
  a
  law
  is
  struck
  down
  by
  the
  Court,
  the
  mechanisms
  of
  ss
  1
  and
  33
  the
 benefit
 of
 the
 community
 as
 a
 whole
 
 
typically
  leave
  room
  for
  the
  law
  to
  be
  replaced
  with
  another
  version
  that
 
 
still
  carries
  out
  the
  legislative
  objective,
  and
  most
  of
  the
  time
  a
  (b) Second
 look
 cases
 
replacement
 law
 is
 in
 fact
 enacted
 
  ! Mills
  case
  shows
  how
  concept
  of
  dialogue
  used
  to
  show
  deference
  to
 

  legislative
 decision
 
 

  ! Mills
  shows
  that
  the
  idea
  of
  dialogue
  indicates
  that
  when
  a
  legislature/
 

  Parliament
  has
  revised
  and
  re-­‐enacted
  a
  law
  that
  the
  courts
  have
  found
 

  unconstitutional
  ,
  the
  Court
  is
  likely
  to
  uphold
  the
  second
  attempt
 

  (underlying
  that
  this
  is
  the
  idea
  that,
  as
  the
  legislatures
  and
  Parliament
 

 
 Page
 47
 of
 86
 

 
represent
  the
  will
  of
  the
  people,
  they
  are
  in
  a
  better
  position
  to
  sort
  out
  Captured
  in
  Edwards
  v.
  A-­‐G
  Can
  1930
  by
  Lord
  Sankey’s
  metaphor
  of
  “a
 
such
 problems)
  living
 tree
 capable
 of
 growth
 and
 expansion
 within
 its
 natural
 limits”
 

 
 
! The
 principle
 of
 democracy
 encourages
 remedies
 that
 allow
 the
 democratic
  (b) Generous
 Interpretation
 
 
process
 of
 consultation
 and
 dialogue
 to
 occur.
  ! Lord
 Sankey
 in
 Edwards
 v
 A-­‐G
 Can
 in
 his
 ‘living
 tree’
 metaphor
 was
 that
 a
 
! Judicial
  respect
  for
  the
  autonomy
  of
  the
  other
  branches
  of
  government
  constitution
 should
 receive
 a
 generous
 interpretation
 
 
would
  also
  argue
  for
  restrain
  in
  crafting
  orders
  to
  compel
  the
  executive
  o He
  went
  on
  to
  say
  that
  the
  provisions
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
 
branch
 to
 rectify
 Charter
 breaches
 (i.e.
 Separation
 of
 powers)
  should
 not
 be
 “cut
 down”
 by
 “a
 narrow
 and
 technical
 construction”
 

  but
 should
 be
 given
 “a
 large
 and
 liberal
 interpretation”
 
Characterization
 of
 Laws
 
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
  o This
  case
  decided
  that
  women
  were
  “persons”
  and
  accordingly
 
2
 stages:
  eligible
 to
 be
 appointed
 to
 the
 Senate
 
 
(1)
 Determine
 whether
 the
 challenged
 law
 abridges
 a
 Charter
 right:
  ! A
  generous
  interpretation
  of
  the
  Charter
  cannot
  be
  justified
  as
  increasing
 
a.
 
  First,
 characterize
 the
 challenged
 law,
 examining
 its
 purpose
 or
 effect
  the
  powers
  of
  the
  legislative
  bodies;
  it
  will
  have
  the
  effect
  of
  reducing
  their
 
b.
 
 Second,
 interpret
 the
 language
 of
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 to
 determine
  powers.
 
 
whether
 it
 has
 been
 abridged
 by
 the
 challenged
 law
 (connected
 issues)
  ! Justification
 for
 a
 generous
 interpretation
 of
 the
 Charter
 is
 that
 it
 will
 give
 

 
 
 (2)
 S
 1
 analysis
 if
 applicable
  full
 effect
 to
 the
 civil
 liberties
 that
 are
 guaranteed
 by
 the
 Charter
 
 
o The
 focus
 in
 this
 part
 is
 on
 (1)(a)
 
 
o If
 the
 purpose
 of
 a
 law
 is
 to
 abridge
 a
 Charter
 right,
 then
 the
 law
 will
 be
  (c) Purposive
 interpretation
 [looks
 to
 context,
 preamble,
 purpose
 of
 statute]
 
unconstitutional.
 If
 the
 effect
 of
 the
 law
 is
 to
 abridge
 a
 Charter
 right,
  ! Involves
 an
 attempt
 to
 ascertain
 the
 purpose
 of
 each
 Charter
 right
 and
 then
 
then
 the
 law
 will
 be
 unconstitutional
 (unless
 it
 is
 saved
 by
 s
 1)
 –
  to
 interpret
 the
 right
 so
 as
 to
 include
 activity
 that
 comes
 within
 the
 purpose
 
distinguish
 between
 purpose
 and
 effect
  and
 exclude
 activity
 that
 does
 not
 

  ! Actual
  purpose
  of
  a
  right
  is
  unknown,
  and
  so
  a
  court
  has
  a
  good
  deal
  of
 
(a)
 Purpose
 or
 effect
  discretion
 in
 deciding
 what
 the
 purpose
 is,
 and
 at
 what
 level
 of
 generality
 it
 
! A
 law
 will
 offend
 the
 Charter
 if
 either
 its
 purpose
 or
 its
 effects
 is
 to
 abridge
 a
  should
 be
 expressed
 
 
Charter
 right
 (est
 in
 Drug
 Mart).
 
  ! Court
  generally
  assumed
  that
  a
  “purposive”
  approach
  and
  a
  “generous”
 
! Legislation
 with
 an
 invalid
 purpose
 can’t
 be
 saved
 by
 s
 1
 (Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart)
  approach
 are
 one
 and
 the
 same
 thing
 
 
! BUT
 it’s
 the
 “effect”
 that
 is
 normally
 at
 issue
 
 
! In
 Edwards
 Books:
 purpose
 test
 passed
 (secular),
 yet
 effect
 was
 to
 impose
 a
  Purposive
 approach
 in
 harmony
 with
 s1
 Justification
 Oakes
 test
 (strict):
 HOGG
 
burden
 on
 retailers
 whose
 religious
 beliefs
 required
 them
 to
 abstain
 from
 work
  ! Once
  right
  confined
  with
  strict
  standard
  of
  justification
  (Oakes)
  seems
 
on
 a
 day
 other
 than
 Sunday.
 (yet
 upheld
 under
 s1).
 
  obvious
 that
 a
 government
 ought
 to
 have
 to
 satisfy
 a
 stringent
 standard
 of
 

  justification
 to
 uphold
 legislation
 limiting
 the
 right.
 
 
(b)
 Trivial
 Effects
 
 
! Where
 the
 effect
 of
 a
 law
 on
 a
 Charter
 right
 is
 trivial
 or
 insubstantial,
 there
 is
 no
  (d) Process
 as
 Purpose
 [constitution’s
 purpose
 –
 as
 purpose
 for
 each
 right]
 
breach
 of
 the
 Charter
 (R
 v
 Jones)
  ! Process-­‐
 based
 theory
 of
 judicial
 review
 offers
 2
 important
 advantages:
 

  1.
 
  Supplies
 a
 helpful
 context
 for
 interpreting
 particular
 guarantees.
 
 
INTERPRETATION
 OF
 CHARTER
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
  ! The
 guarantees
 of
 free
 speech
 or
 expression,
 for
 example,
 should
 be
 seen
 

  not
  as
  constitutive
  of
  personal
  autonomy
  (a
  substantive
  value),
  but
  as
  an
 
(a) Progressive
 interpretation
 
  instrument
 of
 democratic
 government
 (a
 process-­‐
 based
 value)
 
! A
 constitution
 is
 likely
 to
 remain
 in
 force
 for
 a
 long
 time
 and
 is
 difficult
 to
  2.
 
  Offers
 a
 solution
 to
 the
 problem
 of
 the
 legitimacy
 of
 judicial
 review
 
 
amend,
  which
  calls
  for
  a
  flexible
  interpretation,
  so
  that
  the
  constitution
  ! All
  that
  the
  judges
  are
  concerned
  with
  is
  the
  fairness
  of
  the
  process
  by
 
can
 be
 adapted
 over
 time
 to
 changing
 conditions
 
  which
 legislative
 bodies
 or
 other
 agencies
 or
 officials
 reach
 their
 decisions
 
 
! A
  flexible
  interpretation
  that
  allows
  the
  constitution
  to
  be
  adapted
  over
 
time
 to
 changing
 conditions
 is
 what
 progressive
 interpretation
 refers
 to
 
 
 Page
 48
 of
 86
 

 
!It
  is
  not
  the
  wisdom,
  justice
  or
  rightness
  of
  the
  outcomes
  of
  the
  political
  Interpretive
 Provisions
 
process,
 but
 the
 integrity
 of
 the
 process
 itself,
 that
 is
 the
 proper
 subject
 of
  ! Preamble:
 “whereas
 Canada
 is
 founded
 upon
 principles
 that
 recognize
 the
 
judicial
 review
 
  supremacy
 of
 God
 and
 the
 rule
 of
 law”
 

  ! S
 25:
 Aboriginal
 rights
 
(e) Hierarchy
 of
 Rights
 
 [deduced
 by
 s33
 notwithstanding]
  ! S
 26:
 other
 rights
 not
 affected
 
! The
 Charter
 of
 Rights,
 by
 s
 33,
 provides
 for
 the
 override
 of
 some
 rights
 by
  ! S
 27:
 multiculturalism
 
 
the
 inclusion
 of
 a
 notwithstanding
 clause
 in
 the
 overriding
 statute.
 
  ! S
 28:
 equality
 to
 both
 sexes
 
 

  ! S
 29:
 denominational
 school
 rights
 not
 affected
 
Can
 be:
 
  The
  rights
  that
  can
  be
  overridden
  in
  this
  way
  are
  those
  ! S
 30:
 North
 West
 Territories
 and
 Yukon
 (Nunavut)
 
guaranteed
 by
 s
 2
 (freedom
 of
 religion,
 expression,
 assembly
  ! S
 31:
 does
 not
 extend
 governments’
 powers
 
 
and
 association),
 ss
 7-­‐14
 (legal
 rights)
 and
 s
 15
 (equality).
 
 
 
Cannot
 be:
 
  The
  rights
  that
  cannot
  be
  overridden
  in
  this
  way
  are
  those
  SOURCES
 OF
 INTERPRETATION
 
 
guaranteed
  by
  ss
  3-­‐5
  (democratic
  rights),
  s
  6
  (mobility),
  ss
  16-­‐
 
23
 (language)
 and
 s
 28
 (sexual
 equality).
 
  (a) Pre-­‐Charter
 cases
 

  ! In
  interpreting
  the
  Charter,
  the
  doctrine
  of
  precedent
  will
  apply
  in
  the
 
! S
 33
 thus
 creates
 2
 tiers
 of
 rights:
 the
 “common
 rights”
 that
 are
 subject
 to
  same
  way
  as
  it
  applies
  to
  the
  interpretation
  of
  other
  constitutional
 
override,
 and
 the
 “privileged
 rights”
 that
 are
 not
  provisions
 (however,
 there
 will
 be
 few
 Canadian
 cases
 decided
 before
 the
 

  adoption
 of
 the
 Charter
 in
 1982
 that
 will
 be
 relevant)
 
! Sexual
 equality
 (s
 28),
 may
 even
 be
 exempt
 from
 the
 limitation
 power
 of
 s
  ! Closest
  cases
  would
  appear
  to
  be
  those
  interpreting
  the
  Canadian
  Bill
  of
 
1
 as
 well
 as
 the
 override
 power
 of
 s
 33.
 That
 places
 s
 28
 at
 the
 top
 of
 the
  Rights.
  But
  SCC
  exercised
  extraordinary
  restraint
  in
  interpreting
  the
  Bill,
 
hierarchy
 
  relying
 in
 part
 on
 its
 statutory,
 as
 opposed
 to
 constitutional
 status
 
 

 
 
! Aboriginal
  and
  treaty
  rights
  which
  are
  guaranteed
  by
  s
  35,
  are
  similarly
  (b) American
 cases
 
 
privileged
 in
 that
 they
 are
 subject
 to
 neither
 s
 1
 nor
 s
 33;
 this
 is
 because
 s
  ! American
  Bill
  of
  Rights
  was
  an
  important
  source
  of
  inspiration
  for
  the
 
35
  is
  outside
  the
  Charter
  of
  Rights.
  However,
  being
  outside
  the
  Charter
  is
  Charter
  (as
  it
  was
  for
  most
  other
  countries’
  bills
  of
  rights),
  and
  much
  of
  the
 
not
  entirely
  beneficial,
  because
  it
  means
  that
  s
  24,
  which
  provides
  a
  language
 of
 the
 Charter
 can
 be
 traced
 back
 to
 phrases
 in
 the
 American
 Bill
 
remedy
 for
 breach
 of
 Charter
 rights,
 does
 not
 provide
 a
 remedy
 for
 breach
  of
 Rights
 
 
of
 aboriginal
 and
 treaty
 rights
 .
  ! Decisions
  of
  the
  SC
  of
  the
  US
  interpreting
  language
  that
  is
  similar
  to
  the
 

  language
 of
 the
 Charter
 are
 useful
 precedents
 for
 Canadian
 courts
 
 
(f) Conflict
 Between
 Rights
 
  ! But
  SCC
  has
  exhorted
  itself
  to
  “be
  wary
  of
  drawing
  too
  ready
  a
  parallel
 
! Hierarchy
  of
  rights
  does
  not
  imply
  that
  the
  “privileged
  rights”
  must
  take
  between
  constitutions
  born
  to
  different
  countries
  in
  different
  ages
  and
  in
 
priority
 over
 the
 “common
 rights”
 when
 they
 come
 into
 conflict
 
  different
 circumstances”
 
! 2
 provisions
 that
 contemplate
 conflict
 between
 rights:
  ! Reason
  for
  the
  broader
  interpretation
  of
  the
  rights
  in
  Canada
  is
  the
 
Section
  25
  recognizes
  the
  possibility
  of
  conflict
  (B/w
  aboriginal
  rights
  presence
 of
 s
 1
 of
 the
 Canadian
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 
 
and
  race
  equality)
  and
  provides
  that
  the
  aboriginal
  and
  treaty
  rights
 
 
are
 to
 prevail
  (c) International
 sources
 
 
S
  29
  recognizes
  this
  possibility
  of
  conflict,
  and
  provides
  that
  the
  ! Canada
  is
  bound
  by
  a
  number
  of
  treaties
  dealing
  with
  human
  rights,
  of
 
denominational
 school
 rights
 are
 to
 prevail
 
  which
  the
  most
  important
  for
  present
  purposes
  is
  the
  International
 
! R
 v
 Keegstra:
  Covenant
 on
 Civil
 and
 Political
 Rights,
 to
 which
 Canada
 a
 party
 in
 1976
 
o Court
  preferred
  ad
  hoc
  balancing
  to
  definitional
  balancing
  when
  ! As
 treaties,
 these
 instruments
 are
 only
 binding
 at
 international
 law
 
 
resolving
  conflicts
  b/w
  rights.
 
  Courts
  should
  not
  assign
  priorities
  ! They
  are
  not
  incorporated
  into
  Canada’s
  domestic
  law
  and
  are
  not
 
to
  rights,
  conflict
  is
  to
  be
  resolved
  by
  application
  to
  justificatory
  enforceable
 in
 Canadian
 courts
 
principles
 in
 s1.
 
 
 Page
 49
 of
 86
 

 
! The
 terms
 of
 the
 Covenant
 are
 relevant
 to
 the
 interpretation
 of
 the
 Charter,
 
 
by
 virtue
 of
 the
 rule
 that
 a
 statute
 (and
 presumably
 a
 constitution)
 should
 
 
be
 interpreted
 as
 far
 as
 possible
 into
 conformity
 with
 international
 law
 
 
 

 
! The
  European
  Convention
  on
  Human
  Rights
  is
  another
  source
  of
 
interpretational
  jurisprudence
  that
  has
  persuasive
  value
  for
  Canadian
 

 
courts
 interpreting
 the
 Charter
 
 

 
 
(d) Legislative
 history
 
 
 
! Legislative
 history
 of
 the
 Carter
 is
 admissible
 as
 an
 aid
 to
 its
 interpretation
 
 
 
! Thus
  earlier
  versions
  of
  the
  Charter,
  testimony
  given
  before
  the
 
 
parliamentary
 committee
 which
 examined
 an
 earlier
 version
 and
 debates
 in
 
 
the
 Senate
 and
 House
 of
 Commons
 are
 all
 relevant
 and
 admissible
 
 

 

 
Priority
 between
 Federal
 and
 Charter
 Grounds
 
 

 
! When
  a
  law
  is
  challenged
  on
  both
  federal
  and
  Charter
  grounds,
  it
  is
  the
 
 
federal
 ground
 that
 is
 the
 more
 fundamental
 of
 the
 two,
 and
 that
 ought
 to
 
 
take
 priority
 over
 the
 Charter
 ground.
 
 
 

 
 
Undeclared
 Rights
 
 

 
! S
  26
  of
  Charter:
  “the
  guarantee
  in
  this
  Charter
  of
  certain
  rights
  and
 
freedoms
  shall
  not
  be
  construed
  as
  denying
  the
  existence
  of
  any
  other
 
 
rights
 or
 freedoms
 that
 exist
 in
 Canada.
 
 
 
! S
 26
 is
 a
 statutory
 provision,
 included
 to
 make
 clear
 that
 the
 Charter
 is
 not
 
 
to
  be
  construed
  as
  taking
  away
  any
  existing
  undeclared
  rights
  or
 
 
freedoms.
 Rights
 or
 freedoms
 protected
 by
 the
 common
 law
 or
 by
 statute
 
 
will
 continue
 to
 exist
 notwithstanding
 the
 Charter
 
 

 
! The
 remedy
 under
 s
 24
 is
 not
 available
 for
 their
 enforcement
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Page
 50
 of
 86
 

 
[4]
  Application
  of
  the
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  &
  Freedoms-­‐
  CONSTITUTION
  ! Singh
  v
  Minister
  of
  Employment
  and
  Immigration
  1985:
  SCC
  held
  that
  anyone
 
ACT,
 1982,
 S.
 32
  who
  entered
  Canada,
  however
  illegally,
  was
  instantly
  entitled
  to
  assert
  s
  7
 

  rights,
  which
  apply
  to
  “everyone”
  (in
  context
  of
  this
  case,
  everyone
  who
 
entered
 Canada
 and
 made
 a
 refugee
 claim
 was
 entitled
 to
 a
 hearing
 before
 a
 
Benefits
 of
 Rights
 
person
 with
 authority
 to
 decide
 the
 issue)
 

 
Who
 is
 entitled
 to
 the
 benefit
 of
 the
 rights
 guaranteed
 by
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights???
 

 
! Whether
 one
 can
 benefit
 depends
 on
 the
 wording
 of
 the
 right
 
(b) Individual
 
 

 
! Section
 15
 confers
 its
 equality
 rights
 on
 “every
 individual”
 
(a) Everyone,
 anyone,
 any
 person
 
 
! More
 specific
 than
 
 “everyone”
 “any
 person”
 “anyone”
 and
 probably
 excludes
 
! S
 2,
 7,
 8,
 9,
 10,
 12,
 and
 17
 of
 the
 Charter
 open
 with
 the
 phrase
 “everyone
 has
 
a
 corporation
 
 
the
 right”.
 
! Substituted
 for
 “everyone”
 intending
 to
 “make
 clear
 that
 this
 right
 would
 apply
 
! In
 ss
 11
 and
 19
 “any
 person”
 replaces
 “everyone”
 
to
 natural
 persons
 only”
 
! S
 20
 uses
 “any
 member
 of
 the
 public”
 
! Within
 s
 15,
 the
 reference
 to
 “discrimination
 based
 on
 race,
 national
 or
 ethnic
 
! S
 24
 uses
 “anyone”
 
origin,
 colour,
 religion,
 sex,
 age
 or
 mental
 or
 physical
 disability”
 also
 reinforced
 
! Seems
 likely
 that
 these
 terms
 are
 synonymous
 and
 that
 each
 is
 apt
 to
 include
 a
 
the
  exclusion
  of
  corporations:
  the
  listed
  attributes
  are
  all
  personal
 
corporation
 as
 well
 as
 an
 individual
 
 
characteristics
  of
  human
  beings
  and
  only
  “natural
  origin”
  could
  apply
  to
 

 
corporations
 as
 well.
 
 
Corporations:
 
  May
 benefit
 from
 many
 rights;
 e.g,
 section
 2,
 in
 guaranteeing
 the
 
! Even
 if
 s
 15
 does
 not
 extend
 to
 corporations,
 corporations
 will
 still
 be
 able
 to
 
fundamental
 freedoms,
 speaks
 of
 “everyone”
 and
 has
 been
 
rely
 on
 s
 15
 as
 a
 defence
 to
 a
 criminal
 charge
 laid
 under
 a
 law
 that
 is
 invalid
 by
 
interpreted
 to
 extend
 to
 corps.
 Section
 15
 applies
 to
 "every
 
virtue
  of
  unconstitutional
  discrimination
  against
  individuals
  (principle
 
individual",
 and
 has
 been
 restricted
 to
 only
 “natural
 persons”.
 
 
established
 in
 Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart)
 
! But
 even
 some
 of
 the
 rights
 that
 have
 been
 framed
 in
 terms
 of
 “everyone”
 
! Does
 not
 include
 a
 foetus
 
 
have
 been
 held
 to
 be
 inapplicable
 to
 corporations
 because
 of
 their
 nature.
 
 
! Does
 not
 include
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 deceased
 individual:
 s
 15
 rights
 die
 with
 the
 
! And
 so,
 the
 corporations
 can
 enjoy
 freedom
 of
 expression,
 but
 not
 freedom
 of
 
individual
 (A-­‐G
 Can.
 V
 Hislop
 2007)
 
religion because
 cannot
 hold
 a
 religious
 belief
 or
 any
 other
 belief
 
 

 
! Ie.
 The
 right
 to
 fundamental
 justice
 under
 s
 7
 does
 not
 apply
 to
 a
 corporation
 
(c) Citizen
 
 
because
 are
 attributes
 of
 individuals
 not
 corporations
 
 
! Generally
 a
 person
 need
 not
 be
 a
 Canadian
 citizen
 in
 order
 to
 invoke
 Charter
 
 
! Those
 rights
 that
 do
 not
 apply
 to
 corporations
 cannot
 be
 invoked
 by
 a
 
! “everyone”
 in
 s
 7
 has
 been
 held
 include
 “every
 human
 being
 who
 is
 physically
 
corporation
 to
 obtain
 a
 remedy
 under
 s
 24
 
present
 in
 Canada
 and
 by
 virtue
 of
 such
 presence
 amenable
 to
 Canadian
 law”
 

 
! Citizenship
  is
  a
  required
  qualification
  for
  some
  rights:
  voting
  rights
  (S
  3),
 
! R
 v
 Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart:
 SCC
 held
 that
 a
 corporation
 could
 invoke
 the
 right
 to
 
mobility
 rights
 (s
 6),
 minority
 language
 educational
 right
 (s
 230
 are
 conferred
 
freedom
 of
 religion
 in
 s
 2(a)
 as
 a
 defence
 to
 a
 criminal
 charge
 of
 selling
 goods
 
upon
 a
 “citizen”
 
 
on
 a
 Sunday.
 The
 charge
 was
 laid
 under
 the
 federal
 Lord’s
 Day
 Act
 which
 the
 

 
corporation
 successfully
 argued
 was
 unconstitutional
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 the
 
(d) Permanent
 resident
 
 
Act
 abridged
 the
 freedom
 of
 religion
 of
 individuals.
 The
 corporation
 had
 
! The
 mobility
 rights
 of
 s
 6(2)
 (but
 not
 s
 6(1))
 apply,
 not
 only
 to
 “every
 citizen”
 
standing
 to
 make
 this
 argument,
 despite
 the
 fact
 that
 s
 2(a)
 did
 not
 apply
 to
 a
 
but
  also
  to
  ‘every
  person
  who
  has
  the
  status
  of
  a
  permanent
  resident
  of
 
corporation,
 because
 “no-­‐one
 can
 be
 convicted
 of
 an
 offence
 under
 an
 
Canada”
 
unconstitutional
 law”
 
! “permanent
  resident”
  is
  to
  be
  found
  in
  the
  federal
  Immigration
  and
  Refugee
 

 
Protection
 Act”
 where
 it
 is
 defined
 (unhelpfully)
 as
 “a
 person
 who
 has
 acquired
 
A
 foetus
 not
 a
 legal
 person,
 
  either
 at
 common
 law
 or
 civil
 law
 until
 the
 child
 
permanent
 resident
 status”
 
is
 born
 by
 being
 separated
 alive
 from
 the
 mother
 (not
 entitled
 to
 a
 

 
right
 to
 life
 under
 s
 
 7
 or
 any
 other
 right
 under
 the
 Charter)
 

 

 

 
 Page
 51
 of
 86
 

 
BURDEN
 OF
 RIGHTS
 
 [WHO
 HAS
 THE
 BURDEN
 TO
 FOLLOW
 CHARTER
 RIGHTS]
  ELDRIDGE
  V
  B.C
  (A-­‐G)
  1997:
  held
  that
  the
  Charter
  was
  applicable
  despite
  the
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (This
 is
 governed
 by
 s
 32(1)
 of
 the
 Charter)
  absence
 of
 any
 power
 of
 compulsion
 
 

  ! Issue
 was
 whether
 a
 hospital
 was
 bound
 by
 charter.
 They
 did
 not
 provide
 sign
 
(a) Both
 Levels
 of
 Government
 
  language
 as
 per
 s15
 equality.
 
 
! Section
  32(1)
  expressly
  provides
  that
  the
  Charter
  applies
  to
  “the
  Parliament
  ! British
 Columbia
 Act
 funded
 provision
 of
 health
 services
 
 
and
 government
 of
 Canada”
 and
 to
 “the
 legislature
 and
 government
 of
 each
  ! Held
 that
 hospital
 implementing
 a
 specific
 government
 policy
 or
 program.
 
 
province”=
  makes
  clear
  that
  both
  level
  of
  government
  are
  bound
  by
  the
  ! HOGG
  says
  weak,
  does
  not
  apply
  to
  all
  hospitals.
  And
  that
  hospitals
  did
  not
 
Charter
  require
 statutory
 authority
 to
 administer
 health
 services,
 as
 they
 were
 already
 

  doing
 so
 prior
 to
 legislation.
 
 
(b) Parliament
 of
 Legislature
 
 
! References
 
  in
  s
  32
  to
  the
  “Parliament”
  and
  a
  “legislature”
  make
  clear
  that
  the
  !
 So,
 if
 there
 is
 an
 entity
 exercising
 statutory
 powers
 of
 compulsion,
 then
 they
 
Charter
 operates
 as
 a
 limitation
 on
 the
 powers
 of
 those
 legislative
 bodies—any
  will
 be
 subject
 to
 Charter
 (Slaight):
 the
 result
 of
 the
 decision
 in
 Slaight
 is
 that
 
statute
 enacted
 by
 either
 Parliament
 or
 a
 Legislature
 which
 is
 inconsistent
 with
  some
  adjudicative
  bodies,
  such
  as
  administrative
  tribunals
  and
  labour
 
the
 Charter
 will
 be
 outside
 the
 power
 of
 (ultra
 vires)
 the
 enacting
 body
 and
 will
  adjudicators,
 are
 bound
 by
 the
 Charter
 
 
be
 invalid
 
 
 
! Parliament
 =
 federal
 legislative
 body,
 which
 consists
 (in
 the
 language
 of
 s
 17
 of
  (d) Government
 
 
the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867)
  “of
  the
  Queen,
  Senate
  and
  House
  of
  Commons
  ! If
 an
 entity
 is
 part
 of
 the
 government,
 then
 the
 Charter
 will
 ordinarily
 apply
 
(Queen
 is
 represented
 by
 the
 Governor
 General
 who
 gives
 royal
 assent;
 senate
  to
 all
 of
 its
 actions.
 
is
  the
  upper
  house
  which
  is
  an
  appointed
  legislative
  chamber;
  house
  of
  !
 Charter
  applies
  to
  government
  action
  taken
  under
  prerogative
  powers
 
commons
 is
 the
 lower
 house
 which
 is
 an
 elected
 legislative
 chamber)
  (common
  law
  powers
  possessed
  only
  by
  government)
  and
  common
  law
 
! Legislature=
  provincial
  legislative
  body,
  which
  consists
  in
  the
  case
  of
  Ontario
  powers
 possessed
 by
 everyone
 
(in
 the
 language
 of
 s
 69
 of
 the
 CA,
 1867),
 “of
 the
 Lieutenant
 Governor
 and
 of
  ! Institutions
  controlled
  by
  government
  (agents):
  Here,
  not
  governmental
 
one
 house,
 the
 Legislative
 Assembly
 of
 Ontario”
  actors;
  just
  because
  an
  organization
  is
  created
  by
  statute,
  relies
  on
 

  government
  funding
  for
  its
  survival,
  and
  serves
  a
  public
  purpose
  does
  not
 
(c) Statutory
 Authority
 
  render
 them
 a
 government
 body.
 
 
! Any
  body
  exercising
  statutory
  authority,
  for
  example,
  ministers,
  officials,
  ! The
  government
  must
  have
  some
  type
  of
  direct
  control
  in
  shaping
  the
 
municipalities,
 administrative
 tribunals,
 is
 bound
 by
 the
 Charter
 
  organization’s
 policies
 for
 it
 to
 be
 considered
 a
 government
 body
 (McKinney
 v
 
! Since
 neither
 Parliament
 nor
 a
 Legislature
 can
 itself
 pass
 a
 law
 in
 breach
 of
 the
  University
  of
  Guelph
  –
  Court
  held
  that
  universities
  are
  NOT
  subject
  to
  the
 
Charter,
  neither
  body
  can
  authorize
  action
  which
  would
  be
  in
  breach
  of
  the
  Charter,
 BUT
 colleges
 are)
 
Charter.
 
  ! Entities
  implementing
  government
  programs:
  Entities
  will
  be
  subjected
  to
  the
 
! Key
 characteristic
 of
 statutory
 authority:
 power
 of
 compulsion.
 Not
 power
 of
  Charter
 not
 if
 they
 are
 characterized
 as
 ‘government’,
 but
 ALSO
 if
 they
 perform
 
obligation
 (via
 contract
 obligations)
 but
 compulary
 government
 action.
  an
  act
  properly
  characterized
  as
  a
  government
  activity.
  This
  analysis
  involves
 
! There
  are
  many
  examples
  which
  illustrate
  that
  bodies
  or
  persons
  possessing
  looking
  not
  at
  the
  organization
  itself,
  but
  at
  the
  specific
  act
  which
  the
 
statutory
  authority
  are
  often
  independent
  of
  the
  federal
  or
  provincial
  organization
  performs.
  If
  the
  act
  is
  found
  to
  be
  an
  act
  of
  government,
  the
 
governments
 
  organization
 is
 subject
 to
 the
 Charter
 with
 regards
 to
 that
 act
 (see
 Eldridge)
 
! The
  Charter
  applies
  to
  the
  exercise
  of
  statutory
  authority
  regardless
  of
  ! The
  CONTROL
  TEST:
  Whether
  the
  gov’t
  has
  assumed
  control
  of
  the
  function.
 
whether
  the
  actor
  is
  part
  of
  the
  government
  or
  is
  controlled
  by
  the
  Existence
 of
 control
 is
 only
 guide
 to
 whether
 the
 function
 is
 one
 of
 government
 
government
  –
  it
  is
  the
  exertion
  of
  a
  power
  of
  compulsion
  granted
  by
  a
  statute
  to
  which
  Charter
  applies.
  Here
  you
  look
  to
  the
  INSTITUTIONAL
  OR
 
that
 causes
 the
 Charter
 to
 apply
 
  STRUCTURAL
 LINK
 
! But
 there
 are
 cases
 which
 deviated
 from
 that
 position:
 
 
 

  !
 Government
  “inaction”
  :
  s32
  applies
  to
  all
  matters.
  If
  there
  is
  a
  positive
 

  obligation
 by
 the
 government,
 their
 inaction
 is
 caught
 under
 the
 Charter.
 
 

 
 Page
 52
 of
 86
 

 
(e) Courts
 
  ! There
 is
 no
 doubt
 that
 the
 Charter
 also
 applies
 to
 action
 taken
 under
 statutory
 
! But
  in
  Dolphin
  Delivery,
  SCC
  stated
  that
  courts
  not
  part
  of
  government
  for
  authority
 
purposes
 of
 s
 32(1)
 of
 Charter
 (but
 has
 since
 been
 generally
 ignored)
 
 
! The
  Charter
  appears
  to
  apply
  to
  courts
  (BC
  Government
  Employees’
  Union
  v
  COURT
 "
 whether
 the
 Charter
 applies
 to
 the
 body
 employing
 the
 Act.
 
BC),
 i.e.
 a
 court
 falls
 under
 the
 term
 “government”
  ! Typically,
 courts
 seek
 to
 determine
 if
 the
 entity
 (e.g.
 hospital)
 is
 itself
 a
 
o “Court
  is
  acting
  on
  its
  own
  motion
  and
  not
  at
  the
  instance
  of
  any
  government
 body
 for
 the
 purposes
 of
 s.
 32.
 This
 involves
 an
 inquiry
 into
 
private
 party”
 and
 the
 courts
 motivation
 is
 “entirely
 public
 in
 nature
  whether
 the
 entity
 can,
 either
 by
 its
 very
 nature
 or
 by
 virtue
 of
 the
 degree
 of
 
rather
 than
 private”
  governmental
 control
 exercised
 over
 it,
 properly
 be
 characterized
 as
 

  ‘government’.
 
(f) Common
 law
 
  o Hospitals
 cannot
 be
 characterized
 as
 government
 because
 they
 have
 
! In
 Canada,
 if
 the
 applicable
 law
 is
 a
 rule
 of
 the
 common
 law,
 the
 Charter
 does
  autonomy
 as
 to
 who
 sits
 on
 their
 Boards,
 and
 the
 manner
 in
 which
 they
 
not
 apply;
 if
 it
 is
 a
 rule
 of
 statute,
 it
 does
 apply
 (Dolphin
 Delivery)
  hire
 staff
 and
 deliver
 health
 care.
 
! But
 it
 does
 influence
 the
 way
 the
 Charter
 is
 interpreted,
 and
 therefore
 the
 
 
Charter
 indirectly
 applies
 to
 the
 common
 law
 (Hill
 v
 Church
 of
 Scientology)
  HOWEVER,
 an
 entity
 may
 be
 found
 susceptible
 to
 Charter
 analysis
 with
 respect
 to
 a
 
o In
 context
 of
 defamation
 suit
 –
 brought
 by
 private
 party,
 not
 part
 of
  particular
 ACTIVITY
 that
 can
 be
 ascribed
 to
 the
 government
 
 
his
 governmental
 duties
 his
 personal
 reputation.
  ! -­‐-­‐
 This
 demands
 not
 an
 examination
 of
 the
 entity
 but
 the
 act
 itself.
 If
 the
 act
 is
 
o Was
 still
 necessary
 to
 determine
 that
 the
 common
 law
 was
  governmental
 in
 nature
 -­‐
 for
 example,
 the
 implementation
 of
 a
 specific
 
consistent
 with
 Charter
 Values
 –
 and
 to
 modify
 the
 charter
  statutory
 scheme
 or
 a
 government
 program-­‐
 the
 entity
 performing
 it
 will
 be
 
accordingly.
 
  subject
 to
 review
 under
 the
 Charter
 only
 in
 respect
 of
 that
 act.
 

  ! Health
 care
 is
 a
 keystone
 of
 government
 policy,
 so
 any
 organization
 providing
 
(g) Private
 action
 
  health
 care
 (including
 hospitals)
 must
 do
 so
 in
 a
 way
 that
 conforms
 to
 Charter
 
! The
 Charter
 regulates
 the
 relations
 b/w
 government
 and
 private
 persons,
 but
 it
  provisions.
 The
 BC
 Act
 (statute)
 funded
 the
 health
 provisions.
 
 
does
 not
 regulate
 the
 relations
 between
 private
 persons
 
 
! R
 v
 Buhay:
 two
 security
 gaurds
 open
 a
 locker
 smelling
 of
 weed,
 held
 to
 be
 not
  RATIO:
 
  Entities
 will
 be
 subjected
 to
 the
 Charter
 not
 only
 if
 they
 are
 characterized
 
charter
 worthy,
 not
 actors
 of
 the
 state.
 
  as
 ‘government’,
 but
 ALSO
 if
 they
 perform
 an
 act
 properly
 characterized
 
o Yet
 the
 police
 opening
 the
 locker
 the
 second
 time
 was
 unreasonable
  as
 a
 government
 activity.
 
 
search
 and
 seizure.
 
 
  This
 analysis
 involves
 looking
 not
 at
 the
 organization
 itself,
 but
 at
 the
 
o Security
 guards
 private
 actors.
 
  specific
 act
 which
 the
 organization
 performs.
 If
 the
 act
 is
 found
 to
 be
 an
 
! Private
 actions
 can
 be
 regulated
 by
 the
 state:
  act
 of
 government,
 the
 organization
 is
 subject
 to
 the
 Charter
 with
 regards
 
o IF
 so,
 the
 statutory
 enforcement
 and
 action
 will
 be
 caught
 by
 the
 charter:
  to
 that
 act.
 
o Ie.
 Statute
 giving
 citizens
 power
 of
 arrest.
 If
 violate
 charter..
 
 
 
VANCOVER
 TRANSPORTATION
 AUTH
 v
 CANADIAN
 FEDERATION
 OF
 STUDENTS
 (2009)
 

 
 
 REQUIRD
 CASES
 FOR
 THE
 APPLICATION
 OF
 THE
 CHARTER
 RIGHTS:
  ! The
  Charter
  applies
  not
  only
  to
  Parliament,
  the
  legislatures
  and
  the
 
government
 themselves,
 but
 also
 to
 all
 matters
 within
 the
 authority
 of
 those
 

 
entities
 
ELDRIDGE
 v
 BC
  ! There
 are
 two
 ways
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 Charter
 applies
 to
 an
 entity’s
 
FACTS:
  A
 group
 of
 deaf
 individuals
 sought
 a
 declaration
 that
 the
 failure
 to
 provide
  activities:
 
public
 funding
 for
 sign
 language
 interpreters
 for
 the
 deaf
 when
 they
  (1)
 
 By
 enquiring
 into
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 entity
 or
 
 
received
 medical
 services
 violated
 s.15
 of
 the
 Charter.
  (2)
  By
  enquiring
  into
  the
  nature
  of
  its
  activities.
  If
  the
  entity
  is
  found
  to
  be
 
ISSUE:
 
  Is
 the
 charter
 enforceable
 against
 hospitals,
 particularly
 with
 regards
 to
  “government”,
  either
  because
  of
  its
  very
  nature
  or
  because
  the
 
the
 way
 they
 deliver
 medical
 services?
  government
  exercises
  substantial
  control
  over
  it,
  all
  its
  activities
  will
  be
 
REASONING:
  subject
 to
 the
 Charter
 
o There
 is
 no
 question
 that
 the
 Charter
 applies
 to
 provincial
 legislation.
 
 
 Page
 53
 of
 86
 

 
[5]
 Override
 of
 Rights-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1982,
 S.
 33
 
  Five-­‐
 Year
 Limit
 

  ! Section
  33(3)
  is
  a
  sunset
  clause,
  under
  which
  an
  express
  declaration
  will
 
Section
 33
  automatically
 expire
 at
 the
 end
 of
 the
 5
 years
 
! S
 33
 of
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 provides:
  ! S
  33(4)
  permits
  the
  express
  declaration
  to
  be
  re-­‐enacted,
  but
  the
  re-­‐enacted
 
(1)
 
  Parliament
  or
  the
  legislature
  of
  a
  province
  may
  expressly
  declare
  in
  an
  Act
  of
  declaration
 will
 also
 expire
 at
 the
 end
 of
 5
 years
 (s
 33(5))
 
Parliament
 or
 the
 legislature,
 as
 the
 case
 may
 be,
 that
 the
 Act
 or
 a
 provision
 thereof
 
 
shall
 operate
 notwithstanding
 a
 provision
 included
 in
 section
 2
 or
 sections
 7
 to
 15
 of
  Specify
 the
 Declaration
 
 
this
 Charter
  ! s
 33
 stipulates
 that
 the
 Parliament
 or
 Legislature
 must
 “expressly”
 declare
 that
 
(2)
 
  An
  Act
  or
  a
  provision
  of
  an
  Act
  in
  respect
  of
  which
  a
  declaration
  made
  under
  this
  a
 statute
 is
 to
 operate
 notwithstanding
 a
 Charter
 right
 
section
 is
 in
 effect
 shall
 have
 such
 operation
 as
 it
 would
 have
 but
 for
 the
 provision
 
 
of
 this
 Charter
 referred
 to
 in
 the
 declaration
 
 
! The
 express
 declaration
 contemplated
 by
 s
 33(1):
 
(3)
 
  a
 declaration
 made
 under
 ss
 (1)
 shall
 cease
 to
 have
 effect
 5
 years
 after
 it
 comes
 into
 
[1]
  Becomes
 a
 “manner
 and
 form
 requirement”
 that
 is
 essential
 to
 the
 validity
 
force
 or
 on
 such
 earlier
 date
 as
 may
 be
 specified
 in
 the
 declaration
 
 
(4)
 
  Parliament
 or
 a
 legislature
 of
 a
 province
 may
 re-­‐enact
 a
 declaration
 under
 ss(1)
  of
 any
 statute
 enacted
 in
 violation
 of
 a
 provision
 contained
 in
 s
 2
 or
 ss
 7
 to
 

  15
 of
 Charter
 
 
S
 33
 enables
 the
 Parliament
 or
 Legislature
 to
 “override;
 s
 2
 or
 ss7
 to
 15
 
  [2]
 
  Must
  be
  specific
  as
  to
  the
  statute
  that
  is
  thereby
  exempted
  from
  the
 

  provisions
 of
 the
 Charter
 
 
! If
 a
 statute
 contains
 an
 express
 declaration
 that
 it
 is
 to
 operate
 notwithstanding
  [3]
 
  Must
 be
 specific
 as
 to
 the
 Charter
 right
 which
 is
 to
 be
 overridden
 
 
a
 provision
 included
 in
 s
 2
 or
 ss
 7
 to
 15
 of
 the
 Charter,
 then
 by
 virtue
 of
 s
 33(2)
  o The
  declaration
  must
  be
  specific
  as
  to
  the
  statute,
  but
  blanket
 
the
  statute
  will
  operate
  free
  from
  the
  invalidating
  effect
  of
  the
  Charter
  declarations,
  encompassing
  omnibus
  (compilation)
  statues,
  are
 
provision
 referred
 to
 in
 the
 declaration
 
  allowed.
 They
 are
 allowed
 to
 reference
 only
 the
 act
 numbers,
 and
 not
 
! This
 limits
 (or
 abolises)
 one
 or
 more
 of
 the
 rights
 or
 freedoms
 guaranteed
 by
 s
 2
  the
  specific
  possible
  violations
  –
  this
  would
  put
  too
  high
  a
  task
  on
 
or
 ss
 7
 to
 15
 
  legislature
 to
 determine
 every
 possible
 breach
 (FORD
 v
 Quebec
 (A-­‐G)
 
 
! If
 the
 override
 power
 did
 not
 exist
 (or
 if
 it
 were
 not
 exercised),
 such
 a
 statute
 
 
would
 be
 valid
 only
 if
 it
 came
 within
 s
 1
 of
 the
 Charter:
 the
 courts
 would
 have
  Retroactive
 Effect
 
 
to
  be
  persuaded
  that
  the
  statute
  came
  within
  “such
  reasonable
  limits
  ! Before
 Ford,
 assumed
 that
 a
 decision
 striking
 down
 a
 statute
 for
 breach
 of
 the
 
prescribed
  by
  law
  as
  can
  be
  demonstrably
  justified
  in
  a
  free
  and
  democratic
  Charter
  could
  be
  retroactively
  reversed
  by
  the
  competent
  legislative
  body
  by
 
society”
  the
 exercise
 of
 its
 override
 power
 
 

  ! Today,
 declaration
 CANNOT
 be
 retroactive
 (Ford)
 
Rights
 that
 May
 be
 Overridden
 
 
Applies
 only
 to
 rights
 in
 2
 and
 ss.7
 to
 15
 of
 charter:
  REQUIRED
 CASE
 FOR
 ‘OVERRIDE
 OF
 RIGHTS’
 
! s.
 2-­‐
 fundamental
 freedoms
 
 /
 
 ss.
 7
 to
 14-­‐legal
 rights
 /
 .s
 15-­‐
 equality
 
 

 
 
Does
 NOT
 include:
 
 
! ss.
 3
 to
 5-­‐
 
 democratic
 rights
 
  //
 
 
 s.
 6-­‐
 mobility
 rights
 
 //
 
 ss.
 16
 to
 23-­‐
 language
  FORD V QUEBEC
 
rights
 
 
 //
 
 
 s.
 24-­‐
 enforcement
 provisions
 
 
 //
 
 
 s.
 28-­‐
 sexual
 equality
 
  FACTS:
 
  Quebec
 lost
 initial
 case
 re
 signs
 in
 only
 French.
 Amended
 the
 law
 to
 

  retract
 out
 from
 constitution.
 The
 Quebec
 provincial
 legislature
 invoked
 
! In
 order
 to
 be
 effective
 under
 s
 33(2),
 the
 declaration
 must
 refer
 specifically
 to
  the
 Notwithstanding
 clause
 to
 protect
 the
 amended
 legislation
 from
 any
 
the
 Charter
 provision
 that
 is
 to
 be
 overridden
 
  further
 judicial
 review
 under
 the
 Charter.
 When
 the
 five-­‐year
 time
 limit
 for
 

  the
 Notwithstanding
 declaration
 expired,
 it
 was
 not
 extended
 by
 the
 
! More
  than
  one
  provision,
  or
  even
  all
  (s
  2
  and
  ss
  7
  to
  15)
  can
  be
  referred
  to
  Quebec
 legislature.
 
 
(FORD
  v
  QUEBEC
  (A-­‐G)),
  but
  a
  declaration
  that
  did
  not
  specify
  any
  particular
  ! Quebec,
 opposed
 the
 Charter,
 wanted
 to
 create
 an
 automatic
 rule
 that
 
Charter
 provision
 would
 NOT
 be
 effective
 
  would
 have
 ALL
 their
 legislation
 operate
 notwithstanding
 the
 charter.
 

 
 
 Page
 54
 of
 86
 

 
ISSUE:
 
  1)
 Whether
 legislation
 overriding
 multiple
 sections
 of
 the
 Charter
 is
 
 
acceptable;
 2)
 whether
 an
 all-­‐encompassing
 (omnibus)
 use
 of
 the
 override
 
 
is
 valid
 (obiter);
 3)
 whether
 a
 retrospective
 override
 clause
 is
 acceptable
 
 
(obiter)
 
 

 
 

 
 
Held:
 
 
 
1.
 
  YES
 s.33
 declaration
 is
 sufficiently
 express
 if
 it
 refers
 to
 the
 
 
section/subsection
 or
 paragraph
 of
 Charter
 which
 contains
 the
 provision
 
 
to
 be
 overridden
 (need
 express
 language
 that
 the
 infringement
 on
 
 
Charter
 rights
 would
 be
 sufficiently
 drawn
 to
 public
 attention).
 
 
 

 
 
2.
  Ominous
 reference
 to
 rights
 was
 sufficient;
 because
 a
 legislative
 body
 
 
“might
 not
 be
 in
 a
 position
 to
 judge
 what
 provisions
 of
 the
 Charter
 might
 
 
be
 successfully
 invoked
 against
 various
 aspects
 of
 the
 Act
 in
 question”
 
 

 
 
3.
 
 
 
 
 s.33
 permitting
 “prospective
 derogation
 only.”—not
 retrospective
 
 
 

 
 
COMMENTS:
 
 
 
! Use
 of
 s.33
 would
 be
 politically
 crippling
 for
 most
 governments.
 Reality
 of
 
 
political
 costs
 of
 invoking
 s.33
 will
 keep
 governments
 in
 check.
 We
 have
 created
 
 
a
 culture
 in
 which
 the
 use
 of
 the
 clause
 now
 would
 be
 met
 with
 political
 
 
disapprobation
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Page
 55
 of
 86
 

 
[6]
 Limitation
 of
 Rights-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1982,
 S.
 1
  ! It
  is
  for
  the
  government
  to
  persuade
  the
  court
  that
  the
  challenged
  law
  is
  a
 

  “reasonable
  limit”
  and
  that
  it
  “can
  be
  demonstrably
  justified
  in
  a
  free
  and
 
Section
 1
 of
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 
  democratic
 society”
 (established
 in
 R
 v
 OAKES)
 
! =
  The
  Canadian
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  and
  Freedoms
  guarantees
  the
  rights
  and
  ! Court
  held
  the
  standard
  of
  proof
  was
  “the
  civil
  standard,
  proof
  by
  a
  balance
  of
 
freedoms
 set
 out
 in
 it
 subject
 only
 to
 such
 reasonable
 limits
 prescribed
 by
 law
 as
  probabilities”
 
can
 be
 demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society
 
 
! S
 1
 guarantees
 the
 rights
 and
 freedoms
 set
 out
 in
 Charter
 but
 makes
 clear
 they
  Presumption
 of
 Constitutionality
 
 
are
 NOT
 
 absolute
 
  ! In
  Charter
  cases,
  there
  is
  no
  presumption
  of
  constitutionality
  (although
  the
 
! Judicial
 review
 of
 legislation
 under
 the
 Charter
 should
 proceed
 in
 2
 stages:
  reading
 down
 principle
 of
 interpretation
 applies)
 

  ! Reading
 down
 =
 where
 a
 law
 is
 open
 to
 2
 interpretations
 (one
 unconstitutional
 
st
1
 stage
 =
 court
 must
 decide
 whether
 the
 challenged
 law
 has
 the
 effect
 of
 limiting
  and
 the
 other
 constitutional),
 the
 latter
 should
 be
 selected
 
 
one
  of
  the
  guaranteed
  rights
  (involves
  the
  interpretation
  and
  application
  of
  the
  ! Yet
 there
 is
 deference
 in
 certain
 areas…
 
 
provisions
 of
 the
 Charter
 that
 define
 the
 guaranteed
 rights)
 
 

  Limits
 
nd
2
 stage
 is
 reached
 if
 challenged
 law
 does
 have
 this
 effect:
 court
 must
 then
 decide
  ! S
 1
 provides
 that
 that
 the
 Charter
 rights
 are
 subject
 “to
 such
 reasonable
 limits
 
whether
  the
  limit
  is
  a
  reasonable
  one
  that
  can
  be
  demonstrably
  justified
  in
  a
  free
  prescribed
  by
  law
  as
  can
  be
  demonstrably
  justified
  in
  a
  free
  and
  democratic
 
and
 democratic
 society
 (involves
 the
 interpretation
 and
 application
 of
 s
 1
 of
 Charter)
  society”
 

  ! Limits
 do
 not
 equal
 infringements.
 
 
! Prescribed
  by
  law=
  make
  clear
  that
  an
  act
  that
  is
  not
  legally
  authorized
  can
 
 
never
  be
  justified
  under
  s
  1,
  no
  matter
  how
  reasonable
  or
  demonstrably
  REASONABLE
 AND
 DEMONSTRABLY
 JUSTIFIED
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
justified
 it
 may
 appear
 to
 be.
 
 
 

  (a) OAKES
 TEST
 
What
 is
 a
 Right?
  ! 4
 criteria
 to
 be
 satisfied
 by
 a
 law
 that
 qualifies
 as
 a
 ‘reasonable
 limit
 that
 can
 
! Dickson
 CJ
 in
 Oakes:
 “the
 words
 free
 and
 democratic
 society”
 in
 s1
 set
 values
 of
  be
 demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society:
 
 
a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society
 where
 there
 was
 an
 identity
 of
 values
 underlying
  (a)
 
 Sufficiently
 important
 objective;
 "
 (law
 must
 pursue
 objective
 sufficiently
 important)
 
the
 rights
 and
 their
 limits.
 
  (b)
 Rational
 connection;
 "
 (law
 must
 be
 rationally
 connected
 to
 objective)
 

  (c)
 Least
 drastic
 means;
 "
 (Law
 must
 impair
 right
 no
 more
 than
 is
 necessary
 to
 achieve
 obj)
 
Relationship
 with
 s1.
 and
 Rights:
  (d)
 Proportionate
 effect
 "
 (Law
 must
 not
 have
 disproportionate
 severe
 effect
 on
 persons)
 
! Close
 relationship
 b/w
 standard
 of
 justification
 required
 under
 s1
 and
 the
 scope
 
 
of
 guaranteed
 rights.
 
  PART
 1:
 LAW
 MUST
 BE
 SUFFICIENTLY
 IMPORTANT
 OBJECTIVE
 TO
 JUSTIFY
 LIMIT
 
! If
  guaranteed
  rights
  get
  broad
  interpretation
  "
  court
  relaxes
  standard
  of
  o RARE:
  rarely
  will
  court
  reject
  legislative
  judgment
  that
  objective
  is
  sufficiently
 
justification
 under
 s1
 to
 uphold
 legislation
 limiting
 the
 extended
 right.
 
  important
 to
 justifying
 a
 charter
 right.
 
 
! Example:
 if
 freedom
 of
 expression
 catches
 perjury
 or
 fraud,
 then
 foolish
 to
 have
 
 
a
 strict
 standard
 of
 justification
 in
 order
 to
 regulate
 such
 harmful
 behavior.
 
 
 Identifying
 the
 Objective:
 

  o Difficult
 to
 determine
 the
 objective
 of
 a
 challenged
 law
 
 
Burden
 of
 Proof
 of
 factual
 issues
 in
 Charter
 litigation:
 as
 per
 OAKES
  o The
  higher
  the
  level
  of
  generality
  at
  which
  a
  legislative
  objective
  is
 

  expressed,
 the
 more
 desirable
 the
 objective
 will
 appear
 and
 will
 become
 
1st
 stage
 =
 the
 burden
 of
 proving
 all
 elements
 of
 the
 breach
 of
 a
 Charter
 right
 rests
  a
 serious
 problem
 for
 the
 justification
 of
 the
 law
 
 
on
 the
 person
 asserting
 the
 breach
 
  o Remember:
  only
  reason
  we
  search
  for
  the
  objective
  is
  to
  determine
 

  whether
 there
 is
 justification
 for
 infringement
 under
 the
 charter.
 So..
 
nd
2
  stage=
  if
  reached
  that
  a
  Charter
  right
  has
  been
  infringed,
  the
  burden
  of
  o Statement
  of
  the
  objective
  should
  be
  related
  to
  the
  infringement
  of
 
persuasion
 shifts
 to
 government
 (or
 other
 party)
 seeking
 to
 support
 the
 challenged
  the
 Charter,
 rather
 than
 to
 other
 goals.
 
law
 (government
 need
 ONLY
 a
 “rational
 basis”
 for
 its
 legislation)
 
 
 (held
 in
 OAKES)
 
 Page
 56
 of
 86
 

 
o Ie.
 RJR
 MacDonald
 v
 Canada:
 the
 challenged
 law
 banned
 advertising
 of
 tobacco
  o 3
 rules
 emerge
 from
 the
 decision
 in
 Big
 M:
 
products.
 Thus,
 the
 objective
 should
 not
 have
 been
 phrased
 as
 the
 protection
 of
  a. An
 objective
 cannot
 provide
 for
 the
 basis
 for
 s
 1
 justification
 if
 the
 objective
 is
 
public
  health
  from
  the
  use
  of
  tobacco.
  It
  was
  said
  that
  the
  objective
 must
  be
  to
  incompatible
 with
 the
 values
 entrenched
 by
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 
 
prevent
  people
  in
  Canada
  from
  being
  persuaded
  by
  advertising
  and
  promotion
  b. An
 objective
 cannot
 provide
 for
 the
 basis
 for
 s
 1
 justification
 of
 the
 objective
 
to
 use
 tobacco
 products.
 (a
 narrower
 and
 more
 specific
 justification).
 
  is
  ultra
  vires
  the
  enacting
  legislative
  body
  on
  federal
  distribution
  of
  powers
 

  grounds
 
o Irwin
  Toy
  v.
  Quebec:
  SCC
  upheld
  a
  Quebec
  law
  that
  prohibited
  advertising
  c. An
 objective
 cannot
 provide
 for
 the
 basis
 for
 s
 1
 justification
 if
 that
 objective
 
directed
 at
 children
 under
 13.
 The
 majority
 defined
 the
 objective
 of
 the
 law
 at
 a
  did
 not
 in
 fact
 cause
 the
 enactment
 of
 the
 law
 
 (Cannot
 shift).
 
 
very
 low
 level
 of
 generality,
 as
 the
 protection
 of
 children
 (a
 vulnerable
 group)
 
 
from
  advertising.
  Held
  the
  objective
  was
  “pressing
  and
  substantial”.
  (having
  PART
 2:
 PROPORTIONALITY
 TEST(s)
 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
 
defined
  the
  objective
  in
  narrow
  terms,
  it
  was
  then
  easy
  to
  find
  the
 
 
proportionality
 tests
 were
 satisfied
 
  [1]
 Rational
 Connection
 
 

  o The
 law
 must
 be
 rationally
 connected
 to
 the
 objective
 of
 the
 law
 
When
 does
 an
 objective
 achieve
 this
 degree
 of
 importance??
 (per
 Dickson
 J
 in
 
 
Oakes)
 !
 THE
 IMPORTANCE
 OF
 OBJECTIVE
 (rare,
 only
 2
 cases
 failed
 this
 test)
  o Determining
 how
 well
 the
 legislation
 has
 been
 tailored
 to
 suit
 its
 purpose.
 
 
st
1
 ,
 
 it
 must
 be
 consistent
 with
 the
 value
 of
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society
 
  o The
  law
  must
  be
  carefully
  designed
  to
  achieve
  the
  objective
  in
  question;
  it
 
nd
2 ,
 
 the
  objective
  must
  relate
  to
  concerns
  which
  are
  “pressing
  and
  substantial”
  should
 not
 be
 arbitrary,
 unfair,
 or
 based
 on
 irrational
 considerations
 
 
&
 Not
 Trivial
 
 
rd
3 ,
 
 the
  objective
  must
  be
  directed
  to
  “the
  realization
  of
  collective
  goals
  of
  o Benner
  v
  Canada
  1997:
  law
  required
  persons
  born
  to
  a
  Canadian
  mother
  to
 
fundamental
 importance”
 
  apply
  for
  citizenship
  and
  pass
  a
  security
  check,
  while
  persons
  born
  to
  a
 

  Canadian
  father
  was
  entitled
  to
  citizenship
  automatically
  upon
  registering
  the
 
o A-­‐G
 of
 Quebec
 v.
 Ford
 1988:
 Quebec
 law-­‐
 requiring
 public
 signs
 to
 be
 solely
 in
  birth
 in
 Canada.
 
 
the
 French
 language.
 Court
 held
 law
 infringed
 freedom
 of
 expression
 and
 could
  o The
 objective
 was
 said
 to
 be
 to
 screen
 potential
 citizens
 in
 order
 to
 keep
 
not
  be
  justified
  under
  s
  1.
  However,
  court
  recognized
  that
  the
  vulnerable
  dangerous
 people
 out
 (re:
 required
 security
 check).
 The
 court
 held
 that
 
position
  and
  enhancement
  of
  the
  language
  was
  a
  sufficiently
  important
  there
  was
  no
  rational
  connection
  between
  the
  objective
  and
  the
 
objective
 to
 justify
 a
 limit
 on
 freedom
 of
 expression.
 The
 law
 was
 struck
 down,
  discrimination.
  Children
  of
  Canadian
  mothers
  could
  not
  rationally
  be
 
not
 because
 of
 any
 doubt
 as
 to
 the
 legitimacy
 of
 the
 purpose,
 but
 because
 the
  regarded
 as
 more
 dangerous
 than
 children
 of
 Canadian
 father
 
 
banning
  of
  English
  was
  a
  disproportionate
  impairment
  of
  the
  rights
  of
  English
 
 
speakers
 
  Causation:
 

  o The
 essence
 of
 rational
 connection
 is
 a
 causal
 relationship
 between
 the
 
o R
 v
 Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart
 1985
 (inadmissible
 objectives):
 court
 held
 the
 Lord’s
 Day
  objective
 of
 the
 law
 and
 the
 measures
 enacted
 by
 the
 law.
 
 
Act
 which
 was
 a
 federal
 Sunday
 closing
 law,
 infringed
 the
 guarantee
 of
 freedom
  o Often
  a
  difficult
  matter
  to
  establish
  by
  evidence
  and
  the
  SCC
  has
  not
 
of
  religion.
  Its
  purpose,
  the
  court
  held
  was
  to
  “compel
  the
  observance
  of
  the
  always
 insisted
 on
 direct
 proof
 of
 the
 causal
 relationship
 
 
Christian
  Sabbath.
  That
  purpose
  was
  indirectly
  contradictory
  of
  the
  Charter
  o La
 Forest
 J.
 in
 RJR-­‐
 MacDonald
 v
 Canada
 said
 that
 a
 causal
 connection
 
right
  and
  could
  not
  be
  a
  purpose
  that
  justified
  limiting
  the
  right.
  (court
  based
 on
 “reason”
 or
 “logic”
 would
 suffice,
 even
 though
 the
 evidence
 
acknowledged
  that
  the
  secular
  objective
  of
  providing
  a
  common
  day
  of
  rest
  was
 “admittedly
 inconclusive”
 [evidential
 burden
 is
 low,
 deference]
 
would
  be
  sufficiently
  important
  to
  justify
  overriding
  a
  Charter
  right
  (R
  v
 
 
Edwards),
 but
 in
 this
 case
 it
 was
 a
 religious
 purpose)
 
 
 

  [2]
 Least
 Drastic
 Means
 
 [Minimum
 Impairment
 Test]
 "
 0AKES
 FAILED
 HERE
 

  o The
  law
  must
  impair
  the
  right
  no
  more
  than
  is
  necessary
  to
  accomplish
  the
 

  objective.
 =
 the
 CENTRE
 of
 the
 inquiry
 into
 s
 1
 justification
 (for
 the
 majority
 of
 
rd

  cases
 this
 3
 step
 is
 the
 arena
 of
 debate)
 

 
 
 Page
 57
 of
 86
 

 
o This
  branch
  of
  the
  Oakes
  test
  can
  be
  described
  as
  the
  minimum
  impairment
  o The
 question
 is
 whether
 the
 Charter
 infringement
 is
 too
 high
 a
 price
 to
 pay
 for
 
test
  because
  it
  insists
  that
  the
  limit
  on
  the
  Charter
  right
  be
  the
  minimum
  that
  is
  the
 benefit
 of
 the
 law
 
 
necessary
 to
 accomplish
 the
 desired
 objective
 
  o This
 part
 of
 the
 test
 however,
 has
 never
 influenced
 the
 outcome
 of
 a
 case,
 and
 

  it
 is
 redundant
 
 
#
 of
 laws
 that
 have
 failed
 the
 requirement
 of
 least
 drastic
 means:
  o If
 the
 first
 part
 of
 the
 test
 is
 passed
 (sufficient
 objective),
 then
 this
 one
 should
 

  necessarily
  be
  passed
  as
  well-­‐
  but
  the
  following
  case
  considered
  this
  argument
 
RJR
  MacDonald
  v
  Canada:
  the
  law
  failed
  the
  drastic
  means
  branch
  of
  s
  1
  and
 rejected
 it:
 
inquiry
  because
  the
  total
  ban
  encompassed
  purely
  informational
  and
  brand-­‐
 
 
recognition
  advertising
  that
  played
  no
  role
  in
  persuading
  people
  to
  use
  ALBERTA
 v
 HUTTERIAN
 BRETHREN
 OF
 WILSON
 COLONY
 2009:
 
tobacco
 products.
 The
 law
 was
 therefore
 struck
 down.
 
  FACTS:
 AL
  traffic
  law
  required
  photograph
  of
  each
  holder
  of
  a
  licence.
  Court
 

  held
  the
  law
  limited
  the
  religious
  freedom
  of
  the
  Hutterian
  Brethren
 
Ross
 v
 New
 Brunswick:
 a
 board
 of
 inquiry
 order
 that
 a
 person
 employed
 in
 a
  because
 they
 believed
 that
 the
 Bible
 forbade
 them
 from
 having
 pictures
 
non-­‐
  teaching
  position
  by
  a
  school
  board
  must
  be
  fired
  if
  he
  continued
  his
  taken.
 
dissemination
 of
 anti-­‐semitic
 ideas
 has
 been
 held
 to
 be
 too
 drastic
 a
 means
  HELD
  Majority
  said
  was
  justified
  under
  s1.
 
  Law
  passed
  first
  three
  steps
  of
 
of
 rectifying
 a
 discriminatory
 climate
 in
 the
 school
 
  th
Oakes,
  but
  McClaclin
  made
  clear
  that
  the
  4
  step
  also
  had
  to
  be
 

  th
satisfied.
 She
 said
 that
 the
 4
 step
 was
 satisfied
 because
 the
 effects
 of
 
Rocket
  v
  Royal
  College
  of
  Dental
  Surgeons:
  Ontario’s
  prohibition
  on
  the
  universal
  photo
  requirement
  outweighed
  the
  effects
 
  of
  the
 
advertising
  by
  dentists
  has
  been
  held
  to
  be
  too
  drastic
  a
  means
  of
  claimants
 religious
 rights.
 
 
maintaining
 high
 professional
 standards
 
  o She
 held,
 the
 answers
 lies
 in
 the
 fact
 that
 the
 first
 3
 stages
 of
 Oakes
 are
 

  anchored
  in
  an
  assessment
  of
  the
  law’s
  purpose.
  Only
  the
  fourth
 
o In
  each
  of
  these
  cases
  the
  SCC
  held
  that
  other
  laws
  were
  available
  to
  the
  branch
 takes
 full
 account
 of
 the
 “severity
 of
 the
 deleterious
 effects
 of
 a
 
enacting
 legislative
 body
 which
 would
 still
 accomplish
 the
 desired
 objective
 but
  measure
 on
 individuals
 or
 groups”
 
which
 would
 impair
 the
 Charter
 right
 less
 than
 the
 law
 that
 was
 enacted
 
 
 
 

  st th
o HOGG:
 finds
 distinction
 between
 1
 and
 4
 step
 a
 difficult
 one.
 
 
Margin
 of
 appreciation:
  o "
 THEREFORE:
 if
 objective
 is
 sufficiently
 important
 and
 is
 pursued
 by
 
o Dickson
 in
 OAKES:
 the
 only
 law
 that
 was
 qualified
 to
 enter
 into
 kingdom
  least
 drastic
 means,
 then
 it
 must
 fllow
 that
 the
 effects
 of
 the
 law
 are
 
of
 validity
 was
 the
 law
 that
 impaired
 the
 right
 ‘as
 little
 as
 possible’.
  an
  acceptable
  price
  to
  pay
  for
  the
  benefit
  of
  the
  law.
  Thus
  a
  positive
 
o But
 court
 must
 pay
 some
 degree
 of
 deference
 to
 legislative
 bodies
 
  answer
 to
 step
 one
 =positive
 answer
 to
 step
 4.
 
 

 
 
o The
  majority
  in
  Edwards
  Books
  recognized
  this
  idea
  of
  a
  margin
  of
  Application
 to
 Qualified
 Rights
 (qualified
 by
 own
 notions
 of
 reasonableness)
 
appreciation
  –
  we
  look
  for
  a
  reasonable
  legislative
  effort
  to
  minimize
  ! Unclear
  whether
  s
  7
  Charter
  breach
  could
  be
  justified
  (ie.
  Can
  a
  law
  not
  in
 
the
  infringement
  of
  the
  Charter
  right,
  rather
  than
  insisting
  that
  only
  the
  accordance
  with
  the
  principles
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  be
  justified
  as
  a
 
least
 possible
 infringement
 could
 survive
 
  “reasonable
 limit”)
 
! Law
  contained
  a
  Sabbatarian
  exemption
  for
  retailers
  who
  o R
 v
 Morgentaler
 (No
 2)(1988)
 SCC=
 probably
 not
 
 
observed
 Saturday
 as
 the
 Sabbath.
 However
 limits
 on
 this.
  o The
  finding
  that
  the
  abortion
  law
  offended
  fundamental
  justice
 
! Margin
  of
  appreciation
  tolerated
  a
  number
  of
  Sunday
  trading
  virtually
  entailed
  a
  finding
  that
  the
  law
  was
  not
  a
  “reasonable
  limit”
 
laws.
 
  and
 was
 not
 “demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society”
 

 
 
[3]
 Proportionate
 effect
 
 (whether
 effect
 is
 too
 high
 price
 to
 pay
 for
 benefit
 of
 law)
  Application
 to
 Common
 Law
 
o The
  law
  must
  not
  have
  a
  disproportionately
  severe
  effect
  on
  the
  persons
  to
  ! Oakes
 test
 applies
 to
 common
 law
 limits
 on
 rights.
 It
 is
 well
 established
 that
 a
 
whom
 it
 applies
 
  rule
  of
  the
  common
  law
  may
  be
  a
  limit
  “prescribed
  by
  law”
  under
  s
  1,
  and
  in
  2
 
o Requirement
  of
  “proportionate
  effect”
  requires
  a
  balancing
  of
  the
  objective
  cases
 common
 law
 rules
 in
 derogation
 of
 Charter
 rights
 have
 been
 held
 to
 be
 
sought
 by
 the
 law
 against
 the
 infringement
 of
 the
 Charter
 
  justified
 under
 s
 1
 (ie,
 RWDSU
 v
 Dolphin
 Delivery;
 BCEGU
 
 v
 B.C.)
 
 Page
 58
 of
 86
 

 
[7]
 Freedom
 of
 Conscience
 &
 Religion-­‐CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1982,
 S.
 2(a)
 
 

  Sunday
 Observance
 Cases:
 
Distribution
 of
 Powers
 [both
 legislatures
 have
 competence]
  ! Issue
 in
 these
 cases
 was
 whether
 people
 should
 have
 the
 ability
 to
 make
 a
 profit
 
! There
 are
 cases
 where
 it
 has
 been
 held
 or
 assumed
 that
 any
 law
 restricting
 the
  on
 Sundays;
 challenges
 were
 brought
 by
 companies
 who
 wished
 to
 open
 their
 
stores
 on
 Sundays
 in
 order
 to
 maximize
 profits
 
 
freedom
 of
 religion
 is
 within
 exclusive
 federal
 competence
 
 

 
! On
  the
  other
  hand,
  s
  92(12)
  expressly
  allocated
  to
  the
  provincial
  Legislatures
 
(1)
 R
 v
 Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart
 
 "
 purpose
 compelled
 Sunday
 observance
 
the
  power
  over
  the
  solemnization
  of
  marriages,
  a
  subject
  with
  important
 
religion
 dimensions;
 and
 s
 93(3)
 of
 denominational
 schools
 
 
 
! Legislation
  concerning
  religion
  could
  be
  valid
  by
  either
  Parliament
  or
  (2)
 R
 v
 Edwards
 Books" :
 
 
provinces
 "
 (Edwards
 Books,
 SCC
 1986)
  o Ontario’s
  Retail
  Business
  Holiday
  Act
  was
  under
  challenge.
  The
  Act
 
! Since
  the
  adoption
  of
  the
  Charter
  of
  Rights
  in
  1982,
  any
  law
  that
  affects
  prohibited
 retail
 stores
 from
 opening
 on
 Sunday.
 Legislative
 history
 of
 the
 
freedom
 of
 religion
 will
 be
 vulnerable
 to
 challenge
 under
 s
 2(a)
 of
 the
 Charter
 
  Act
  showed
  the
  purpose
  was
  the
  secular
  one
  providing
  a
  common
  pause
 
day
 for
 retail
 workers.
 Court
 held
 nonetheless
 that
 the
 law
 infringed
 s
 2(a),
 

 
 
because
  its
  effect
  was
  to
  impose
  an
  economic
  burden
  on
  those
  retailers
 
SECTION
 2(A)
 OF
 THE
 CHARTER
 
! Guarantees
  to
  “everyone”
  the
  “fundamental
  freedom”
  of
  “freedom
  of
  who
 observed
 a
 Sabbath
 on
 a
 day
 other
 than
 Sunday.
 
 
conscience
 and
 religion”
  o Court
  yet
  upheld
  the
  law
  under
  s
  1
  of
  Charter.
  The
  secular
  purpose
  of
 
! Like
 other
 charter
 rights,
 s
 2(a)
 is
 subject
 to
 s
 1
 (the
 limitation
 clause)
 
  providing
  a
  common
  pause
  day
  was
  sufficiently
  important
  to
  justify
  a
  limit
 
! A
  law
  that
  limits
  freedom
  of
  conscience
  and
  religion
  will
  be
  valid
  under
  1
  if
  it
  on
 freedom
 of
 religion.
 
 
comes
  within
  the
  phrase
  “such
  reasonable
  limits
  prescribed
  by
  law
  as
  can
  be
  o However
  the
  Act
  did
  in
  fact
  contain
  a
  “sabbatarian
  exemption”
  for
  retailers
 
who
  closed
  their
  stores
  on
  Saturdays,
  but
  the
  exception
  was
  hedged
  with
  a
 
demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society”
 
 
size
  restriction
  that
  made
  it
  applicable
  only
  to
  small
  stores.
  Court
  held
  that
 

 
the
  law
  pursued
  its
  objective
  by
  the
  least
  drastic
  means,
  with
  a
  minimum
 
Freedom
 of
 Conscience
 
 
! Reference
  to
  “conscience”,
  would
  protect
  systems
  of
  belief
  which
  are
  not
  intrusion
 on
 freedom
 of
 religion
 
 
theocentric
  (centred
  on
  a
  deity
  (holy
  being)),
  and
  which
  might
  not
  be
 
 
characterized
 as
 religions
 for
 that
 reason
 (or
 for
 other)
 
 "
 R
 v
 Morgentaler
  ! The
  Sunday-­‐
  closing
  cases,
  which
  established
  that
  there
  is
  a
  constitutional
 

  obligation
 under
 s
 2(a)
 to
 accommodate
 those
 persons
 whose
 religion
 calls
 for
 
observance
 of
 a
 Sabbath
 on
 a
 day
 other
 than
 Sunday
 
 
Freedom
 of
 Religion
 
 
 

 
(Leading
 case
 =
 R
 v
 Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart
 1985:)
 
Other
 Religious
 Practices
 
 
o SCC
 struck
 down
 the
 Lord’s
 Day
 Act,
 a
 federal
 statute
 that
 prohibited
 (with
 
exceptions)
 commercial
 activity
 on
 Sunday.
 Court
 held
 the
  purpose
 of
 the
  ! The
  idea
  that
  freedom
  of
  religion
  authorizes
  religious
  practices
  only
  so
  far
  as
 
Act,
  derived
  from
  the
  history
  and
  terms
  of
  the
  Act,
  was
  to
  “compel
  the
  they
  do
  not
  injure
  others
  has
  been
  abandoned
  by
  the
  SCC
  in
  favour
  of
  an
 
observance
  of
  the
  Christian
  Sabbath”.
  Purpose
  was
  an
  infringement
  of
  unqualified
 right
 to
 do
 anything
 that
 is
 dictated
 by
 a
 religious
 belief
 (B.(R.)
 v.
 
freedom
  of
  religion
  of
  non-­‐
  Christians,
  because
  by
  virtue
  of
  this
  freedom,
  Children’s
 Aid
 Society
 (1995)
 
“government
  may
  not
  coerce
  individuals
  to
  affirm
  a
  specific
  religious
  o In
 this
 case
 SCC
 held
 that
 the
 decision
 of
 parents
 to
 prohibit
 doctors
 
from
  giving
  a
  blood
  transfusion
  to
  their
  baby
  was
  protected
  by
 
practice
 for
 a
 sectarian
 purpose.”
 
freedom
  of
  religion
  because
  it
  was
  dictated
  by
  their
  beliefs
  as
 

 
Definition
 of
 religion
 offered
 in
 this
 case
 by
 Dickson
 J:
  Jehovah’s
 witnesses.
 
 
o ‘the
 essence
 of
 freedom
 of
 religion
 is
 the
 right
 to
 entertain
 such
 religious
  o Held:
  La
  Forest:
  Right
  to
  choose
  medical
  treatment
  for
  child
  in
 
beliefs
  as
  a
  person
  chooses,
  the
  right
  to
  declare
  religious
  beliefs
  openly
  accordance
 with
 their
 religious
 belief
 is
 of
 fundamental
 importance
 in
 
and
  without
  fear
  of
  hindrance
  or
  reprisal,
  and
  the
  right
  to
  manifest
  freedom
 of
 religion.
 YET
 statutory
 procedure
 was
 justified
 under
 s
 1:
 
 
religious
  belief
  by
  worship
  and
  practice
  or
  by
  teaching
  and
  o Iacobucci
  and
  Major
  JJ
  took
  the
  view
  that
  “a
  parent’s
  freedom
  of
 
religion
  does
  not
  include
  the
  imposition
  on
  the
  child
  of
  religious
 
dissemination’=
  s
  2(a)
  protects
  religious
  practices
  as
  well
  as
  religious
 
practices
 which
 threaten
 the
 safety,
 health
 or
 life
 of
 the
 child.”
 
beliefs
 
 
 Page
 59
 of
 86
 

 

 
 
 Ross
 v
 New
 Brunswick
 School
 District
 No.
 15
 1996
  o Remarkable
  feature
  of
  the
  majority
  opinion
  in
  this
  case
  is
  that
  a
 
!
 SCC
  held
  that
  a
  damaging
  practice
  was
  protected
  by
  freedom
  of
  religion
  person
 also
 has
 a
 constitutional
 right
 to
 act
 on
 those
 views
 
 
(namely
 the
 dissemination
 of
 the
 opinion
 that
 Christian
 civilization
 was
 being
  Dissent-­‐
 
 
destroyed
 by
 an
 International
 Jewish
 conspiracy).
 
  o Bastarache:
  Religion
  is
  a
  collective
  exercise.
  The
  test
  cannot
  be
  a
 
! Ross
 the
 school
 teacher
 disseminated
 it
 not
 in
 his
 teaching
 but
 in
 the
 form
 of
  personalized
 approach.
 
 
books,
  letters
  to
  the
  newspapers,
  etc).
  Ross
  has
  been
  removed
  from
  his
  o Binnie:
  You
  should
  only
  be
  able
  to
  use
  2(a)
  as
  a
  shield
  to
  protect
 
teaching
 position
 by
 the
 order
 of
 a
 board
 of
 inquiry.
 
  against
  govt
  interference.
  Once
  you
  sign
  a
  contract,
  you
  can’t
  use
 
! Court
 held
 that
 order
 infringed
 Ross’s
 freedom
 of
 religion
 (as
 well
 as
 freedom
  freedom
 of
 religion
 as
 argument
 anymore.
 
of
 expression).
 
 
o However
  the
  court
  held
  that
  most
  of
  the
  order
  could
  be
  justified
 
ALBERTA
 v
 HUTTERIAN
 BRETHREN
 OF
 WILSON
 COLONY
 2009:
 
under
 s
 1
 as
 a
 measure
 to
 remedy
 an
 anti-­‐semitic
 environment
 in
 the
 
school.
  This
  justified
  Ross’s
  removal
  from
  his
  teaching
  position
  to
  a
  FACTS:
 
non-­‐
 teaching
 position
 with
 the
 school
 board,
 but
 it
 did
 NOT
 justify
 a
  ! A
 colony
 of
 Hutterian
 Brethren
 brought
 proceedings
 against
 the
 government
 of
 
part
  of
  the
  order
  that
  required
  that
  Ross
  be
  dismissed
  from
  a
  non-­‐
  Alberta
 to
 obtain
 an
 exemption,
 on
 religious
 grounds,
 from
 the
 requirement
 of
 
teaching
 position
 if
 he
 resumed
 his
 anti-­‐semitic
 activity.
 
  provincial
 law
 that
 a
 driver’s
 licence
 must
 display
 a
 photograph
 of
 the
 holder.
 
o La
  Forest
  –
  did
  not
  discuss
  if
  anti-­‐semitic
  activity
  was
  religious,
  held
  They
 believe
 that
 having
 their
 photos
 taken
 (even
 under
 compulsion
 of
 law)
 is
 
that
 its
 DEFINITION
 was
 to
 be
 given
 a
 broad
 interpretation.
 
 (did
 not
  forbidden
 by
 the
 Bible.
 
 
question
 if
 Ross’s
 writings
 were
 honest
 religious
 statements).
 
  ! Alberta
  (in
  common
  with
  the
  other
  provinces)
  requires
  a
  driver’s
  license
  to
 

  display
  a
  photo
  of
  the
  holder.
  The
  purposes
  are
  to
  enable
  police
  to
  identify
 
! The
  definition
  of
 the
 religious
 practices
 that
 are
 protected
 under
 s
 2(a)
 was
  any
 driver
 involved
 in
 an
 accident
 or
 suspected
 of
 driving
 offence.
 
 
expanded
 even
 further
 in
 "
  ! In
 2003
 was
 the
 establishment
 by
 the
 province
 of
 a
 data
 bank
 of
 digital
 photos
 

  of
  all
  licensed
  drivers,
  which
  was
  to
  be
  used
  to
  prevent
  identity
  theft
  and
 
therefore
  all
  drivers
  had
  to
  have
  their
  photos
  in
  the
  data
  bank.
  Reason
  for
 
SYNDICAT
 NORTHCREST
 v
 AMSELEM
 2004:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 subjective
 test
 of
 ‘belief’
 
amending
 in
 2003
 was
 to
 make
 the
 photo
 requirement
 universal.
 
 
FACTS:
 
  Condominium
 owners
 who
 were
 orthodox
 Jews,
 claimed
 the
 right
 to
 build
  SC
 HELD:
 
“succahs”
  (temporary
  dwellings)
  on
  the
  balconies
  of
  their
  condominium
  ! The
  Hutterian
  claimants
  had
  a
  sincere
  religious
  belief
  that
  prohibited
  their
 
apartments
 where
 they
 would
 live
 for
 nine
 days
 each
 year
 for
 the
 festival
 of
  being
 photographed
 and
 that
 belief
 was
 protected
 by
 s
 2(a).
 
 
‘succot’.
 The
 condominiums
 by-­‐
 laws
 prohibited
 “constructions
 of
 any
 kind
 
 
whatever”
  on
  the
  balconies.
  Other
  condo
  owners
  sought
  an
  injunction
  to
  HOWEVER,
 
 
prevent
 building
 of
 the
 succahs.
 Purpose
 of
 the
 by-­‐law
 was
 to
 maintain
 the
  • The
 majority
 held
 that
 universal
 photo
 requirement
 was
 justified
 under
 s
 1:
 it
 
aesthetic
 external
 appearance
 of
 the
 building
 and
 the
 practical
 purpose
 of
  served
  an
  important
  purpose
  and
  did
  not
  impose
  a
  severe
  burden
  on
  the
 
keeping
 the
 balconies
 free
 of
 obstruction
 as
 fire
 escape
 routes.
 
  claimants,
  who
  could
  avoid
  the
  requirement
  by
  using
  alternative
  means
  of
 

  transport.
 The
 requirement
 was
 a
 reasonable
 limit
 on
 freedom
 of
 religion
 and
 
HELD:
 
  Claimants
 were
 entitled
 to
 erect
 their
 succahs
 in
 defiance
 of
 the
 by-­‐laws
  the
 Hutterian
 claimants
 were
 not
 entitled
 to
 an
 exception
 
 
 
Iacobucci
 J
 (majority):
 
 
! Defined
  protected
  religious
  practice
  in
  an
  extraordinarily
  broad
  fashion.
  The
  DISSENT:
 
  Three
 justices
 dissented
 and
 would
 have
 not
 required
 the
 Hutterites
 to
 
practice
  need
  not
  be
  part
  of
  an
  established
  belief
  system,
  or
  even
  a
  belief
  be
  photographed
  to
  be
  licensed.
  In
  three
  separate
  opinions,
 
system
  shared
  by
  some
  others;
  it
  could
  be
  unique
  to
  the
  claimant.
  The
  Justices
 Abella,
 LeBel,
 and
 Fish
 found
 that
 this
 policy
 was
 not
 minimally
 
practice
  need
  not
  be
  perceived
  as
  obligatory
  by
  the
  claimant;
  “voluntary
  impairing,
 since
 it
 would
 not
 significantly
 enable
 identity
 theft
 to
 allow
 
expressions
  of
  faith”
  were
  equally
  protected.
  All
  that
  was
  necessary
  to
  the
  exceptions,
  and
  it
  would
  have
  a
  large
  detrimental
  effect
  on
  the
 
qualify
  a
  practice
  for
  Charter
  protection
  was
  the
  claimant
  sincerely
  Hutterites'
  way
  of
  life,
  since
  they
  would
  have
  to
  employ
  outsiders
  to
 
believed
  that
  the
  practice
  was
  “of
  religious
  significance”
  Test
  was
  wholly
  perform
 all
 their
 necessary
 driving.
 
subjective.
 
 
 
 Page
 60
 of
 86
 

 
Waiver
 of
 Religious
 Practices
 
 
 
! Bruker
  v
  Marcovitz
  2007:
  indicates
  that
  you
  can
  contract
  to
  withhold
  a
 
 
religious
  practice/
  belief,
  although
  Syndicat
  Northwest
  indicates
  you
  cannot
 
(Binnie
 J
 argues
 in
 dissent
 that
 it
 impacts
 other’s
 rights
 as
 well).
 
 

 

 
 
Religious
 Marriage
 
 
 

 
REFERENCE
 RE:
 SAME
 SEX
 MARRIAGE
 2004:
 
 
! Court
 was
 asked
 if
 Parliament
 can
 enact
 a
 bill
 legalizing
 marriage
 for
 
 
civil
 purposes:
 
 
o Held
 that
 parliament
 could
 do
 so
 under
 its
 power
 over
 marriage
 
 
s91(26)
 
 

 

 
! Does
  the
  Freedom
  of
  Religion
  Guaranteed
  by
  Section
  2(a)
  of
  the
  Charter
 
Protect
  Religious
  Officials
  From
  Being
  Compelled
  to
  Perform
  Same-­‐Sex
 
 
Marriages
 Contrary
 to
 Their
 Religious
 Beliefs?
 
 
o The
 concern
 here
 is
 that
 if
 the
 Proposed
 Act
 were
 adopted,
 religious
 
 
officials
  could
  be
  required
  to
  perform
  same-­‐sex
  marriages
  contrary
  to
 
 
their
 religious
 beliefs.
 

 
o If
 a
 promulgated
 statute
 were
 to
 enact
 compulsion,
 we
 conclude
 that
 
such
  compulsion
  would
  almost
  certainly
  run
  afoul
  of
  the
  Charter
 
 
guarantee
  of
  freedom
  of
  religion,
  given
  the
  expansive
  protection
 
 
afforded
 to
 religion
 by
 s.
 2(a)
 of
 the
 Charter.
 (R
 v
 Drug
 Mart)
 
 

 
 
! The
  right
  to
  freedom
  of
  religion
  enshrined
  in
  s.
  2(a)
  of
  the
  Charter
 
 
encompasses
  the
  right
  to
  believe
  and
  entertain
  the
  religious
  beliefs
  of
  one’s
 

 
choice,
  the
  right
  to
  declare
  one’s
  religious
  beliefs
  openly
  and
  the
  right
  to
 
manifest
  religious
  belief
  by
  worship,
  teaching,
  dissemination
  and
  religious
 
 
practice.
 
 
! The
 performance
 of
 religious
 rites
 is
 a
 fundamental
 aspect
 of
 religious
 practice.
 
 
It
 therefore
 seems
 clear
 that
 state
 compulsion
 on
 religious
 officials
 to
 perform
 
 
same-­‐sex
  marriages
  contrary
  to
  their
  religious
  beliefs
  would
  violate
  the
 

 
guarantee
 of
 freedom
 of
 religion
 under
 s.
 2(a)
 of
 the
 Charter.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Page
 61
 of
 86
 

 
[8]
 Freedom
 of
 Expression-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1982,
 S.
 2(b)
  (c) Federal
 power
 

  ! Power
 to
 regulate
 political
 speech;
 to
 make
 particular
 kinds
 of
 speech
 criminal
 
Section
 2(b)
 of
 the
 Charter
 
  as
  it
  has
  done
  in
  the
  crimes
  of
  fraud,
  obscenity,
  hate
  propaganda
  an
 
! Guarantees
  to
  “everyone”
  the
  “fundamental
  freedom”
  of:
  freedom
  of
  communicating
 for
 the
 purposes
 of
 prostitution;
 and
 power
 to
 regulate
 speech
 
thought,
 belief,
 opinion
 and
 expression,
 including
 freedom
 of
 the
 press
 and
  in
 the
 media
 that
 come
 within
 federal
 jurisdiction,
 namely,
 radio
 and
 television
 
 
other
 media
 of
 communication
 
 
 
! This
  section
  is
  also
  subject
  to
  s
  1(the
  limitation
  clause)
  of
  the
  Charter.
  A
  law
  Reasons
 for
 Protecting
 Expression
 
that
 limits
 freedom
 of
 expression
 will
 be
 valid
 under
 s
 1
 if
 it
 comes
 within
 the
  ! A
  number
  of
  rationales
  including:
  it’s
  role
  as
  an
  instrument
  of
  democratic
 
phrase
  “such
  reasonable
  limits
  prescribed
  by
  law
  as
  can
  be
  demonstrably
  government
  (as
  expressed
  in
  Switzman
  v
  Elbling
  when
  Rand
  J
  said
  that
 
justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society
 “
  parliamentary
  government
  was
  “ultimately
  governed
  by
  the
  free
  public
 
st
! For
 all
 charter
 rights,
 there
 is
 a
 2
 stage
 process:
 1
 must
 ask
 whether
 the
 law
  opinion
  of
  an
  open
  society”
  and
  it
  demanded
  “the
  condition
  of
  a
  virtually
 
nd
has
 the
 purpose
 or
 effect
 of
 limiting
 the
 relevant
 right;
 2
 the
 issue
 is
 whether
  unobstructed
  access
  to
  and
  diffusion
  of
  ideas”
  and
  Abbot
  J
  said
  that
  “the
  right
 
the
 law
 can
 be
 upheld
 under
 s
 1
 if
 there
 is
 an
 infringement.
 
  of
 free
 expression
 of
 opinion
 and
 of
 criticism”
 were
 “essential
 to
 the
 working
 

  of
 a
 parliamentary
 democray
 such
 as
 ours”;
 it’s
 role
 as
 an
 instrument
 of
 truth;
 
But
 the
 unqualified
 language
 of
 s
 2(b),
 reinforced
 by
 the
 broad
 interpretation
  the
 instrument
 of
 personal
 fulfillment.
 
that
 has
 been
 given
 to
 that
 language,
 means
 that,
 in
 most
 of
 the
 freedom
 of
  (Irwin
  Toy
  accepted
  each
  of
  these
  reasons
  for
  protecting
  freedom
  of
 
expression
 cases,
 it
 is
 easy
 to
 decide
 that
 yes,
 the
 impugned
 law
 does
 limit
 s
  expression)
 
2(b)
 
 

  ! The
 breadth
 of
 this
 right
 is
 entailed
 by
 acceptance
 of
 the
 personal
 fulfillment
 
Distribution
 of
 Powers
  rationale
 (e.g.
 R
 v
 Sharpe:
 there
 was
 a
 constitutional
 challenge
 to
 the
 offence
 

  of
 possession
 of
 child
 pornography;
 the
 SCC
 acknowledged
 that
 such
 material
 
(a) Political
 speech
 
  made
 no
 contribution
 
 to
 democratic
 government
 and
 made
 no
 contribution
 to
 
! Alberta
  Press
  case
  1938:
  SCC
  struck
  down
  an
  Alberta
  statute
  that
  compelled
  the
  search
  for
  truth,
  but
  the
  Court
  held
  that
  it
  should
  be
  constitutionally
 
newspapers
  in
  Alberta
  to
  publish
  a
  government
  reply
  to
  any
  criticism
  of
  protected
 because
 of
 its
 role
 as
 an
 instrument
 of
 personal
 fulfillment)
 
provincial
  government
  policies.
  Duff
  C.J.
  and
  Cannon
  J
  asserted
  that
  free
 
 
political
  discussion
  (“the
  breath
  of
  life
  of
  parliamentary
  institutions)
  was
  so
  Meaning
 of
 Expression
 
 
important
  to
  the
  nation
  as
  a
  whole
  that
  it
  could
  not
  be
  regarded
  as
  a
  value
  (a) Definition
 of
 expression
 
 
that
  was
  subordinate
  to
  other
  legislative
  objectives;
  nor
  could
  it
  be
  regarded
  ! SCC
  has
  defined
  “expression”
  as:
  “activity
  is
  expressive
  if
  it
  attempts
  to
 
as
  a
  local
  or
  private
  matter
  (s92(16))
  or
  as
  a
  civil
  right
  “in
  the
  province”
  (s
  convey
 meaning”
 (R
 v
 Keegsta;
 Irwin
 Toy)
 
92(13)).
 It
 followed
 that
 it
 was
 outside
 the
 power
 of
 the
 provinces,
 and
 within
  ! There
  isn’t
  much
  activity
  that
  is
  NOT
  included
  in
  this
  definition.
  But
  what
  is
 
the
 exclusive
 power
 of
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 
  definitely
  excluded
  is
  that
  which
  is
  “purely
  physical
  and
  does
  not
  attempt
  to
 

  convey
 meaning”
 (Irwin
 Toy)
 –
 parking
 a
 car
 for
 expressive
 purpose
 =
 included
 
(b) Provincial
 power
 
 
! The
 provincial
 power
 over
 speech,
 while
 it
 will
 not
 extend
 to
 the
 regulation
 or
  (b) Criminal
 expression
 
 
prohibition
  of
  political
  ideas,
  does
  authorize
  the
  regulation
  of
  speech
  on
  ! Prostitution
  Reference
  1990:
  court
  held
  that
  communication
  for
  the
  purpose
 
commercial
 or
 local
 grounds
 
  of
 prostitution,
 which
 was
 an
 offence
 under
 the
 Criminal
 Code,
 was
 protected
 
! The
 tort
 of
 defamation
 for
 example
 is
 provincial,
 despite
 its
 impact
 on
 speech
  expression
 under
 s
 2(b)
 (a
 majority
 upheld
 the
 law
 under
 s
 1)
 .
 
 
because
 the
 redress
 of
 injury
 to
 reputation
 supplies
 a
 dominant
 tortious
 aspect
  ! Activities
  should
  not
  be
  denied
  s
  2(b)
  protection
  “solely
  because
  they
  have
 
to
 the
 law
 and
 the
 law
 of
 torts
 is
 within
 provincial
 power
 (s
 92(13)).
 
  been
  made
  the
  subject
  of
  criminal
  offences”
  (Keegstra-­‐
  ie
  hate
  propaganda
 
! Advertising
 is
 within
 provincial
 jurisdiction
 because
 it
 is
 part
 of
 the
 regulation
  offences
 limits
 s
 2(b)
 but
 has
 been
 saved
 under
 s
 1)
 
of
  business
  and
  of
  consumer
  protection
  that
  is
  within
  provincial
  power
  (s
 
 
92(13)).
 
  (c) Violence
 
 

  ! Expressive
 activity
 that
 takes
 the
 form
 of
 violence
 is
 not
 protected
 (Irwin
 Toy)
 
 Page
 62
 of
 86
 

 
(d) Content
 neutrality
 
  (f) Time,
 manner
 and
 place
 
! The
  content
  of
  a
  statement
  cannot
  deprive
  it
  of
  the
  protection
  accorded
  by
  s
  ! =
  the
  least
  severe
  form
  of
  restriction
  on
  expression
  is
  the
  regulation
  of
  the
 
2(b)
  no
  matter
  how
  offensive
  it
  may
  be
  (eg
  Keegstra=
  SCC
  held
  that
  the
  time,
 manner
 and
 place
 of
 expression
 
 
promotion
 of
 hatred
 against
 Jews
 is
 protected
 by
 s
 2(b))
  ! For
 example,
 a
 law
 might
 prohibit
 the
 use
 of
 cartoons
 in
 advertising
 directed
 
! Deliberate
 falsehoods
 are
 protected
 by
 s
 2(b)
 (R
 v
 Zundel;
 R
 v
 Lucas)
  at
  children,
  or
  a
  law
  might
  authorize
  a
  public
  official
  to
  stipulate
  the
  time
  and
 
! The
 implication
 of
 this
 is
 that
 s
 2(b)
 extends
 to
 much
 activity
 that
 isn’t
 worthy
  route
  of
  a
  parade.
  These
  laws
  restrict
  expression
  and
  are
  therefore
  in
 
of
 constitutional
 protection
 
  violation
  of
  s
  2(b);
  but,
  because
  they
  do
  not
  regulate
  the
  content
  of
 

  expression,
 a
 court
 would
 be
 likely
 to
 uphold
 the
 laws
 under
 s
 1.
 
Ways
 of
 Limiting
 Expression
 
 
 
(a) Prior
 restraint
 
  Commercial
 Expression
 
 
! Most
 severe
 restriction
 is
 a
 “prior
 restraint”
 on
 publication
 
 
 
! =
 a
 law
 that
 prohibits
 the
 publication
 of
 particular
 material
 either
 absolutely
 or
  (a) Protection
 of
 Commercial
 expression
 
 
under
 a
 requirement
 of
 prior
 approval
 by
 a
 censor
 
  ! Commercial
 expression
 is
 constitutionally
 protected
 (Ford
 v
 Quebec)
 
! Ie.
 Censorship
 of
 films
 restrictions
 on
 the
 importation
 of
 books
 and
 magazines,
  ! Commercial
 expression,
 of
 which
 the
 most
 important
 example
 is
 advertising,
 is
 
restrictions
 on
 access
 to
 the
 courts
 etc
 
  expression
  designed
  to
  promote
  the
  sale
  of
  goods
  and
  services,
  and
  is
 

  protected.
 
(b) Border
 control
 
  ! Two
  reasons
  to
  protect:
  (1)
  expression
  literally
  falls
  within
  the
  meaning
  of
 
! Prohibited
 material
 for
 example
 can
 be
 stopped
 and
 confiscated
 at
 the
 border,
  ‘expression
 as
 per
 SCC”
 and
 (2)
 Difficult
 to
 distinguish
 commercial
 expression
 
with
 custom
 officials
 serving
 as
 the
 censors.
 Little
 Sisters
 Books
 –
 court
 upheld
  from
 other
 types.
 
 
obscenity
  provision
  /
  legislation,
  but
  held
  that
  the
  specific
  acts
  were
 
 
discriminatory.
 
  (b) Advertising
 Restrictions
 
 

  ! E.g.
 Irwin
 Toy:
 The
 SCC
 upheld
 a
 law
 that
 prohibited
 all
 commercial
 advertising
 
(c) Penal
 prohibition
 
  directed
 at
 children
 under
 13
 (the
 protection
 of
 a
 particularly
 vulnerable
 group
 
! Most
  common
  restriction
  on
  speech
  is
  a
  prohibition
  coupled
  with
  a
  penal
  was
  a
  sufficiently
  important
  purpose
  to
  be
  upheld
  under
  s
  1).
  Court
  was
 
sanction,
  for
  example,
  the
  Criminal
  Code
  offences
  of
  perjury
  or
  counseling
  divided
 on
 whether
 it
 was
 a
 reasonable
 limit
 
 /
 justified
 (not
 a
 complete
 ban)
 
suicide.
 To
 the
 extent
 that
 the
 prospect
 of
 punishment
 deters
 the
 uttering
 of
  ! E.g.
 Rocket
 v
 Royal
 College
 of
 Dental
 Surgeons:
 Dentists
 were
 prohibited
 from
 
the
  prohibited
  expression,
  a
  legal
  prohibition
  operates
  in
  the
  same
  way
  as
  a
  advertising
 their
 services,
 and
 the
 restriction
 was
 struck
 down
 as
 being
 overly
 
prior
 restraint
 
  broad.
 (complete
 ban).
 

  ! E.g.
  RJR
  Macdonald
  v
  Canada
  AG:
  MacDonald
  (Tobacco
  Company)
  disputed
 
(d) Forced
 exception
 
  legislation
  involving
  ban
  on
  tobacco
  advertising.
  All
  parties
  accepted
  that
 
! Occasionally
 a
 person
 is
 forced
 by
 law
 to
 make
 a
 statement.
 
  legislation
  breached
  s.
  2(b).
  The
  court
  held
  that
  there
  was
  enough
  evidence
  to
 
! For
  example,
  in
  RJR
  MacDonald
  v
  Canada
  1995,
  a
  federal
  statute
  required
  show
  a
  rational
  connection
  between
  an
  advertising
  ban
  and
  the
  objective
  of
 
cigarettes
  and
  other
  tobacco
  products
  to
  be
  sold
  in
  packages
  that
  displayed
  reducing
  smoking,
  but
  that
  there
  is
  no
  rational
  connection
  between
  the
 
prescribed
  warnings
  of
  the
  health
  dangers
  of
  smoking.
  The
  manufacturers
  general
  ban
  of
  ads,
  and
  a
  decreasing
  consumption
  of
  cigarette
  smoke.
  But
 
were
  prohibited
  from
  displaying
  any
  information
  of
  their
  own
  on
  the
  packages
  Court
  could
  not
  accept
  that
  a
  total
  ban
  on
  all
  forms
  of
  advertising,
  including
 
(except
  for
  the
  name
  of
  the
  product).
  The
  requirement
  of
  unattributed
  purely
 informational
 advertising,
 was
 the
  least
  drastic
 means
 of
 accomplishing
 
warnings
 was
 struck
 down.
 But
 New
 law,
 directed
 by
 health
 Canada,
 accepted.
 
  the
 objective,
 thus
 failing
 on
 the
 minimum
 impairment
 limb.
 
 

  o Majority
  held
  that
  the
  legislation
  would
  not
  have
  breached
  freedom
 
(e) Language
 requirement
 
  of
 expression
 had
 it
 been
 targeted
 at
 things
 like
 ‘recruitment
 of
 new
 
! A
  Quebec
  law
  requiring
  that
  public
  signs
  and
  advertisements
  be
  in
  French
  smokers’
  or
  ‘young
  people’
  or
  association
  of
  smoking
  with
  things
 
only
 has
 been
 struck
 down
 as
 a
 violation
 of
 s
 2(b)
  cool/hip
  (delineated
  categories,
  rather
  than
  all-­‐encompassing
  ban).
 
! Freedom
  of
  expression
  includes
  the
  freedom
  to
  express
  oneself
  in
  the
  Because
  it
  was
  a
  general
  ban,
  the
  majority
  held
  that
  it
  overly
 
language
 of
 one’s
 choice
 (Ford
 v
 Quebec)
  impaired
 2(b)
 freedom.
 
 Page
 63
 of
 86
 

 
(c) Commercial
 signs
  Pornography
 
! Commercial
 signs
 are
 protected
 by
 s
 2(b)
  • Attempts
 to
 ban
 materials
 based
 on
 obscenity
 are
 based
 on
 public
 morality.
 
 
! R
  v
  Guignard:
  A
  municipal
  by
  law
  prohibited
  advertising
  signs
  and
  billboards
  • Pornography,
  including
  obscenity
  is
  protected
  under
  charter
  s2b
  since
  there
 
except
  in
  industrial
  zones
  of
  the
  municipality.
  The
  defendant
  was
  prosecuted
  are
 no
 content
 based
 restrictions
 on
 s2b.
 
 
under
  the
  by-­‐law
  for
  erecting
  a
  sign
  on
  his
  property
  complaining
  about
  the
  • R
  v
  Butler:
  charged
  with
  operating
  sex
  obscenity
  shop
  and
  possessing
  under
 
delays
  of
  his
  insurance
  company
  in
  settling
  a
  claim.
  Because
  the
  sign
  named
  Criminal
  Code
 
  definition
  of
  “obscenity”.
  Prohibition
  was
  caught
  under
  s1:
 
the
  insurance
  company,
  It
  fell
  within
 the
 by-­‐law’s
  definition
  of
  an
  advertising
  “undue
  exploitation
  of
  sex
  materials
  which
  (1)
  portray
  explicit
  sex
  w/
  violence,
 
sign
  (despite
  its
  negative
  message)
  The
  SCC
  held
  that
  this
  infringed
  G’s
  right
  to
  (2)
  explicit
  sex
  without
  violence
  but
  in
  degrading
  dehumiliating
  way
  –
 
put
 up
 a
 sign
 on
 his
 property,
 and
 the
 limit
 could
 not
 be
 justified
 under
 s
 1
 (the
  perceived
 by
 public
 opinion
 to
 be
 immoral.
 
 
Court
 decried
 the
 law
 as
 arbitrary
 and
 disproportionate
 to
 any
 benefit
 that
 it
 
 
secures
 for
 the
 municipality)
  Access
 to
 Public
 Property
 
 

  ! First,
 because
 the
 Charter
 does
 not
 apply
 to
 private
 action,
 s
 2(b)
 confers
 no
 
Picketing
  right
 to
 use
 private
 property
 as
 a
 forum
 of
 expression.
 With
 respect
 to
 PUBLIC
 
! =
 the
 activity
 of
 members
 of
 
 trade
 union
 on
 strike,
 who
 will
 assemble
 outside
  property,
 since
 the
 Charter
 applies
 to
 governmental
 action,
 s
 2(b)
 is
 potentially
 
a
 workplace,
 often
 carrying
 signs
 
  applicable
 
! There
 is
 a
 communicative
 element
 to
 a
 picket
 line
 and
 therefore
 it
 constitutes
  ! General
  rule
  (and
  if
  the
  circumstances
  are
  appropriate),
  is
  that
  the
  right
  to
 
“expression”
 within
 s
 2(b)
 (Dolphin
 Delivery)
  public
 property
 is
 protected
 for
 expression
 purposes
 (Committee
 for
 the
 Cth
 of
 
! Picketing
 is
 protected
 by
 s
 2(b)
  Canada
 v
 Canada;
 Ramsden
 v
 Peterborough)
 

 
 
Hate
 Propaganda
 
  ! The
  MONTREAL
  v
  2952-­‐1366
  QUEBEC
  CASE
  is
  the
  authority
  for
  the
 
! =
 material
 that
 promotes
 hatred
 against
 minority
 groups
 
  applicability/scope
 of
 the
 right:
 A
 strip
 club
 in
 Mtl
 set
 up
 a
 loudspeaker
 at
 its
 
R
 v
 Keegstra
 1990:
  street
  entrance
  which
  it
  used
  to
  broadcast
  music
  and
  commentary
  that
 
o Court
 rejected
 the
 notion
 that
 there
 any
 content
 based
 restrictions
 on
  accompanied
  the
  show
  within.
  The
  club
  was
  charged
  under
  a
  by
  law
  that
 
the
  s
  2(b)
  right.
  Section
  2(b)
  covered
  all
  messages,
  “however
  prohibited
 noise
 produced
 by
 sound
 equipment
 that
 could
 be
 heard
 outside
 a
 
unpopular,
  distasteful
  or
  contrary
  to
  the
  mainstream.”
  The
  court
  building.
 The
 broadcast
 conveyed
 a
 message
 about
 the
 show
 that
 was
 going
 on
 
also
 rejected
 the
 notion
 that
 s
 2(b)
 could
 be
 narrowed
 by
 reference
 to
  in
 the
 club,
 and
 so
 that
 was
 an
 expression.
 Although
 the
 message
 originated
 in
 
the
 equality
 rights
 of
 s
 15
 (or
 any
 other
 rights).
 
  private
  premises
  where
  s
  2(b)
  would
  not
  apply,
  it
  was
  the
  transmission
  onto
 
o It
 followed
 that
 Mr
 K,
 a
 school
 teacher
 who
 had
 been
 found
 guilty
 of
  public
 property
 (the
 street),
 that
 was
 prohibited
 by
 the
 by
 law.
 The
 by
 law
 was
 
making
 anti-­‐semitic
 statements
 to
 his
 students,
 has
 been
 engaged
 in
 a
  challenged.
 
constitutionally
  protected
  activity.
  But
  the
  court
  went
  on
  to
  uphold
  ! In
  determining
  whether
  the
  expression
  was
  protected,
  the
 Court
  formulated
  a
 
the
 criminal
 offence
 under
 s
 1.
 
  test
  for
  the
  application
  of
  s
  2(b)
  on
  public
  property:
  “ask....whether
  the
 
! Purpose/Objective
  of
  Hate
  Propaganda
  law
  is
  to
  promote
  equality
  and
  to
  public
  place
  is
  one
  where
  one
  would
  expect
  that
  expression
  in
  that
  place
 
lessen
 hatred
 against
 these
 groups
 (S15).
 Clear
 to
 see
 how
 this
 law
 promotes…
  does
 not
 conflict
 with
 the
 purposes
 which
 s
 2(b)
 is
 intended
 to
 serve,
 namely:
 

  (1)
 democratic
 discourse
 
Defamation
 
  (2)
 truth
 finding
 and
 
! The
 tort
 of
 defamation
 provides
 a
 civil
 remedy
 for
 a
 person
 whose
 reputation
  (3)
 self
 fulfilment”
 
has
 been
 damaged
 by
 false
 statements
 made
 by
 the
 defendants
 
  ! In
  this
  case,
  the
  streets
  “are
  clearly
  areas
  of
  public,
  as
  opposed
  to
  private,
 
! In
  Hill
  v
  Church
  of
  Scientology,
  the
  SCC
  held
  that
  false
  and
  injurious
  concourse,
  where
  expression
  of
  many
  varieties
  has
  long
  been
  accepted”.
 
statements
  are
  not
  deserving
  of
  much
  protection
 
  and
  are
  outside
  the
  core
  Therefore
  the
  club’s
  broadcast
  into
  the
  street
  was
  protected
  by
  s
  2(b).
  the
 
values
 protected
 by
 s
 2(b)
  majority
  went
  on
  to
  hold
  that
  the
  by-­‐law
  was
  justified
  as
  a
  reasonable
  limit
 

  under
 s
 1,
 despite
 its
 lack
 of
 standards
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 level
 or
 effects
 of
 

  the
 prohibited
 noise.
 
 

 
 
 Page
 64
 of
 86
 

 
Access
 to
 Courts
  Issue:
 
  whether
  the
  provisions
  of
  the
  by
  law
  prohibiting
  noise
  on
  street
  were
 
1. Fair
 trial
 concerns
  constitutionally
 valid.
 
 
! “freedom
 of
 express”
 is
 explicitly
 guaranteed
 in
 s
 2(b)
  Principle:
 
 
! The
  freedom
  of
  the
  press
  occasionally
  comes
  into
  conflict
  with
  the
  right
  of
  ! A.
 Does
 Article
 9(1)
 of
 the
 by-­‐law
 infringe
 s
 2(b)
 of
 the
 Charter?
 
persons
 accused
 of
 crime
 to
 receive
 a
 fair
 trial.
 For
 example
 pre
 trial
 publicity
  o 1.
 Did
 the
 noise
 have
 expressive
 content
 that
 would
 bring
 it
 within
 s
 
may
 bias
 potential
 jurors
 or
 judge
 and
 may
 damage
 the
 reputation
 of
 someone
  2(b)
 protection.
 Yes
 
 
subsequently
  exonerated
  of
  the
  charge
 
  and
  extensive
  publicity
  may
  impair
  o 2.
  If
  so,
  does
  method
  or
  location
  of
  this
  expression
  remove
  that
 
their
 capacity
 or
 public
 perception
 for
 neutral
 adjudication
 
  protection?
 

  ! Test
  for
  whether
  the
  expression
  was
  protected
  for
  the
 
2. Restrictions
 on
 reporting
 
  application
 of
 s
 2(b)
 on
 public
 property:
 
! Freedom
 of
 process
 includes
 the
 freedom
 to
 publish
 reports
 of
 proceedings
 in
  • “ask....whether
  the
  public
  place
  is
  one
  where
  one
 
court.
  But
  this
  isn’t
  an
  unqualified
  right
  (e.g.
  there
  can
  be
  restrictions
  where
  would
 expect
 that
 expression
 in
 that
 place
 does
 not
 
the
  purpose
  of
  the
  restriction
  is
  to
  protect
  the
  identity
  of
  complainants
  in
  conflict
 with
 the
 purposes
 which
 s
 2(b)
 is
 intended
 
sexual
 assault
 cases:
 Canadian
 Newspapers
 Co
 v
 Canada
  to
 serve,
 namely:
 
! The
  relevant
  test/standard
  to
  be
  applied
  in
  these
  types
  of
  cases
  is
  that
  court
  (1)
 democratic
 discourse
 
proceedings
  are
  to
  be
  open
  UNLESS
  disclosure
  would
  subvert
  the
  ends
  of
  (2)
 truth
 finding
 and
 
justice
 or
 unduly
 impair
 its
 proper
 administration
 (Toronto
 Star
 Newspapers)
  (3)
 self
 fulfilment”
 

  ! took
 into
 consideration
 
 
3. Restriction
 on
 access
  ! (a)
 The
 historical
 or
 actual
 function
 of
 the
 place;
 
! Freedom
  of
  the
  press
  also
  includes
  the
  right
  to
  be
  present
  in
  court
  ! (b)
  Whether
  other
  aspects
  of
  the
  place
  suggest
 
(Edmonton
 Journal
 v
 Alta)
  that
  expression
  within
  it
  would
  undermine
  the
 
! In
  Re
  Vancouver
  Sun,
  the
  SCC
  emphasized
  that
  the
  “open
  court
  principle”
  values
  underlying
  free
  expression
  [E.g.
  Is
  the
 
was
  guaranteed
  by
  s
  2(b),
  and
  it
  could
  be
  limited
  by
  s
  1
  only
  if
  the
  standards
  space
  in
  fact
  essentially
  private,
  despite
  being
 
government-­‐owned,
 or
 is
 it
 public?
 
 
of
  justification
  in
  Dagenais
  and
  Mentuck
  were
  satisfied.
  Although
  those
 
• 3.If
  the
  expression
  is
  protected
  by
  s.
  2(b)
  does
  the
  bylaw
  infringe
  that
 
cases
  concerned
  publication
  bans
  the
  same
  principles
  applied
  to
  orders
 
protection,
 either
 in
 purpose
 or
 effect
 
 
 
limiting
  access
  to
  court
  proceedings.
  Those
  principles
  were:
  (a)
  that
  the
 
o Yes.
 City’s
 ban
 on
 noise
 limits
 free
 expression
 
 
order
  is
  “necessary
  in
  order
  to
  prevent
  a
  serious
  risk
  to
  the
  proper
 
! B.
 is
 it
 justified
 under
 s.
 1
 
 
administration
  of
  justice
  because
  reasonable
  alternative
  measures
  will
  not
 
o Pressing
 and
 substantial?
 YES—combating
 noise
 pollution
 =serious
 
prevent
 the
 risk”;
 and
 (b)
 that
 “the
 salutary
 effects
 of
 [the
 order]
 outweigh
 
o Proportionate—
 
the
  deleterious
  effects
  on
  the
  rights
  and
  interests
  of
  the
  parties
  and
  the
 
! There
 is
 a
 rational
 connection
 b/c
 noise
 bothers
 people
 
public”
 
! It
 is
 a
 minimal
 impairment
 –
 no
 other
 way
 to
 deal
 with
 it
 
! Proportionate
 effect—by
 law
 is
 valid.
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 REQUIRED
 CASE
 FOR
 FREEDOM
 OF
 EXPRESSION
 
 
 
Held:
 the
 streets
 “are
 clearly
 areas
 of
 public.
 Therefore
 the
 club’s
 broadcast
 

 
into
 the
 street
 was
 protected
 by
 s
 2(b).
 the
 majority
 went
 on
 to
 hold
 that
 the
 
MONTRÉAL
 (CITY)
 v.
 2952-­‐1366
 QUÉBEC
 INC
 
by-­‐law
 was
 justified
 as
 a
 reasonable
 limit
 under
 s
 

 

 
Facts:
 
 

 
! A
 strip
 club
 in
 Mtl
 set
 up
 a
 loudspeaker
 at
 its
 street
 entrance
 which
 it
 used
 to
 

 
broadcast
 music
 and
 commentary
 that
 accompanied
 the
 show
 within.
 The
 club
 

 
was
  charged
  under
  a
  by
  law
  that
  prohibited
  noise
  produced
  by
  sound
 

 
equipment
 that
 could
 be
 heard
 outside
 a
 building.
 
 

 
 Page
 65
 of
 86
 

 
[9]
 Life,
 Liberty
 and
 Security
 of
 the
 Person-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 A,
 1982,
 S.
 7
  (b) Immigrants
 
 

  ! “everyone”
 in
 s
 7
 includes
 illegal
 immigrants
 to
 Canada
 
 
Section
 7
 of
 the
 Charter
  ! Singh
 v
 Minister
 of
 Employment
 and
 Immigration
 1985:
 s
 7
 could
 be
 asserted
 
by
 “every
 human
 being
 who
 is
 physically
 present
 in
 Canada
 and
 virtue
 of
 such
 
! ‘Everyone
  has
  the
  right
  to
  life,
  liberty
  and
  security
  of
  the
  person
  and
  the
  right
 
presence
  amenable
  to
  Canadian
  law”,
  Wilson
  J
  meant
  that
  any
  illegal
 
not
  to
  be
  deprived
  thereof
  except
  in
  accordance
  with
  the
  principles
  of
 
immigrant
  who
  claimed
  to
  be
  a
  refugee
  was
  entitled
  to
  a
  hearing
  before
  an
 
fundamental
 justice.
 
 
official
 or
 tribunal
 with
 authority
 
 to
 determine
 the
 issue
 
 
! Cases
 generally
 assume
 that
 there
 is
 no
 breach
 of
 s
 7
 unless
 there
 has
 been
 a
 

 
failure
 to
 comply
 with
 the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 
 
(c) Foetus
 
! Section
  7’s
  protection
  is
  limited
  to
  “life,
  liberty
  and
  security
  of
  the
  person”,
  a
 
! “Everyone’
 does
 not
 include
 a
 foetus
 and
 so
 is
 not
 entitled
 to
 
 a
 right
 to
 life
 
 
phrase
  which
  does
  not
  include
  property
  (as
  in
  s
  1(a)
  of
  the
  Canadian
  Bill
  of
 
! SCC
 has
 used
 s
 7
 to
 strike
 down
 restrictions
 on
 abortion,
 the
 reasoning
 being
 
Rights)
  and
  does
  not
  include
  a
  determination
  of
  rights
  and
  obligations
 
that
  the
  restriction
  deprived
  the
  mother
  of
  her
  right
  to
  liberty
  or
  security
  of
 
respecting
 economic
 interests
 (as
 in
 s
 2(e)
 of
 Canadian
 Bill
 of
 Rights)
 
the
 person
 
 
o Affords
 no
 guarantee
 of
 compensation
 or
 even
 of
 a
 fair
 procedure
 for
 the
 taking
 
of
 property
 by
 government
 
 
o Affords
  no
  guarantee
  of
  fair
  treatment
  by
  courts,
  tribunals
  or
  officials
  with
  Burden
 of
 s.
 7
 
power
 over
 the
 purely
 economic
 interests
 of
 individuals
 or
 corporations
 
  ! S
  7
  like
  all
  other
  Charter
  rights,
  applies
  only
  to
  “governmental
  action:
  as
 
! Canadian
 Bill
 of
 Rights
 (which
 applies
 only
 to
 federal
 laws)
 remains
 in
 force,
 and
  defined
 in
 s
 32
 of
 Charter
 
 
ss
  1(a)
  and
  2(e)
  are
  of
  continuing
  importance
  because
  their
  coverage
  is
 broader
 
 
than
 s
 7
  What
 is
 Covered?
 DEFINITIONS
 

 
 
Distribution
 of
 Powers
 over
 Legal
 Rights
  (a) LIFE
 
! s
 7
 is
 the
 first
 of
 8
 section
 (ss
 7
 to
 14)
 of
 the
 Charter
 that
 are
 grouped
 under
  ! So
  far
  as
  “life’
  is
  concerned,
  the
  section
  has
  little
  work
  to
  do,
  because
 
the
 heading
 “Legal
 Rights”
  governmental
 action
 rarely
 causes
 death
 
 
! ‘legal
  rights’
  doesn’t
  have
  a
  precise
  meaning
  but
  includes
  rights
  of
  person
  ! But
  excessive
  waiting
  times
  for
  treatment
  in
  the
  public
  health
  care
  system
  in
 
within
 the
 criminal
 justice
 system,
 limiting
 the
 powers
 of
 the
 state
 with
 respect
  Quebec
 increased
 the
 risk
 of
 death
 and
 were
 a
 violation
 of
 the
 right
 to
 life
 (as
 
to
  investigation,
  search,
  seizure,
  arrest,
  detention,
  trial
  and
  punishment.
  But
  well
 as
 security
 of
 the
 person)
 (Chaoulli
 v
 Quebec)
 
section
 7
 in
 particular
 spills
 over
 into
 civil
 justice
 as
 well.
 
  ! Does
 not
 include
 a
 foetus
 
 
! The
 distribution
 of
 powers
 between
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 and
 the
 provincial
 
 
Legislatures
  over
  the
  matters
  loosely
  encompassed
  by
  the
  vague
  term
  “legal
  (b) LIBERTY
 
rights”
 depends
 upon
 the
 characterization
 of
 each
 law
 
  (i)
 Physical
 liberty
 
 

  • “liberty”
  includes
  freedom
  of
  physical
  restraint
  (so
  any
  law
  that
  imposes
  the
 
Who
 is
 Covered?
  penalty
  of
  imprisonment,
  whether
  the
  sentence
  is
  mandatory
  or
  discretionary,
 

  is
 by
 virtue
 of
 that
 penalty
 of
 a
 deprivation
 of
 liberty,
 and
 must
 conform
 to
 the
 
(a) Corporations
  principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice)
 
! Normally
  “everyone”
  is
  apt
  to
  include
  a
  corporation
  as
  well
  as
  an
  individual
  ! Transfer
  of
  a
  prisoner
  to
  a
  higher
  level
  prison
  deprives
  liberty
  (May
  v
 
BUT
 SCC
 held
 in
 the
 context
 of
 s
 7
 “everyone”
 does
 not
 include
 a
 corporation
 
  Ferndale)
 
! Corporation
 is
 incapable
 of
 possessing
 “life,
 liberty
 or
 security
 of
 the
 person”
  ! Although
 “liberty”
 is
 generally
 taken
 to
 mean
 “physical
 liberty”,
 the
 majority
 in
 
because
 these
 are
 attributes
 of
 natural
 persons.
 
  Blencoe
  said
  liberty
  also
  deals
  with
  a
  person’s
  ability
  to
  make
  fundamental
 
! But
  corporations
  can
  use
  s
  7
  to
  invalidate
  criminal
  provisions
  (when
  a
  personal
 choices
 
 
corporation
  is
  a
  defendant
  to
  a
  prosecution,
  the
  corporation
  is
  entitled
  to
  o Imprisonment
 
 
defend
 the
 charge
 on
 the
 basis
 that
 the
 law
 is
 a
 nullity
  o Fingerprinting
 (R
 v
 Beare)
 

  o Give
 oral
 testimony
 
 

  o Not
 to
 loiter
 in
 or
 near
 schools,
 playgrounds,
 public
 parks
 etc
 
 
 Page
 66
 of
 86
 

 
! Not
 a
 deprivation:
  1.
 
  Words
  “fundamental
  justice”
  are
  literally
  broader
  in
  scope
  than
  other
 
o A
  law
  that
  imposes
  only
  a
  fine
  is
  not
  a
  deprivation
  and
  need
  not
  formulations
 that
 could
 have
 been
 used,
 such
 as
 “natural
 justice”
 
conform
 to
 the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 
  2.
 
 Expansion
  of
  the
  concept
  of
  ‘fundamental
  justice’
  has
  the
  effect
  of
 
o Suspension
 of
 driver’s
 license
 (Buhlers
 v
 B.C.)
  expanding
 the
 protection
 of
 life
 liberty
 and
 security
 of
 the
 person
 

 
 
 
 (ii)
 Economic
 liberty
 
  3.
 
 S
 7
 is
 a
 kind
 of
 general
 residuary
 clause
 for
 all
 of
 the
 “legal
 rights”
 of
 the
 
! Not
 included
 
  Charter
 (controversial
 issue)
 

 
 
 
 (iii)
 Political
 liberty
 
 
! “liberty”
 does
 not
 include
 freedom
 of
 conscience
 and
 religion,
 freedom
  (b) Definition
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 
 
of
  expression,
  freedom
  of
  assembly,
  freedom
  of
  association
  and
  the
  ! In
 BC
 Motor
 Vehicle,
 it
 was
 said
 that
 “the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 
right
  to
  vote
  and
  be
  a
  candidate
  for
  election,
  or
  the
  right
  to
  travel.
  are
 said
 to
 be
 found
 in
 the
 basic
 tenets
 of
 the
 legal
 system”
 
These
 rights
 are
 all
 guaranteed
 elsewhere
 in
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 and
  ! This
 is
 a
 vague
 definition,
 but
 later
 decisions
 haven’t
 done
 much
 better.
 
should
 be
 excluded
 from
 s
 7
 
  ! Later
 decisions
 indicate
 that
 there
 is
 little
 agreement
 as
 to
 what
 the
 basic
 

  tenets
 of
 our
 legal
 system
 are
 
(c) SECURITY
 OF
 THE
 PERSON
  ! In
  fact,
  some
  cases
  do
  not
  even
  rely
  on
  the
  “basic
  tenets
  of
  our
  legal
 
• Abortion
 law
 in
 Criminal
 Code
 which
 restricted
 abortions
 and
 which
 resulted
 in
  system”
  definition
  (Cunningham-­‐,
  where
  it
  was
  said
  in
  relation
  to
 
delays
  in
  treatment
  and
  which
  ultimately
  increased
  risk
  to
  women’s
  health,
  fundamental
 justice:
 “The
 question
 is
 whether,
 from
 a
 substantive
 point
 of
 
was
 held
 to
 deprive
 women
 of
 security
 of
 person
 (Morgentaler
 No
 2)
  view,
  the
  change
  in
  the
  law
  strikes
  the
  right
  balance
  between
  the
 
• Law
  which
  forbid
  the
  purchase
  of
  private
  health
  insurance
  was
  said
  to
  infringe
  accused’s
 interests
 and
 the
 interests
 of
 society”
 
security
 of
 person,
 because
 it
 ultimately
 led
 to
 delays
 in
 treatment,
 which
 the
 
 
effect
  of
  putting
  lives
  at
  risk
  (Chaoulli
  v
  Quebec)
  [Note:
  majority
  found
  this
  ! The
 variety
 of
 outcomes
 re:
 scope
 of
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 can
 
breached
 Quebec
 charter,
 which
 doesn’t
 use
 the
 phrase
 “fundamental
 justice”.
  be
  accounted
  for
  only
  by
  the
  enormous
  discretion
  that
  the
  SCC
  has
 
So
  it
  will
  take
  another
  case
  to
  determine
  whether
  they
  are
  breach
  of
  the
  assumed
 for
 itself
 under
 the
 rubric
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 
 
Canadian
 Charter]
 
 
• Includes
 control
 over
 one’s
 body
 (Rodriguez
 –
 assisted
 suicide
 case
  !
 In
  R
  v
  Malmo-­‐Levine,
  the
  Court
  postulated
  3
  requirements
  for
  a
  rule
  to
 
• Protects
 psychological
 integrity
 (New
 Brunswick
 v
 G.(J.))
 and
 protects
 against
  qualify
  as
  a
  “basic
  tenant
  of
  the
  legal
  system
  and
  therefore
  a
  principle
  of
 
state
  induced
  psychological
  stress,
  such
  as
  where
  there
  has
  been
  excessive
  fundamental
 justice”:
 
delay
 caused
 by
 administrative
 tribunals
 (Blencoe)
  (1)
 
 
 
 The
 rule
 must
 be
 a
 legal
 principle
 

  (2)
 
  There
 must
 be
 significant
 societal
 consensus
 that
 it
 is
 fundamental
 to
 
FUNDEMENTAL
 JUSTICE:
  the
 way
 in
 which
 the
 legal
 system
 ought
 to
 fairly
 operate
 

  (3)
 
  The
  rule
  must
  be
  capable
  of
  being
  identified
  with
  sufficient
  precision
 
(a) Procedure
 and
 substance
 
  to
 yield
 to
 a
 manageable
 standard
 
! The
  term
  “fundamental
  justice”
  covers
  substantive
  as
  well
  as
  procedural
 
 
justice
 (BC
 Motor
 Vehicle
 Reference)
  ! E.g.,
  in
  Canadian
  Foundation
  for
  Children,
  it
  was
  argued
  that
  a
  principle
  of
 
! This
 is
 unlike
 how
 the
 term
 was
 used
 in
 the
 Canadian
 Bill
 of
 Rights.
 There,
 it
  fundamental
 justice
 was
 “the
 best
 interests
 of
 the
 child”.
 The
 SCC
 upheld
 the
 3
 
was
 used
 as
 an
 equivalent
 of
 “natural
 justice”,
 which
 are
 rules
 of
 procedure
  requirements
 above,
 and
 said
 that
 although
 “best
 interests”
 is
 a
 legal
 principle,
 
(e.g.
 requirement
 of
 a
 hearing,
 unbiased
 adjudication).
 In
 that
 context,
 the
  it
 was
 not
 fundamental
 to
 the
 legal
 system
 
courts
  would
  not
  be
  entitled
  to
  review
  the
  substantive
  justice
  of
  the
 
 
deprivation
  Principles
 of
 Fundamental
 Justice
 
! Further,
 the
 legislative
 history
 of
 s
 7
 makes
 clear
 that
 the
 framers
 thought
  ! No
  imprisonment
  without
  fault;
  no
  overbreadth,
  no
  disproportionality;
  no
 
that
 “fundamental
 justice”
 meant
 natural
 justice
  arbitrariness;
 no
 vagueness
 
 
! Lamer
  J
  in
  BC
  Motor
  Vehicle
  Reference
  gave
  3
  reasons
  for
  extending
 
 
fundamental
 justice
 beyond
 procedure:
 
 
 Page
 67
 of
 86
 

 
4
 WAYS
 OF
 DEMONSTRATING
 THAT
 PRINCIPLES
 OF
 FUNDAMENTAL
 JUSTICE
 HAVE
  ! Prostitution
 Reference:
 it
 was
 argued
 (among
 other
 things)
 that
 the
 offence
 of
 
BEEN
 VIOLATED:
  communicating
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 engaging
 in
 prostitution
 was
 in
 breach
 of
 s
 7
 

  because
 the
 offence
 was
 unconstitutionally
 vague
 
 
1.
 Overbroad
 Laws
 
 
! SCC
 established
 doctrine
 of
 “overbreadth”
 in
 R
 v
 Heywood,
 which
 applies
 to
 a
  (b)
 Standard
 of
 Precision
 
 
law
 that
 is
 broader
 than
 necessary
 to
 accomplish
 its
 purpose
 
  ! What
 is
 the
 “constitutional
 standard”
 of
 precision
 that
 a
 law
 must
 meet
 in
 order
 
! Overbreadth
 is
 a
 breach
 of
 the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 and
 therefore
 a
  to
 avoid
 the
 vice
 of
 vagueness?
 
 
basis
  for
  a
  finding
  of
  unconstitutionality
  in
  a
  law
  that
  affects
  life,
  liberty
  or
 
 
security
 of
 the
 person
 
  ! Nova
 Scotia
 Pharmaceutical
 case-­‐
 a
 number
 of
 tests
 were
 suggested:
 
! If
 you
 conclude
 that
 there
 is
 overbreadth
 and,
 therefore,
 a
 breach
 of
 principles
  o Whether
 the
 law
 is
 “intelligible”
 
of
 fundamental
 justice,
 then
 the
 law
 will
 almost
 necessarily
 fail
 the
 s
 1
 analysis
  o Whether
 the
 law
 sufficiently
 delineates
 “an
 area
 of
 risk”
 
as
 well,
 because
 it
 will
 fail
 the
 minimum
 impairment
 test
 
  o Whether
  the
  law
  provides
  “an
  adequate
  basis
  for
  legal
  debate”
  (this
 
! There
 are
 practical
 and
 theoretical
 difficulties
 with
 this
 doctrine
 though
 (e.g.
 a
  last
  one
  is
  the
  least
  useful
  because
  almost
  any
  provision,
  no
  matter
 
judge
 who
 disapproves
 of
 a
 law
 will
 always
 be
 able
 to
 find
 that
 it
 is
 overbroad)
  how
  vague,
  could
  provide
  a
  basis
  for
  legal
  debate).
  HOWEVER,
  it
  was
 
! In
  Heywood,
  law
  was
  struck
  down
  b/c
  direct
  restraint
  on
  liberty
  of
  those
  whom
  the
  legal
  debate
  test
  that
  was
  evidently
  preferred
  and
  employed
  in
 
it
 applied
 because
 their
 access
 to
 schoolyards,
 playgrounds,
 parks
 and
 bathing
  subsequent
 cases
 
 
areas
 was
 restricted.
 
  ! Or
 more
 simply
 and
 perhaps
 the
 appropriate
 test
 –
 ask
 whether
 the
 law
 upholds
 

  the
  2
  values
  which
  the
  rule
  against
  vagueness
  is
  supposed
  to
  protect:
  (1)
  is
 
2.
 Disproportionate
 Laws
  there
 fair
 notice
 to
 citizens?;
 (2)
 Is
 there
 a
 limitation
 of
 enforcement
 discretion?
 
 
 
! SCC
  established
  doctrine
  of
  “disproportionality”
  in
  R
  v
  Malmo-­‐Levine
  (2003)
 
 
which
 is
 a
 breach
 of
 the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 and
 therefore
 a
 basis
  Other
 Things
 to
 Consider
 Re:
 section
 7
 
for
 a
 finding
 of
 unconstitutionality
 in
 a
 law
 that
 affects
 life,
 liberty
 and
 security
 
 
of
 the
 person
 
  (1)
 Absolute
 and
 Strict
 liability
 
 
! The
  doctrine
  requires
  the
  court
  to
  determine:
  (1)
  whether
  a
  law
  purses
  a
  (a)
 Absolute
 liability
 offences
 
“legitimate
  state
  interest”;
  and
  if
  It
  does
  (2)
  whether
  the
  law
  is
  grossly
  ! (offence
  consists
  simply
  of
  doing
  the
  prohibited
  act;
  no
  requirement
  of
 
disproportionate
 to
 the
 state
 interest
  fault,
 either
 mens
 rea
 or
 negligence;
 defendant
 could
 be
 convicted
 even
 if
 

  he
  had
  no
  intention
  of
  breaking
  the
  law
  and
  also
  exercised
  reasonable
  care
 
3.
 Arbitrary
 Laws
  to
 avoid
 doing
 so)
 
! A
  law
  is
  arbitrary
  if
  it
  “lacks
  a
  real
  connection
  on
  the
  facts
  to
  the
  purpose
  of
  the
  ! B.C
  Motor
  Vehicle
  Reference
  1985:
  SCC
  held
  that
  absolute
  liability
  was
  a
 
law
 is
 said
 to
 serve”
 (Chaoulli
 v
 Quebec,
 per
 McLachlin
 CJ)
  denial
 of
 “the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice”.
 Since
 the
 offence
 carried
 a
 
! Arbitrary
 laws
 were
 offensive
 to
 fundamental
 justice
 
  short
  term
  of
  imprisonment,
  a
  conviction
  would
  mean
  a
  deprivation
  of
 

  ‘liberty”.
 The
 offence
 was
 therefore
 declared
 to
 be
 in
 violation
 of
 s
 7
 and
 of
 
4.
 Vague
 Laws
 
  no
 force
 or
 effect.
 
 
(a)
 void
 for
 vagueness
  ! An
 offence
 of
 absolute
 liability
 that
 carries
 the
 penalty
 of
 imprisonment
 is
 
! A
  vague
  law
  violates
  the
  principles
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  which
  causes
  a
  an
 infringement
 of
 s
 7
 of
 the
 Charter.
 However
 it
 does
 NOT
 follow
 that
 the
 
breach
 of
 s
 7
 if
 the
 law
 is
 a
 deprivation
 of
 life,
 liberty
 or
 security
 of
 the
 person
 
  offence
 must
 be
 always
 be
 struck
 down.
 –
 there
 are
 other
 remedial
 options
 
! A
 vague
 law
 offends
 2
 values
 that
 are
 fundamental
 to
 the
 legal
 system:
 (1)
 the
  for
 the
 court:
 
law
 does
 not
 provide
 fair
 notice
 to
 persons
 of
 what
 is
 prohibited,
 which
 makes
  o 1.
  Interpret
  the
  statute
  creating
  the
  offence
  as
  implicitly
  allowing
  a
 
it
 difficult
 for
 them
 to
 comply
 with
 the
 law.
 (2)
 the
 law
 does
 not
 provide
 clear
  defence
 of
 due
 diligence,
 in
 which
 case
 the
 offence
 becomes
 one
 of
 
standards
 for
 those
 entrusted
 with
 enforcement,
 which
 may
 lead
 to
 arbitrary
  strict
 liability
 (this
 is
 what
 saved
 the
 offence
 in
 Levis
 v
 Tetreault)
 
enforcement
 
  o 2.
 Use
 the
 power
 of
 severance
 (or
 reading
 in)
 to
 covert
 the
 offence
 
into
 one
 of
 mens
 rea
 (R
 v
 Hess)
 
 Page
 68
 of
 86
 

 
o 3.
  Use
  the
  power
  of
  severance
  to
  eliminate
  the
  penalty
  of
  the
  doctrine
  of
  substantive
  fundamental
  justice
  and
  its
  dependence
  on
  the
 
imprisonment,
 in
 which
 case
 the
 offence
 (if
 it
 is
 a
 regulatory
 one)
 can
  moral
 attitudes
 of
 the
 judges
 
 
survive
 as
 one
 of
 absolute
 liability
 (R
 v
 Pontes)
 
 

  (3)
 Unforeseen
 consequences
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (b)
 Strict
 liability
 offences
 
 
 
! (offence
  consists
  also
  of
  simply
  doing
  the
  prohibited
  act;
  however,
  it
  is
  a
  ! There
 are
 Criminal
 Code
 offences
 in
 which
 the
 consequences
 of
 an
 unlawful
 act
 
defence
  if
  the
  defendant
  proves
  the
  civil
  standard
  of
  the
  balance
  of
  dictate
 the
 severity
 of
 the
 punishment
 for
 which
 the
 accused
 is
 liable
 
 
probabilities
  that
  he
  or
  she
  exercised
  reasonable
  care
  (due
  diligence)
  to
  ! Is
  it
  a
  breach
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  to
  make
  an
  unintended
  and
  unforeseen
 
avoid
  committing
  the
  offence;
  in
  effect,
  there
  is
  no
  fault
  requirement
  of
  consequence
 (bodily
 harm
 or
 death)
 the
 basis
 of
 a
 more
 serious
 charge?
 
negligence,
  because
  the
  accused
  is
  liable
  only
  if
  he
  cannot
  prove
  the
 
 
exercise
 of
 reasonable
 care)
  ! SCC
  held
  that
  where
  an
  accused
  is
  charged
  with
  offences
  of
  murder
  or
 
! The
  law
  related
  to
  strict
  liability
  offences
  was
  apparently
  settled
  in
  in
  attempted
  murder
  then
  it
  is
  a
  requirement
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  that
  the
 
Wholesale
 Travel
 –
 in
 the
 case
 of
 a
 regulatory
 offence
 or
 a
 public
 welfare
  accused
  must
  have
  actually
  intended
  or
  foreseen
  the
  death
  of
  the
  victim.
 
offence,
 fundamental
 justice
 does
 not
 require
 that
 mens
 rea
 be
 an
 element
  However,
 the
 court
 indicated
 that
 this
 requirement
  of
 subjective
 foresight
 
 of
 
of
  the
  offence.
  Fundamental
  justice
  is
  satisfied
  if
  there
  is
  a
  defence
  of
  the
  consequences
  of
  an
  unlawful
  act
  applied
  only
  to
  “very
  few”
  offences,
 
reasonable
  care
  (du
  diligence),
  and
  the
  burden
  of
  satisfying
  this
  defence
  which
  were
  to
  be
  identified
  by
  reference
  to
  “social
  stigma”
  and
  the
  penalty
 
may
 be
 cast
 on
 the
 defendant
 
  attaching
 to
 the
 offence
 
 

 
 
(2)
 Murder
  ! R
  v
  DeSousa:
  the
  accused
  while
  in
  a
  fight,
  threw
  a
  glass
  bottle
  that
  shattered
 

  against
  a
  wall
  causing
  fragments
  of
  glass
  to
  injure
  an
  innocent
  bystander.
  The
 
• Old
 felony
 murder
 –
 if
 caught
 in
 dangerous
 act
 and
 someone
 dies
 =
 murder
  accused
  neither
  intended
  nor
  foresaw
  this
  injury.
  However,
  the
  injury
  was
  used
 
! R
 v
 Vaillancourt
 1987:
 the
 accused
 was
 charged
 with
 murder
 as
 the
 result
 of
 a
  as
  the
  basis
  of
  a
  Criminal
  Code
  charge
  of
  unlawfully
  causing
  bodily
  harm
  (
 
poolroom
 robbery
 in
 which
 the
 accused’s
 accomplice
 shot
 and
 killed
 a
 customer
  carried
  a
  penalty
  of
  imprisonment
  of
  10
  year
  so
  that
  s
  7
  of
  the
  Charter
  was
 
of
 the
 poolroom.
 The
 accused
 knew
 that
 his
 accomplice
 was
 carrying
 a
 gun,
 and
  applicable).
  The
  accused
  was
  convicted
  of
  unlawfully
  causing
  bodily
  harm
 
of
 course
 he
 intended
 to
 rob
 the
 poolroom.
 
  despite
  his
  lack
  of
  intention
  or
  foresight
  with
  respect
  to
  the
  bodily
  harm
 
o SCC
 held
 that
 the
 felony-­‐
 murder
 rule
 (if
 an
 accused
 caused
 a
 death
 in
  because
  there
  was
  no
  constitutional
  requirement
  that
  intention
  either
  on
  an
 
the
  course
  of
  committing
  certain
  serious
  offences,
  including
  robbery,
  objective
  or
  subjective
  basis
  extend
  to
  the
  consequences
  of
  unlawful
  acts
  in
 
while
  armed
  with
  a
  weapon,
  then
  the
  accused
  was
  guilty
  of
  murder)
  general.
  (no
  constitutional
  requirement
  to
  intend
  the
  consequences
  of
  your
 
was
  a
  violation
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  under
  s
  7
  of
  the
  Charter.
  The
  action,
 just
 need
 intent
 of
 your
 actual
 action).
 
fact
 that
 an
 accused
 must
 have
 mens
 rea
 (a
 guilty
 mind)
 with
 respect
 
 
to
 the
 underlying
 offence,
 in
 this
 case,
 the
 robbery,
 was
 not
 sufficient
  (4)
 Involuntary
 Acts
 
 
to
 satisfy
 s
 7.
 
 
 
o Before
  an
  accused
  could
  be
  found
  guilty
  of
  murder,
  s
  7
  required
  that
  i. Automatism
 
 
there
  be
  mens
  rea
  with
  respect
  to
  the
  death.
  Therefore,
  the
  felony-­‐
  ! The
  requirement
  of
  voluntariness
  is
  a
  basic
  tenet
  of
  the
  legal
  system
  that
  is
 
murder
 rule
 was
 unconstitutional.
  protected
 by
 s
 7
 (ie
 it
 is
 a
 principle
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 criminal
 offences
 be
 

  committed
  voluntarily),
  at
  least
  for
  offences
  carrying
  the
  penalty
  of
 
! in
 R
 v
 Martineau
 1990
 the
 SCC
 by
 majority
 held
 that
 it
 was
 the
 higher
 level
 of
  imprisonment.
 
 
mens
  rea
  –
  subjective
  foreseeability
  –
  that
  was
  required
  by
  s
  7
  (L’Heureux-­‐ ! This
  means
  that
  the
  law
  respecting
  automatism
  now
  has
  constitutional
 
Dube
  J
  (dissented)
  pointed
  out
  that
  subjective
  foresight
  of
  death
  has
  never
  status,
  and
  any
  attempt
  by
  Parliament
  to
  abolish
  the
  defence
  or
  restrict
  its
 
been
  the
  exclusive
  standard
  for
  murder
  in
  Canada
  or
  in
  other
  countries
  that
  availability
  would
  be
  unconstitutional,
  unless
  the
  limiting
  law
  could
  be
 
inherited
 English
 principles
 of
 criminal
 law.
 how
 then
 did
 it
 suddenly
 become
 a
  justified
 under
 s
 1.
 
basic
  tenet
  of
  the
  legal
  system?
  The
  question
  points
  to
  the
  indeterminacy
 
  of
  ! R
 
 v
 Parks
 (sleepwalking
 murder
 –
 acquitted)
 
 

 
 Page
 69
 of
 86
 

 
ii. Duress
  ! The
 SCC
 had
 to
 review
 a
 much
 more
 radical
 departure
 from
 the
 traditional
 
! The
 Criminal
 Code
 by
 s
 17
 makes
 duress
 an
 excuse
 for
 the
 commission
 of
 an
  trial
 format
 in
 
 
offence:
  an
  offence
  committed
  “under
  compulsion:
  is
  excused
  from
  criminal
 
liability.
  However
  s
  17
  stipulates
  that
  the
  compulsion
  must
  take
  the
  form
  of
  CHARKAOUI
 v.
 CANADA
 (2007):
 
“threats
  of
  immediate
  death
  or
  bodily
  harm
  from
  a
  person
  who
  is
  present
 

 
when
 the
 offence
 is
 committed”
 
 
ISSUE:
  Challenge
  to
  the
  validity
  of
  the
  security
  certificate
  provisions
  of
 
! R
  v
  Ruzic
  2001:
  held
  it
  would
  be
  a
  breach
  of
  the
  principles
  of
  fundamental
 
the
 Immigration
 and
 Refugee
 Protection
 Act
 
justice
  to
  convict
  a
  person
  of
  a
  crime
  when
  the
  person
  had
  not
  acted
 
FACTS:
 
 
voluntarily.
  The
  immediacy
  and
  presence
  requirements
  of
  s
  17
  were
  struck
 
o The
  Act
  empowered
  2
  ministers
  to
  issue
  a
  certificate
  declaring
  a
 
down
 as
 constitutional
 because
 they
 had
 the
 potential
 of
 convicting
 a
 person
 
non-­‐citizen
 named
 in
 the
 certificate
 threat
 to
 national
 security
 
 
who
 had
 not
 acted
 voluntarily.
 
 
 
o The
  certificate
  authorized
  the
  arrest
  and
  detention
  of
  the
  named
 

 
person.
 
Right
 to
 Silence:
 =
 
 principle
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 in
 s
 7
 (R
 v
 Hebert)
 
o The
 certificate
 was
 to
 be
 automatically
 referred
 to
 a
 judge
 of
 the
 

 
Federal
 Court
 for
 review
 on
 the
 standard
 of
 reasonableness
 and
 if
 
! A
  voluntary
  statement
  to
  another
  prisoner
  or
  undercover
  officer
  would
  not
 
the
  judge
  found
  the
  certificate
  to
  be
  reasonable,
  the
  certificate
 
offend
 the
 right
 if
 the
 police
 officer
 did
 not
 actively
 elicit
 the
 statement
 
 
became
  a
  removal
  order,
  authorizing
  the
  deportation
  of
  the
 
! In
 Hebert
 the
 accused’s
 statement
 had
 been
 elicited
 by
 the
 questioning
 of
 
named
 person
 
 
the
  undercover
  police
  officer.
  In
  effect,
  the
  police
  had
  used
  a
  trick
  to
 

 
subvert
 the
 accused’s
 election
 not
 to
 make
 a
 statement
 to
 the
 police.
 This
 
o Problem
  with
  the
  process:
  at
  no
  stage
  did
  the
  named
  person
 
was
 a
 breach
 of
 s
 7.
 The
 statement
 was
 excluded.
 
 
necessarily
 know
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 case
 against
 him
 
 
! R
  v
  Broyles:
  accused
  made
  a
  statement
  while
  in
  custody
  to
  a
  friend
  who
 
o There
 was
 no
 hearing
 on
 the
 original
 issue
 of
 the
 certificate
 
 
visited
 him
 in
 jail.
 Unknown
 to
 the
 accused,
 the
 friend
 had
 been
 recruited
 
o On
  review
  by
  the
  Federal
  Court
  judge
  the
  named
  person
  was
 
as
 a
 police
 informer
 and
 was
 recording
 the
 accused’s
 statement.
 SCC
 held
 
entitled
  to
  be
  heard
  but
  the
  Act
  required
  the
  judge
  to
  “ensure
  the
 
that
 that
 the
 informer
 was
 acting
 as
 an
 agent
 of
 the
 state,
 
 
confidentiality
  of
  the
  information
  on
  which
  the
  certificate
  is
 
! At
  trial,
  s
  7
  contains
  a
  residue
  of
  the
  rights
  to
  silence
  and
  supplements
  s
 
based….if,
  in
  the
  opinion
  of
  the
  judge,
  its
  disclosure
  would
  be
 
11(c)
 and
 13
 of
 the
 Charter
 which
 explicitly
 guarantee
 this
 right
 
 
 
injurious
 to
 national
 security
 or
 to
 the
 safety
 of
 any
 person”
 

 
o This
  obligation
  meant
  that
  the
  judge
  would
  often
  be
  unable
  to
 
Fair
 Trial
 
 
disclose
  to
  the
  named
  person
  the
  information
  upon
  which
  the
 

 
certificate
 had
 been
 based
 
 

 (A)
 the
 right
 to
 a
 fair
 trial
 
 

 
! Principles
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  require
  that
  the
  accused
  of
  a
  crime
 
SCC
 held:
 
receive
 a
 fair
 trial
 
 
o The
  issue
  of
  security
  certificate
  was
  a
  deprivation
  of
  liberty
  under
 
! s
  7
  overlaps
  with
  s
  11(d)
  which
  also
  guarantees
  to
  a
  person
  charged
 
s
  7
  and
  that
  the
  review
  process
  did
  not
  satisfy
  the
  principles
  of
 
with
  an
  offence
  “a
  fair
  and
  public
  hearing
  by
  an
  independent
  and
 
fundamental
 justice,
 because
 it
 did
 not
 provide
 the
 named
 person
 
impartial
 tribunal”
 
with
 a
 fair
 hearing
 
! s
 7
 is
 however
 wider
 than
 s
 11(d)
 because
 s
 7
 also
 applies
 to
 civil
 and
 
o McLachlin
 CJ
 acknowledged
 that
 “the
 procedures
 required
 to
 meet
 
administrative
 proceedings
 where
 they
 affect
 life,
 liberty,
 or
 security
 of
 
the
 demands
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 depend
 on
 the
 context”,
 and
 
the
 person
 
 
she
  also
  acknowledged
  that
  “national
  security
  considerations
  can
 
! Extradition
  process
  of
  a
  fugitive
  must
  be
  conducted
  in
  accordance
  with
 
limit
  the
  extent
  of
  disclosure
  of
  information
  to
  the
  affected
 
principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 because
 there
 is
 an
 obvious
 denial
 of
 
person”,
  but
  she
  held
  that
  “the
  secrecy
  required
  by
  the
  scheme
 
the
 liberty
 of
 the
 accused
 
 
denies
  the
  named
  person
  the
  opportunity
  to
  know
  the
  case
  put
 
!
 
against
 him
 or
 her,
 and
 hence
 to
 challenge
 the
 government’s
 case.
 
This
 was
 a
 breach
 of
 the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 
 
 Page
 70
 of
 86
 

 
! Could
  the
  law
  be
  justified
  as
  a
  reasonable
  limit
  on
  s
  7
  (s
  1
  Oakes
  REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 LIFE,
 LIBERTY
 AND
 SECURITY
 OF
 THE
 PERSON:
 
test)???
 
o Protection
  of
  secret
  information
  respecting
  national
  security
  and
 
 
intelligence
  sources
  was
  a
  sufficiently
  important
  objective
  and
  CHARKAOUI v CANADA (minister of citizenship and immigration)
withholding
 such
 info
 was
 rationally
 connected
 to
 the
 objective
 
 
o BUT
  the
  law
  failed
  to
  limit
  the
  right
  by
  the
  least
  drastic
  means,
  Facts:
 
 C
 applied
 for
 a
 stay
 of
 proceedings
 relating
 to
 the
 security
 certificate
 issued
 
because
  Parliament
  could
  have
  adopted
  procedures
  to
  protect
  against
 him
 under
 s
 77
 of
 the
 Immigration
 and
 Refugee
 Protection
 Act.
 He
 alleged
 
secrecy
 that
 were
 less
 intrusive
 of
 individual
 rights.
 
  that
  the
  government
  breached
  a
  duty
  to
  disclose
  info
  in
  its
  possession
  in
  a
  timely
 
o For
  example
  only
  know
  the
  named
  person
  is
  likely
  to
  know
  way.
  The
  Act
  empowered
  2
  ministers
  to
  issue
  a
  certificate
  declaring
  a
  non-­‐citizen
 
whether
  personal
  info
  is
  true
  or
  false
  and
  what
  evidence
  is
  named
 in
 the
 certificate
 to
 be
 a
 threat
 to
 national
 security.
 The
 certificate
 authorized
 
available
  to
  disprove
  false
  info.
  A
  special-­‐
  counsel
  system
  would
  the
 arrest
 and
 detention
 of
 the
 named
 person
 The
 certificate
 and
 the
 detention
 are
 
compensate
 to
 some
 extent
 for
 the
 lack
 of
 informed
 participation
  both
 subject
 to
 review
 by
 a
 judge,
 in
 a
 process
 that
 may
 deprive
 the
 person
 named
 
by
 the
 named
 person.
 
  in
  the
  certificate
  of
  some
  or
  all
  of
  the
  information
  on
  the
  basis
  of
  which
  the
 
o McLachlin
 CJ
 although
 attracted
 by
 the
 idea
 ,
 did
 not
 offer
 it
 as
 the
  certificate
  was
  issued
  or
  the
  detention
  ordered.
  The
  certificate
  became
  a
  removal
 
only
  answer,
  making
  clear
  that
  “precisely
  what
  is
  to
  be
  done
  is
  a
  order,
 authorizing
 the
 deportation
 of
 the
 named
 person.
 
 
 
matter
  for
  Parliament
  to
  decide.”
  But
  without
  some
  effort
  to
  Issue:
 
  challenge
  to
  the
  validity
  of
  the
  security
  certificate
  provisions
  of
  the
 
compensate
  for
  the
  non-­‐disclosure
  of
  secret
  info,
  the
  security
  –
  Immigration
 and
 Refugee
 Protection
 Act,
 and
 whether
 they
 violated
 his
 s.7
 
certificate
 process
 could
 NOT
 
 be
 justified
 under
 s
 1
  rights.
 At
 no
 stage
 did
 the
 named
 person
 necessarily
 know
 the
 nature
 of
 

  the
 case
 against
 him
 
(b)
 Full
 answer
 and
 defence
 
  SCC
 held:
 the
 issue
 of
 security
 certificate
 was
 a
 deprivation
 of
 liberty
 under
 s
 7
 and
 
! s
  7
  (in
  addition
  to
  the
  main
  section
  of
  11(d))
  guarantees
  the
  accused
  the
  that
 the
 review
 process
 did
 not
 satisfy
 the
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice,
 because
 
right
 to
 present
 a
 full
 answer
 and
 defence
 (R
 v
 Seaboyer)
  it
 did
 not
 provide
 the
 named
 person
 with
 a
 fair
 hearing
 

  Analysis:
 
 
(c)
 Pre-­‐trial
 disclosure
 by
 the
 Crown
 
  • McLachlin
  CJ:
  must
  look
  at
  context.
  National
  security
  can
  limit
 
! Pre-­‐trial
 disclosure
 by
 the
 Crown
 of
 all
 information
 relevant
 to
 the
 conduct
  disclosure.
  But
  the
  secrecy
  of
  the
  above
  scheme
  doesn’t
  allow
  D
  to
 
of
  the
  defence
  is
  a
  constitutional
  obligation,
  entailed
  by
  the
  accused’s
  right
  defend
 their
 case
 and
 violates
 principles
 of
 fundamental
 justice.
 
 
to
 make
 full
 answer
 and
 defence
 
 
 

  1.Does
  the
  procedure
  under
  the
  IRPA
  for
  determining
  the
  reasonableness
  of
  the
 
(d)
 Pre-­‐trial
 disclosure
 by
 third
 parties
 
  certificate
 infringe
 s.
 7
 of
 the
 Charter
 
 
! the
  access
  to
  private
  records
  in
  the
  possession
  of
  third
  parties
  could
  be
  • IRPA,
  clearly
  deprive
  detainees
  such
  as
  the
  appellants
  of
  their
 
necessary
  to
  an
  accused’s
  right
  to
  make
  full
  answer
  and
  defence.
  Must
  LIBERTY,
  because
  the
  person
  named
  in
  a
  certificate
  can
  face
  detention
 
engage
  in
  a
  balancing
  between
  full
  answer
  and
  defence
  and
  pending
 the
 outcome
 of
 the
 proceedings.
 
privacy/equality
 rights
 of
 the
 other
 (O’Conner
 case)
  • The
  detainee’s
  SECURITY
  may
  be
  further
  affected
  in
  various
  ways.
 

  The
  certificate
  process
  may
  lead
  to
  removal
  from
  Canada,
  to
  a
  place
 
Fair
 Administrative
 Process:
 
  where
 his
 or
 her
 life
 or
 freedom
 would
 be
 threatene
 

  • Suresh,
  “[t]he
  greater
  the
  effect
  on
  the
  life
  of
  the
  individual
  by
  the
 
The
  common
  law
  rules
  of
  procedural
  fairness
  must,
  of
  course,
  yield
  to
  any
  decision,
 
inconsistent
 statutory
 provisions
 
• the
  greater
  the
  need
  for
  procedural
  protections
  to
  meet
  the
 
! where
 s
 7
 applies
 the
 rules
 of
 procedural
 fairness
 have
 constitutional
 status
  requirements
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 under
 s.
 7
 
 
and
  will
  prevail
  over
  any
  inconsistent
  statutory
  provision.
  But
  it
  could
  be
 
• Disclosure
 is
 a
 constitutional
 obligation.
 
under
  s
  1
  of
  charter
  but
  it
  would
  be
  difficult
  to
  justify
  a
  breach
  of
  the
 
• s
  7
  guarantees
  the
  accused
  the
  right
  to
  present
  a
  full
  answer
  and
 
procedural
  norms
  of
  fundamental
  justice
  and
  no
  such
  justification
  has
  so
 
defence
 (R
 v
 Seaboyer)
 
far
 been
 successful
 
 
 Page
 71
 of
 86
 

 
• Access
  to
  private
  records
  in
  the
  possession
  of
  third
  parties
  could
  be
  • The
  claimants
  also
  submitted
  that
  sections
  of
  the
  CDSA
  violated
  the
 
necessary
  to
  an
  accused’s
  right
  to
  make
  full
  answer
  and
  defence.
  Must
  claimants’
 s.7
 Charter
 rights.
 
engage
  in
  a
  balancing
  between
  full
  answer
  and
  defence
  and
 
 
privacy/equality
 rights
 of
 the
 other
 (O’Conner
 case)
  HELD:
 
  The
 federal
 CDSA
 provisions
 do
 apply
 to
 provincial
 health
 activities.
 While
 
• the
  Crown
  is
  under
  a
  duty
  to
  preserve
  relevant
  evidence
  once
  it
  comes
  the
  provisions
  do
  not
  violate
  the
  claimants’
  s.7
  rights,
 the
  Minister’s
  failure
 
into
 the
 possession
 or
 control
 of
 the
 Crown
 
  to
 provide
 an
 exemption
 does.
• The
 overarching
 principle
 of
 fundamental
 justice
 that
 applies
 here
 is
 
this:
  before
  the
  state
  can
  detain
  people
  for
  significant
  periods
  of
  REASONS
 -­‐
 Division
 of
 Powers
 
 
time,
 it
 must
 accord
 them
 a
 fair
 judicial
 process
  ! Recent
  jurisprudence
  limited
  interjurisdictional
  immunity
  via
  the
  double
 
• This
 basic
 principle
 has
 a
 number
 of
 facets.
 Each
 of
 these
 facets
 must
  aspect
  doctrine.
  3
  reasons
  for
  rejecting
  the
  interjurisdictional
  immunity
 
be
 met
 in
 substance.
 
  claim
 
o Right
 to
 a
 hearing
  o First,
  immunity
  of
  the
  provincial
  health
  power
  had
  never
  been
 
o Hearing
 to
 be
 impartial
 
  recognized
 in
 the
 jurisprudence.
 
 
o Decision
 based
 on
 fact
 and
 law
  o Second,
  claimants
  “failed
  to
  identify
  a
  delineated
  ‘core’”
  of
  the
 
o Right
  to
  know
  case
  against
  you
  and
  right
  to
  answer
  that
  provincial
  health
  power,
  which
  is
  large
  and
  overlaps
  substantially
 
case.
 
  with
 federal
 jurisdiction.
 
 

  o Third,
  granting
  interjurisdictional
  on
  the
  facts
  might
  result
  in
  a
 
2.Could
 the
 law
 be
 justified
 as
 a
 reasonable
 limit
 on
 s
 7
 (s
 1
 Oakes
 test)???
  “legal
 vacuum”
 where
 neither
 government
 is
 able
 to
 legislate.
 
 
(a)
 Pressing
 and
 substantial
 objective?
 The
 protection
 of
 Canada’s
 national
 security
  ! The
  court
  was
  careful
  to
  affirm
  that
  the
  doctrine
  of
  interjurisdictional
 
and
 related
 intelligence
 sources
  immunity
 has
 been
 narrowed,
 not
 abolished.
 
 
Constitutes
 a
 pressing
 and
 substantial
 objective
 and
 thus
 is
 sufficiently
 important.
 
  ! Implicitly
  suggests
  that
  future
  interjurisdictional
  immunity
  arguments
 

  should
 be
 limited
 to
 invoking
 previously
 identified
 “core”
 undertakings.
 
 
(b)
 Proportionality
 assessment:
 
 
(i)
 Rational
 connection?
 withholding
 such
 info
 was
 rationally
 connected
 to
  REASONS
 –
 Charter
 Argument
 
 
the
 objective
  ! The
 court
 found
 that
 the
 prohibition
 of
 possession
 in
 the
 CDSA
 engages
 the
 
(ii)
  Minimum
  impairment?
  BUT
  the
  law
  failed
  to
  limit
  the
  right
  by
  the
  least
  claimants’
 s.7
 right
 to
 liberty
 since
 its
 breach
 can
 result
 in
 imprisonment.
 
drastic
  means,
  because
  Parliament
  could
  have
  adopted
  procedures
  to
  ! It
 also
 engages
 Insite
 clients’
 s.7
 rights
 to
 life
 and
 security
 of
 the
 person
 by
 
protect
 secrecy
 that
 were
 less
 intrusive
 of
 individual
 rights.
 
  denying
 them
 access
 to
 “potentially
 lifesaving
 medical
 care.”
 
 

  ! However,
  these
  limitations
  do
  not
  breach
  FJ.
  The
  claimants’
  as
  arbitrary,
 
McLachlin
  CJ:
  without
  some
  effort
  to
  compensate
  for
  the
  non-­‐disclosure
  of
  secret
  overbroad
  and
  disproportionate
  were
  dismissed
  on
  the
  grounds
  that
  the
 
info,
 the
 security
 –
 certificate
 process
 could
 NOT
 
 be
 justified
 under
 s
 1
  CDSA
  has
  a
  built-­‐in
  “safety
  valve”
  that
  empowers
  the
  Minister
  to
  grant
 

  exemptions
 to
 possession
 for
 medical/
 scientific
 purposes.
 
 

  ! While
 the
 statute
 did
 not
 violate
 the
 claimants’
 s.7
 rights,
 the
 court
 held
 
CANADA
 v.
 PHS
 COMMUNITY
 SERVICES
 SOCIETY
 [2011]
  that
  the
  Minister’s
  decision
  did,
  the
  Minister’s
  decision
  was
  arbitrary
  and
 
FACTS:
 
 
  disproportionate
  in
  its
  effects.
 Denying
  the
  life
  saving
  services
  that
  Insite
 
• Insite
  =
  safe
  injection
  facility
  in
  Vancouver
  that
  provides
  medical
  provides
  is
  grossly
  disproportion
  to
  the
  benefit
  of
  having
  a
  uniform
  drug
 
supervision
 to
 intravenous
 (illegal)
 drug
 users.
 
 
  policy.
 
 

 
• It
 has
 operated
 under
 exemption
 in
 CDSA.
 
 

 
• In
  2008
  the
  federal
  Minister
  of
  Health
  failed
  to
  extend
  Insite’s
  CDSA
 
 
exemption,
 which
 brought
 about
 this
 action.
 
 
 
• The
 claimants,
 argued
 that
 the
 division
 of
 powers
 makes
 the
 federal
 CDSA
 
 
prohibitions
 inapplicable
 to
 the
 provincial
 health
 activities
 and
 patrons.
 
 
 

 
 Page
 72
 of
 86
 

 

 [10]
 Equality
 Rights
 –CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1982,
 S
 15
  Application
 of
 s
 15
 

  (a) Individual
 
Section
 15
 of
 Charter:
  ! The
 benefit
 of
 the
 equality
 rights
 in
 s
 15
 is
 conferred
 upon
 “an
 individual”
 
15(1)
 
  “Every
  individual
  is
  equal
  before
  the
  law
  and
  has
  the
  right
  to
  the
  equal
  and
 probably
 excludes
 a
 corporation
 
 

 
protection
  and
  equal
  benefit
  of
  the
  law
  without
  discrimination
  and,
  in
 
(b) “law”
 in
 s
 15
 
particular,
 without
 discrimination
 based
 on
 race,
 national
 or
 ethnic
 origin,
 
! Applies
 to
 any
 type
 of
 government
 action
 
 
colour,
 religion,
 sex,
 age,
 or
 mental
 or
 physical
 disability”
 

 
 
15(2)
  subsection
  (1)
  does
  not
  preclude
  the
  law,
  program
  or
  activity
  that
  has
  as
  its
  (c) Private
 action
 
 [indirectly
 applicable
 via
 human
 rights
 code]
 
object
  the
  amelioration
  of
  conditions
  of
  disadvantaged
  individuals
  or
  groups
  ! S
  32
  of
  the
  Charter
  excludes
  private
  action
  from
  the
  application
  of
  the
 
including
  those
  that
  are
  disadvantaged
  because
  of
  race,
  national
  or
  ethnic
  origin,
  Charter.
  This
  means
  that
  s
  15
  does
  not
  apply
  to
  private
  acts
  of
 
colour,
 religion,
 sex,
 age
 or
 mental
 or
 physical
 disability.
  discrimination,
  where
  an
  employer
  hires
  only
  male
  employees,
  or
  a
 
landlord
 rents
 only
 to
 white
 people,
 etc
 
 

 
! Human
  Rights
  Codes
  have
  been
  enacted
  in
  all
  Canadian
  Jurisdictions
  which
 
! S
 15
 confers
 its
 right
 on
 an
 “individual”
 
prohibit
 private
 acts
 of
 discrimination
 in
 employment,
 accommodation
 and
 
! Equality
 is
 expressed
 in
 4
 different
 ways:
 
the
 provision
 of
 services.
 Human
 Rights
 Codes
 takes
 precedence
 over
 other
 
o Equality
 before
 the
 law
 
statutes.
 
 
o Equality
 under
 the
 law
 
! The
 Human
 Rights
 Codes
 are
 themselves
 subject
 to
 the
 Charter
 
 
o Equal
 protection
 of
 the
 law
 
 

 
o Equal
 benefit
 of
 the
 law
 
Blainey
 v
 Ontario
 Hockey
 (1986):
 
 
o The
 reason
 for
 having
 4
 formulations
 was
 to
 reverse
 the
 restrictive
 
Facts:
  A
  girl
  who
  had
  been
  excluded
  by
  the
  Ontario
  Hockey
  Association
 
 
interpretations
 placed
 by
 the
 SCC
 on
 the
 phrase
 “equality
 before
 the
 
from
  a
  boy’s
  hockey
  team
  challenged
  a
  provision
  in
  the
  Ontario
 
law”
 which
 was
 used
 in
 s
 1(b)
 of
 Cdn
 BoR
 
Human
 Rights
 Code
 that
 permitted
 single-­‐
 sex
 sports
 team.
 
 
! Guarantees
 against
 “discrimination
 based
 on
 race,
 national
 or
 ethnic
 origin,
 
Ontario
 Court
 of
 Appeal
 held:
 
 
colour,
  religion,
  sex,
  age
  or
  mental
  or
  physical
  disability”
  (THESE
  ARE
  THE
 
the
 exception
 was
 a
 breach
 of
 s
 15
 because
 it
 denied
 the
 plaintiff
 
LISTED
 GROUNDS
 OF
 DISCRIMINATION)
 
the
  benefit
  of
  the
  Code
  by
  reason
  of
  her
  sex.
  Therefore,
  the
 
! ‘In
 particular’
 makes
 clear
 that
 the
 named
 grounds
 are
 not
 exhaustive
 
  Charter
 has
 an
 indirect
 impact
 on
 her
 private
 action
 
 
! Subsection
 2
 authorizes
 the
 creation
 of
 affirmative
 action
 programmes
 that
 
 
have
 the
 purpose
 of
 ameliorating
 the
 conditions
 
 of
 disadvantaged
 groups
 
  Equality
 (DEFINITION)
 

  (a) Four
 equalities
 of
 s
 15
 
 
Canadian
 Bills
 of
 Rights
  ! Equality
 before
 the
 law
 
 
! s
  1(b)
  guarantees
  “equality
  before
  the
  law”.
  This
  provision
  which
  applies
  ! Equality
 under
 the
 law
 
 
only
  to
  the
  federal
  Parliament,
  was
  superseded
  by
  s
  15
  of
  the
  Charter
  which
  ! Equal
 protection
 of
 the
 law
 
 
applies
 to
 the
 federal
 Parliament
 and
 to
 the
 provincial
 legislatures
 
  ! Equal
 benefit
 of
 the
 law
 
! SCC
 held
 only
 once
 that
 the
 equality
 clause
 in
 s
 1(b)
 of
 the
 Canadian
 Bill
 of
 
 
Rights
  had
  the
  effect
  of
  nullifying
  a
  statutory
  provision
  –
  R
  v
  Drybones:
  (b) Similarly
 situated
 test
 
court
 struck
 down
 a
 provision
 of
 the
 Indian
 Act
 that
 made
 it
 an
 offence
 for
  ! Before
 the
 SCC
 decided
 the
 Andrews
 case,
 Canadian
 courts
 were
 applying
 
“an
  Indian”
  to
  be
  intoxicated
  off
  a
  reserve.
  Ritchie
  J
  held
  that
  the
  racial
  a
  version
  of
  the
  Aristotelian
  principle
  of
  equality
  known
  as
  the
  “similarly
 
classification
  “Indian”
  which
  was
  employed
 
  by
  the
  challenged
  provision
  was
  situated”
  test
  =
  equality
  was
  made
  out
  if
  it
  could
  be
  shown
  that
  the
  law
 
a
 breach
 of
 s
 1(b)
  accorded
  the
  complainant
  worse
  treatment
  than
  others
  who
  were
  similarly
 

  situated
 
 

  ! In
 Andrews,
 McIntyre
 J
 said
 this
 test
 was
 “seriously
 deficient”
 and
 could
 NO
 

  LONGER
 BE
 USED.
 (who
 is
 similarly
 situated?
 What
 kinds
 of
 differences?)
 
 Page
 73
 of
 86
 

 
(c) Formal
 and
 substantive
 equality
 
  ELEMENTS
 OF
 S
 15
 (Andrew
 v
 Law
 Society
 of
 B.C;
 Law
 v
 Canada)
 
! Formal
  equality
  –
  merely
  prohibits
  direct
  discrimination
  (which
  is
 
 
insufficient)
  1. DISADVANTAGEOUS
  DISTINCTION:
  does
  the
  challenged
  law
  impose
 
! Substantive
 equality
 –prohibits
 both
 direct
 and
 indirect
 discrimination.
 I.e.
  (directly/indirectly)
  a
  disadvantage
  on
  the
  claimant
  (in
  the
  form
  of
  a
  burden
 
law
 against
 drivers
 under
 6”
 indirectly
 discriminates
 against
 women.
 
 
  withheld)
 in
 comparison
 to
 other
 comparable
 persons?
 

 
 
(d) Valid
 federal
 objective
 
  ! STEP
 1:
 Selection
 of
 comparator
 group
 
! Before
 the
 adoption
 of
 the
 Charter,
 the
 approach
 that
 became
 dominant
  ! In
  order
  to
  establish
  discrimination
  under
  s
  15,
  an
  individual
  must
  show
 
in
 the
 SCC
 was
 to
 uphold
 any
 distinction
 in
 a
 statute
 if
 the
 statute
 pursued
  that
  he
  has
 suffered
  a
  disadvantage
 by
 reason
 of
 his
 possession
 of
 one
 of
 
a
 “valid
 federal
 objective”
  the
 characteristics
 named
 in
 s
 15
 or
 an
 analogous
 characteristic
 
 

 
 
Discrimination
 [a
 comparison
 analysis]
  ! Andrews:
 McIntyre
 J
 said
 in
 order
 for
 a
 legislative
 distinction
 to
 amount
 

  to
  discrimination
  against
  an
  individual
  or
  group,
  the
  distinction
  must
  be
 
! Early
  application
  of
  s
  15
  resulted
  in
  an
  overload
  of
  case
  being
  brought
  to
  the
  one
  “which
  has
  the
  effect
  of
  imposing
  burden,
  obligations
  or
 
court
 challenging
 on
 equality
 ground
  disadvantages
  on
  such
  individual
  or
  groups
  not
  imposed
  on
  others,
  or
 
! Then
  came
  the
  Andrews
  case,
  which
  started
  to
  develop
  rules
  to
  control
  the
  which
  withholds
  or
  limits
  access
  to
  opportunities,
  benefits
  and
 
floodgates
 
 
advantages
 available
 to
 other
 members
 of
 society”
 
o the
  SCC
  held
  that
  s
  15
  was
  a
  prohibition
  of
  “discrimination”
  and
  that
 
! It
  is
  the
  requirement
  of
  disadvantage
  that
  involves
  a
  comparison
  with
 
discrimination
 could
 only
 be
 based
 on
 a
 ground
 that
 was
 listed
 in
 s
 15
 or
 
others-­‐
  others
  who
  are
  similarly
  situated
  to
  the
  complainant
  except
  for
 
that
 was
 analogous
 to
 those
 listed
 in
 the
 section
 
 
the
 presence
 of
 a
 listed
 or
 analogous
 personal
 characteristic
 –in
 Andrews
 

 
this
 was
 easily
 satisfied
 
 
! So
  it
  is
  now
  clear
  that
  s
  15
  prohibits
  only
  those
  violations
  of
  equality
  that
 
o The
 plaintiff’s
 non-­‐Canadian
 citizenship
 denied
 him
 access
 to
 the
 
amount
  to
  discrimination.
  Discrimination
  is
  the
  operative
  concept,
  and
  the
  SCC
 
legal
  profession,
  while
  permitting
  access
  to
  others
  whose
 
has
 settled
 that
 the
 following
 amounts
 to
 discrimination:
 
qualifications
  to
  practice
  law
  were
  no
  different
  from
  his,
  except
 

 
for
 their
 possession
 of
 Canadian
 citizenship
 
 
1. the
  challenged
  law
  imposed
  (directly
  or
  indirectly)
  on
  the
  claimant
  a
 

 
disadvantage
  (in
  the
  form
  of
  a
  burden
  or
  withheld
  benefit)
  in
 
comparison
 to
 other
 comparable
 persons;
 (Andrews);
 AND
  ! The
  presence
  of
  disadvantage
  (or
  unequal
  treatment)
  requires
  a
 
comparison
  between
  the
  legal
  position
  of
  the
  claimant
  and
  that
  of
 

 
other
  people
  to
  whom
  the
  claimant
  may
  legitimately
  invite
 
2. The
  disadvantage
  is
  based
  on
  a
  ground
  listed
  in
  or
  analogous
  to
  a
 
comparison-­‐
 INVOLVES
 2
 INQUIRES:
 
ground
 listed
 in
 s
 15
 (Andrews),
 AND
 

 
 
3. The
  disadvantage
  is
  imposed
  in
  a
  way
  that
  impairs
  human
  dignity
  (Law
  1.
 
  Whether
 the
 group
 to
 which
 the
 claimant
 compares
 herself
 is
 
v
 Canada)
  the
  appropriate
  comparator
  group,
  (once
  the
  appropriate
 
nd

  comparator
 group
 is
 selected
 the
 2
 is:);
 
! A
  claimant
  who
  persuades
  the
  Court
  of
  these
  3
  elements
  is
  entitled
  to
  a
  2.
 
  Whether
  the
  distinction
  of
  the
  law
  draws
  between
  the
 
finding
 of
 discrimination,
 which
 means
 that
 the
 challenged
 law
 is
 in
 breach
  claimant
 and
 the
 comparator
 group
 is
 disadvantageous
 to
 the
 
of
  s
  15"
  the
  burden
  then
  shifts
  to
  the
  government
  to
  justify
  the
  claimant
 
 
discrimination
 under
 s
 1
  ! Ie.
  If
  a
  women
  challenges
  a
  law
  that
  confers
  a
  benefit
  only
  on
  men,
  the
 

  comparator
  group
  will
  be
  men
  who
  qualify
  for
  the
  benefit
  ,
  and
  if
  the
 
! NOTE:
  the
  conclusion
  drawn
  on
  a
  s
  15
  analysis
  is
  whether
  or
  not
  there
  is
  claimant
 possesses
 all
 the
 qualifications
 for
 the
 benefit
 other
 than
 her
 sex,
 
DISCRIMINATION
 
  then
 it
 will
 be
 clear
 that
 she
 has
 suffered
 a
 disadvantage
 by
 reason
 of
 her
 

  sex.
 
 
 Page
 74
 of
 86
 

 
! Auton
  v
  British
  Columbia
  2004:
  a
  claim
  of
  discrimination
  was
  made
  by
  ANDREWS
 v.
 LAW
 SOCIETY
 OF
 B.C.
 
autistic
 children
 and
 their
 parents,
 who
 complained
 that
 the
 province
 did
  ! First
 s
 15
 case
 to
 reach
 the
 SCC
 
not
 fund
 the
 new
 “applied
 behavioral
 therapy”
 that
 was
 the
 most
 effective
  ! Issue:
  challenge
 to
 the
 statutory
 requirement
 of
 the
 province
 of
 B.C.
 
treatment
  for
  autism.
  Because
  the
  claimants
  had
  adduced
  no
  evidence
  that
 members
 of
 the
 bar
 had
 to
 be
 citizens
 of
 Canada
 
 
that
  the
  province
  was
  funding
  “other
  comparable
  novel
  therapies”,
  they
  ! Court
  held:
  this
  requirement
  was
  contrary
  to
  s
  15
  and
  not
  saved
 
could
 not
 show
 disadvantage
 or
 unequal
 treatment
 
  under
  s
  1.
  Court
  held
  that
  citizenship
  qualified
  as
  an
  analogous
 
! The
 definition
 of
 the
 comparator
 group
 is
 critical
 to
 the
 outcome
 of
 s
 15
  ground
 of
 discrimination
 
 
cases
 
  ! after
  Andrews
  it
  was
  clear
  that
  s
  15
  was
  a
  prohibition
  of
 
! Only
 if
 the
 claimant’s
 choice
 of
 comparison
 is
 agreed
 to
 by
 the
 court
 will
  discrimination,
  and
  that
  discrimination
  involved
  the
  imposition
  of
  a
 
the
 claim
 be
 able
 to
 proceed
 through
 the
 various
 stages
 of
 s
 15
 and
 s
 1
  disadvantage
 (the
 imposition
 of
 a
 burden
 or
 the
 denial
 of
 a
 benefit)
 

  on
  an
  individual
  by
  reason
  of
  the
  individual’s
  possession
  of
  a
 
STEP
 2:
 Requirement
 of
 disadvantage
 
  characteristic
  that
  was
  either
  listed
  in
  s
  15
  or
  was
  analogous
  to
 

  those
 listed
 in
 s
 15
 
 
! Once
 the
 appropriate
 comparator
 group
 has
 been
 selected,
 it
 Is
 necessary
 
 
to
  compare
  the
  treatment
  provided
  by
  the
  law
  to
  the
  claimant
  with
  the
  ! Analogous
 grounds
 includes:
 
 
treatment
 provided
 to
 the
 comparator
 group
  ! There
 are
 grounds
 that
 are
 similar
 in
 some
 important
 way
 to
 the
 

  grounds
 listed
 in
 s
 15
 which
 are
 “race,
 national
 or
 ethnic
 origin,
 
! TWO
 TYPES:
 If
 the
 law
 treats
 the
 claimant
 less
 favourably,
 whether
 by
  colour,
  religion,
  sex,
  age,
  or
  mental
  or
  physical
  disability
  =
 
(1)
 
  Withholding
 a
 benefit
 that
 is
 granted
 to
 the
 comparator
 group,
 or
 by
 
  personal
  characteristics
  of
  individuals
  that
  are
  unchangeable
 
(2)
 
  Imposing
 a
 burden
 that
 is
 not
 applicable
 to
 the
 comparator
 group,
 is
  (immutable)
  or
  at
  least
  unchangeable
  by
  the
  individual
  except
 
the
 claim
 of
 disadvantage
 or
 unequal
 treatment
 made
 out
  with
  great
  difficulty
  or
  cost;
  they
  are
  not
  voluntarily
  chosen
  by
 

  individuals,
 but
 are
 an
 involuntary
 inheritance
 
 
! Group
  disadvantage
  =
  being
  part
  of
  a
  disadvantaged
  group
  is
  not
  a
  o It
  is
  morally
  wrong
  to
  impose
  a
  disadvantage
  on
  a
 
prerequisite
  to
  finding
  discrimination,
  although
  it
  is
  an
  indication
  of
  an
  person
  of
  a
  characteristic
  that
  is
  outside
  the
  person’s
 
analogous
 group
 (Miron
 v
 Trudel;
 Egan
 v
 Canada)
  control
 
 
! And
 it
 is
 relevant
 to
 the
 human
 dignity
 analysis
 (Law
 v
 Canada)
  ! Supreme
 Court
 has
 held
 that
 an
 analogous
 ground
 is
 one
 based
 

  on
  a
  “personal
  characteristic
  that
  is
  immutable
  or
  changeable
 

  only
  at
  an
  unacceptable
  cost
  to
  personal
  identity”
  (Corbiere
  v
 
(1) ENUMERATED
  (single)
  OR
  ANALOGOUS
  (similar
  /
  equiv)
  GROUNDS:
  the
  Can.)
 
distinction
 is
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 a
 listed
 or
 analogous
 ground
 
 
 
! The
  listed
  ground,
  although
  not
  exhaustive,
  did
  point
  to
  personal
  ! ANALOGOUS
 GROUNDS
 =
 
characteristics
  of
  individuals
  that
  cannot
  easily
  be
  changed
  and
 
 
which
 have
 often
 been
 the
 target
 of
 prejudice
 or
 stereotyping
 
  Citizenship
  (Andrews):
  La
  Forest
  J
  pointed
  out
  that
  citizenship
 
! The
  reference
  in
  subsection
  (2)
  (the
  affirmative
  action
  clause)
  to
  was
  a
  personal
  characteristic
  that
  is
  “typically
  not
  within
  the
 
“disadvantaged
 individuals
 or
 groups”
 suggested
 that
 the
 role
 of
 s
 15
  control
 of
 the
 individual,
 and
 in
 this
 sense,
 immutable
 
 
was
  to
  correct
  discrimination
  against
  disadvantaged
  individuals
  or
 
 
groups.
 
  Marital
 status
 (Miron
 v
 Trudel):
 
! The
 requirement
 that
 the
 discrimination
 be
 in
 relation
 to
 a
 listed
 or
 
 
analogous
 ground
 was
 stated
 in
 ANDREWS
 v.
 LAW
 SOCIETY
 OF
 B.C.
  Sexual
 orientation
 (Egan
 v
 Canada):
 La
 Forest
 J
 described
 sexual
 
o
  orientation
  as
  “a
  deeply
  personal
  characteristic
  that
  is
  either
 
o
  unchangeable
  or
  changeable
  only
  at
  unacceptable
  personal
 

  costs”
 

 
 Page
 75
 of
 86
 

 
! Egan:
 a
 same-­‐
 sex
 couple
 who
 were
 seeking
 a
 spousal
 allowance
  ! There
 are
 4
 contextual
 factors
 used
 to
 determine
 whether
 or
 not
 
under
  the
  federal
  Old
  Age
  Security
  program,
  did
  not
  actually
  human
 dignity
 is
 impaired
 by
 a
 law
 that
 imposed
 a
 disadvantage
 
succeed.
 But
 the
 ruling
 on
 analogous
 grounds
 were
 clear
 enough
  on
 the
 basis
 of
 a
 listed
 or
 analogous
 ground
 
 
and
  it
  paved
  the
  way
  for
  a
  series
  of
  cases
  that
  confirmed
  the
 
 
ruling
 and
 upheld
 te
 equality
 rights
 of
 homosexual
 claimants
 
  ! The
  correspondence
  factor
  has
  become
  the
  KEY
  to
  the
 

  impairment
 of
 human
 dignity
 
 
! Vriend
  v
  Alberta:
  court
  held
  that
  Alberta’s
  human
  rights
  code
 
 
violated
  s
  15
  by
  failing
  to
  include
  sexual
  orientation
  as
  a
  ! Law
  v
  Canada
  identified
  4
  contextual
  factors
  to
  analyze
  when
 
prohibited
 ground
 of
 discrimination
 
  determining
 whether
 there
 was
 an
 impairment
 of
 human
 dignity:
 

  o (1)
 the
 existence
 of
 pre-­‐
 existing
 disadvantage,
 stereotyping,
 
! Little
  sisters
  Book
  and
  Art:
  court
  held
  that
  the
  practices
  of
  prejudice
  or
  vulnerability:
  if
  the
  law
  promotes
  stereotype,
 
customs
  officials
  in
  obstructing
  the
  importation
  of
  books
  by
  a
  then
 this
 indicates
 a
 s
 15
 infringement
 
 
bookstore
 catering
 to
 gay
 and
 lesbian
 communities
 was
 a
 breach
  o (2)
  the
  correspondence
  between
  the
  distinction
  and
  the
 
of
 s
 15
  claimant’s
  characteristics
  or
  circumstances
  (sometimes
 
! These
  decisions
  also
  helped
  the
  SC
  to
  decide
  that
  the
  federal
  legislation
  must
  make
  distinctions
  in
  order
  to
  account
  for
 
power
 over
 “marriage”
 extended
 to
 same-­‐
 sex
 marriage,
 a
 ruling
  personal
  characteristics
  (e.g
  Law,
  the
  denial
  of
  CPP
  survivor
 
which
  was
  followed
  by
  legislation
  enacting
  a
  new
  national
  benefits
  to
  spouses
  under
  the
  age
  of
  35
  accurately
  corresponded
  to
 
definition
 of
 marriage
 that
 no
 longer
 requires
 the
 couple
 to
 be
 of
  the
 circumstances
 of
 younger
 spouses
 of
 deceased
 income
 earners,
 
opposite
 sex
 (Civil
 Marriage
 Act)
  who
  could
  be
  expected
  to
  be
  more
  successful
  in
  finding
  and
 
retaining
 employment
 than
 older
 spouses)
 
! so
  far
  these
  3
  grounds
  are
  the
  only
  ones
  that
  have
  been
 
recognized
  o (3)
 the
 existence
 of
 ameliorative
 purposes
 or
 effects
 on
 other
 

  groups:
 this
 factor
 is
 more
 relevant
 where
 the
 s
 15(1)
 claim
 is
 
! NOT
 ANALOGOUS
 GROUNDS:
  brought
 by
 a
 more
 advantaged
 member
 of
 society
 (e.g
 in
 Law,
 
 
the
  SCC
  held
  that
  a
  factor
  supporting
  the
  view
  that
  the
  impugned
 

 
CPP
  provisions
  do
  not
  violate
  essential
  human
  dignity
  is
  the
  clear
 
Place
 of
 residence
 -­‐
 except
 in
 the
 special
 case
 of
 residence
 on
 an
  ameliorative
  purpose
  of
  the
  pension
  scheme
  for
  older
  surviving
 
Indian
 reserve
 (ie.
 Turpin)
  spouses.
  Older
  surviving
  spouses,
  like
  surviving
  spouses
  who
  are
 
Occupation
  –
  so
  that
  a
  law
  denying
  collective
  bargaining
  rights
  disabled
  or
  who
  care
  for
  dependent
  children,
  are
  more
 
to
  police
  officers
  cannot
  be
  challenged
  under
  s
  15
  (ie.
  Re
  economically
 vulnerable
 to
 the
 long-­‐
 term
 effects
 of
 the
 death
 of
 a
 
Workers
 Comp)
  spouse)
 
Substance
  orientation-­‐
  so
  that
  a
  law
  prohibiting
  the
  use
  of
  ! an
  ameliorative
  purpose
  will
  likely
  not
  violate
 
marijuana
 cannot
 be
 challenged
 under
 s
 15
 
  the
 dignity
 of
 more
 advantaged
 individuals
 that
 
Privileges
  for
  the
  Crown
  and
  other
  public
  authorities
  in
  are
  excluded
  from
  the
  law’s
  scope
  where
  the
 
litigation
  cannot
  be
  challenged
  under
  s
  15
  because
  the
  purpose
  accords
  with
  the
  purpose
  of
  section
 
existence
 of
 a
 claim
 against
 government
 is
 NOT
 an
 analogous
  15(1)
  itself
  and
  corresponds
  to
  the
  needs
  and
 
ground
 (ie
 Rudolph)
  circumstances
  of
  the
  disadvantaged
  group
 

  targeted
 by
 the
 legislation
 
 
! Where
  there
  is
  NO
  distinction
  based
  on
  a
  listed
  or
  analogous
  o (4)
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 interest
 affected:
 the
 more
 severe
 and
 
ground,
 there
 is
 no
 remedy
 under
 s
 15
 
  localized
 the
 consequences
 on
 the
 affected
 group,
 the
 more
 

  likely
 that
 the
 distinction
 responsible
 for
 these
 consequences
 
(2) DISADVANTAGE
  AND
  HUMAN
  DIGNITY:
  does
  the
  disadvantage
  impair
  is
  discriminatory
  within
  the
  meaning
  of
  s
  15
  of
  the
  Charter;
 
claimant’s
 human
 dignity
 
  evaluate
  not
  only
  the
  economic
  but
  also
  the
  constitutional
 
and
  societal
  significance
  attributed
  to
  the
  interest
  or
 
interests
 adversely
 affected
 by
 the
 legislation
 in
 question
 
 
 Page
 76
 of
 86
 

 

  ! “SUBSTANTIVE
  EQUALITY”=
  used
  to
  indicate
  a
  theory
  of
  equality
 
! THE
 POINT
 IN
 THE
 DIGNITY
 ANALYSIS
 IS
 TO
 ASK
 WHETHER
 from
  that
 covers
 indirect
 as
 well
 as
 direct
 discrimination
 
 
the
 perspective
 of
 a
 reasonable
 person
 in
 circumstances
 similar
  o Because
  s
  15
  includes
  substantive
  inequality,
  it
  leads
  to
 
to
 those
 of
 the
 claimant
 who
 takes
 into
 account
 the
 contextual
  invalidity
 of
 a
 law
 that
 is
 discriminatory
 in
 its
 effect
 
factors
  relevant
  to
  the
  claim
  (ie
  APPLY
  A
  MODIFIED
  OBJECTIVE
  ! Discriminatory
  “in
  its
  application”=
  ie.
  A
  law
  that
  prescribed
  no
 
TEST),
  the
  legislative
  imposition
  of
  differential
  treatment
  has
  discriminatory
 qualifications
 for
 admission
 to
 the
 police
 force
 would
 
the
 effect
 of
 demeaning
 his
 or
 her
 dignity.
 
  be
 discriminatory
 in
 its
 application
 if
 police
 recruitment
 procedures
 

  led
  to
  the
  rejection
  of
  a
  disproportionate
  number
  of
  female
 
! Note,
 however,
 that
 the
 SCC
 in
  R
 v
 KAPP
 2008
  (obiter)
 opted
  applicants.
 =
 INDIRECT
 
 
to
  remove
  the
  human
  dignity
  requirement,
  and
  replaced
  it
  with
  a
  o In
  this
 case
  s
 15
  will
 NOT
  lead
  to
  the
  invalidity
 of
 the
 law
 
“discrimination”
  requirement,
  namely
  the
  perpetuation
  of
  itself.
 S
 15
 will
 deny
 validity
 to
 past
 applications
 of
 the
 law
 
disadvantage
 or
 stereotyping
 
  and
  will
  require
  (in
  the
  police
  example)
  that
  gender-­‐
 
! The
 4
 factor
 contextual
 approach
 IS
 STILL
 RELEVANT:
  neutral
  procedures
  be
  established
  for
  its
  future
 
o (1)
 Pre-­‐
 existing
 disadvantage
 
  administration
 
 
o (3)
 Ameliorative
 purpose
  ! s
 15
 applies
 to
 all
 of
 the
 above
 
 
(4)
 Nature
 of
 interest
 affected
 
  ! NOT
 
  necessary
  to
  show
  that
  the
  law
  was
  passed
  with
  the
 
o [the
 above
 3
 factors
 go
 to
 perpetuation
 of
 disadvantage]
  intention
 of
 discriminating;
 the
 mere
 fact
 that
 the
 law
 does
 have
 
o (2)
 correspondence
 [this
 factor
 goes
 to
 ‘stereotyping’]
  the
 disproportionately
 adverse
 effect
 is
 enough
 
! BUT
  human
  dignity
  analysis
  is
  still
  good
  law
  ,
  because
  obiter
 
 
remarks
 of
 the
 SCC
 are
 not
 binding
 on
 the
 SCC
  (b) Reasonable
 accommodation
 
 

  ! Ontario
  Human
  Rights
  Commission
  v
  Simpsons-­‐
  Sears:
  SCC
  held
 

  that
 an
 employer
 (a
 retailer)was
 under
 a
 duty
 to
 make
 reasonable
 
Direct
 and
 Indirect
 Discrimination
 
  adjustments
 to
 employee
 work
 schedules
 so
 that
 an
 employer
 was
 
th
(a) Substantive
 equality
 
  a
 7
 Day
 Adventist
 would
 not
 have
 to
 work
 on
 Friday
 evenings
 and
 
! “direct”
 discrimination
 =
 a
 law
 that
 is
 discriminatory
 on
 its
 face
 (ie
 a
  Saturdays
 
 
law
 that
 expressly
 excluded
 women
 from
 admission
 to
 the
 police)
  o the
  rule
  requiring
  employees
  to
  be
  available
  for
  work
  at
 
o “formal
  equality”=
  a
  theory
  of
  equality
  that
  covers
  only
  those
  times
  was
  a
  reasonable
  requirement
  for
  a
  retailer
 
direct
 discrimination
 
  because
  those
  times
  were
  busy
  in
  the
  retail
  trade.
 
o S
  15
  includes
  direct
  discrimination
  and
  this
  leads
  to
  However,
 the
 rule
 had
 a
 disproportionately
 adverse
 effect
 
invalidity
 of
 a
 law
 that
 is
 discriminatory
 on
 its
 face
 
  on
  those
  observing
  a
  Saturday
  Sabbath
  and
  therefore
 
! Discriminatory
  “in
  its
  effect”=
  (ie.,
  a
  law
  that
  imposed
  height
  or
  constituted
 discrimination
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 religion
 
 
weight
  qualifications
  for
  admission
  to
  the
  police
  force
  would
  be
 
 
discriminatory
 in
 its
 effect
 of
 the
 law
 (whether
 intended
 or
 not)
 was
  Justification
 under
 s
 1
 
to
  disqualify
  a
  disproportionate
  number
  of
  women)=
  “indirect
  ! S
 1
 of
 the
 Charter
 of
 Rights
 provides
 that
 all
 the
 Charter
 rights
 are
 subject
 
discrimination”
  to
  “such
  reasonable
  limits
  prescribed
  by
  law
  as
  can
  be
  demonstrably
 
o Indirect
  discrimination
  is
  a
  law
  that
  does
  not
  expressly
  justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society”
 
employ
 any
 of
 the
 categories
 listed
 In
 s
 15
 (or
 analogous
 to
  ! Since
  Law
  imported
  the
  human
  dignity
  analysis
  into
  s
  15,
  there
  has
  only
 
those
  listed),
  if
  the
  law
  has
  a
  disproportionately
  adverse
  been
 one
 case
 in
 which
 s
 1
 has
 saved
 a
 law
 found
 to
 be
 in
 breach
 of
 s
 15,
 
effect
  on
  persons
  defined
  by
  any
  of
  the
  prohibited
  showing
 the
 difficulty
 in
 upholding
 a
 law
 that
 infringes
 inequality
 
 
categories
 
  Affirmative
 action
 
 
o Indirect
  also
  known
  as
  “systemic”
  discrimination
  or
  ! Subsection
  (2)
  of
  s
  15
  provides:
  subsection
  (1)
  does
  not
  preclude
  any
  law,
 
“adverse-­‐
 effect”
 discrimination
 
  program
 or
 activity
 that
 has
 as
 its
 object
 the
 amelioration
 of
 conditions
 of
 

  disadvantaged
 individuals
 or
 groups
 including
 those
 that
 are
 disadvantaged
 
 Page
 77
 of
 86
 

 
because
  of
  race,
  national
  or
  ethnic
  origin,
  colour,
  religion,
  sex,
  age
  or
  subsection
  (3)
  of
  s
  93
  made
  reference
  to
  any
  system
  of
  separate
  schools
 
mental
 or
 physical
 disability
 
  “thereafter
 established”,
 meaning
 established
 after
 confederation
 
 
!
 This
  makes
  clear
  that
  s
  15
  does
  not
  preclude
  “affirmative
  action”
  or
 
 
“equity”
 programmes
 in
 favour
 of
 “disadvantaged
 individuals
 or
 groups”
  (d) Province
 of
 residence
 in
 ss
 91,
 92
 
! This
  has
  not
  been
  interpreted
  as
  an
  “exception”
  to
  s
  15(1);
  rather
  ! Supreme
 court
 has
 in
 fact
 held
 that
 place
 of
 residence
 is
 not
 an
 analogous
 
subsection
  (2)
  and
  (1)
  are
  confirmatory
  of
  one
  another;
  they
  are
  ground
 
 
independent
 (R
 v
 Kapp)
  ! Differences
  between
  provincial
  laws
  cannot
  amount
  to
  discrimination
 

  under
  s
  15,
  because
  that
  would
  require
  a
  uniformity
  of
  provincial
  laws
 
Discrimination
 Permitted
 by
 Constitution
 
  which
 would
 be
 inconsistent
 with
 the
 distribution
 of
 legislative
 power
 in
 ss
 

  91
 and
 92
 (and
 some
 other
 sections)
 of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 
(a) Age
 in
 ss
 23,
 29,
 99
 
 
! What
  is
  the
  position
  if
  the
  Constitution
  itself
  requires
  or
  permits
  (e) Citizenship
 in
 s
 6
 
discrimination?
  ! Because
 of
 s
 6(1)’s
 guarantee
 of
 the
 right
 to
 remain
 in
 Canada
 applies
 only
 
! For
  example
  the
  Constitution
  Act
  1867
  provides
  that
  a
  person
  cannot
  be
  a
  “citizen”,
  it
  has
  been
  held
  that
  the
  Immigration
  Act
  may
  validly
  provide
 
appointed
 to
 the
 Senate
 (s
 23);
 and
 a
 senator
 must
 retire
 at
 the
 age
 of
 75
  for
 the
 deportation
 of
 non-­‐
 citizens
 who
 have
 committed
 criminal
 offences,
 
(s29);
 a
 judge
 must
 retire
 at
 the
 age
 of
 75
 (s99)
  or
 who
 have
 been
 certified
 as
 a
 threat
 to
 national
 security
 
 
! These
  provisions
  impose
  a
  burden
  by
  reference
  to
  a
  ground
  of
  ! The
  imposition
  of
  a
  burden
  on
  non-­‐
  citizens
  that
  does
  not
  also
  apply
  to
 
discrimination
 that
 is
 listed
 in
 s
 15,
 namely,
 age.
 
  citizens
 would
 normally
 be
 a
 breach
 of
 s
 15,
 but
 in
 the
 case
 of
 the
 right
 to
 
! The
  provisions
  would
  therefore
  be
  contrary
  to
  s
  15
  and
  hence
  invalid
  remain
  in
  Canada
  a
  difference
  in
  treatment
  was
  specifically
  contemplated
 
(unless
 saved
 by
 human
 dignity
 or
 s
 1)
 if
 they
 were
 contained
 in
 an
 official
  by
 s
 6(1)
 
instrument
 other
 than
 the
 Constitution
 itself
 
  ! Outside
  the
  right
  to
  remain
  in
  Canada
  under
 
  s
  6(1),
  laws
  imposing
 
! Are
  the
  provisions
  sheltered
  from
  Charter
  attack
  by
  reason
  of
  their
  disabilities
 on
 non-­‐citizens
 have
 been
 held
 to
 be
 in
 breach
 of
 s
 15
 
 
constitutional
 status?
 YES
 
  ! Andrews
  v
  Law
  Society
  of
  B.C
  held
  that
  citizenship
  was
  an
  analogous
 

  ground
 of
 discrimination
 under
 s
 15
 and
 struck
 down
 the
 provincial
 law
 that
 
(b) Race
 in
 s.
 91(24)
  restricted
 entry
 to
 the
 province’s
 legal
 profession
 to
 Canadian
 citizens
 
! The
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
 by
 s
 91(24)
 confers
 on
 the
 federal
 parliament
 the
 
 
power
  to
  make
  laws
  in
  relation
  to
  “Indians,
  and
  lands
  reserved
  for
  the
  (f) Language
 in
 ss
 16-­‐23
 
Indians”.
  Obviously
  any
  law
  enacted
  under
  this
  power
  will
  have
  to
  be
  ! These
  sections
  accord
  a
  “special
  status”
  to
  French
  and
  English
  “in
 
explicitly
 restricted
 to
 “Indians”
 or
 will
 have
 a
 disproportionate
 impact
 on
  comparison
 to
 all
 other
 linguistic
 groups
 in
 Canada”
 
Indians
 who
 live
 on
 “lands
 reserved
 for
 the
 Indians”
  ! For
  example
  the
  right
  to
  minority
  language
  education
  in
  s
  23
  which
  is
 
! Laws
 enacted
 under
 s
 91(24)
 that
 employ
 the
 classification
 “Indian”
 (or
 that
  explicitly
 limited
 to
 French
 and
 English,
 does
 not
 extend
 to
 other
 minority
 
have
  a
  disproportionate
  impact
  on
  Indians
  or
  lands
  reserved
  for
  the
  language
 speakers
 by
 the
 operation
 of
 s
 15
 
Indians)
 should
 not
 be
 vulnerable
 to
 attack
 under
 s
 15
 
 

  The
  Law
  on
  the
  listed
  and
  analogous
  grounds:
  CANNOT
  DISCRIMINATE
  ON
  THESE
 
(c) Religion
 in
 s
 93
  GROUNDS:
 
! Ontario
  Separate
  School
  Funding
  case:
  religious
  schools
 
  other
  than
  the
 
 
Roman
  Catholic
  schools
  received
  no
  public
  funding.
  The
  SCC
  upheld
  the
  Race
 
statute
 on
 the
 basis
 that
 the
 distinctive
 treatment
 of
 Roman
 Catholic
 school
  ! “race”
  as
  well
  as
  “national
  or
  ethnic
  origin”
  and
  “colour”
  are
  grounds
  of
 
supporters
 was
 expressly
 permitted
 by
 the
 Constitution
 
  discrimination
 expressly
 prohibited
 by
 s
 15
 
 
! the
  province’s
  power
  to
  enact
  laws
  in
  relation
  to
  education
  came
  from
  s
  93
  ! It
 is
 difficult
 to
 imagine
 a
 situation
 in
 which
 a
 racial
 distinction
 could
 possibly
 
of
 the
 Constitution
 Act
 1867
  be
 upheld,
 unless
 it
 falls
 under
 s
 15(2)
 
! however,
  s
  93
  went
  on
  to
  guarantee
  the
  rights
  of
  Roman
  Catholic
  and
  ! The
 aboriginal
 situation
 in
 Canada
 is
 a
 special
 one
 (see
 s
 25
 of
 Charter
 and
 s
 
Protestant
 school
 supporters
 that
 existed
 at
 the
 time
 of
 confederation
 and
  91(24)
 of
 Constitution
 Act,
 1867
 
 Page
 78
 of
 86
 

 
o A
  law
  enacted
  by
  the
  federal
  parliament
  under
  s
  91(24)
  for
  the
  Mental
 or
 Physical
 Ability
 
 
benefit
  of
  Indian
  people,
  and
  laws
  enacted
  to
  give
  effect
  to
  ! Another
 ground
 of
 discrimination
 that
 is
 expressly
 prohibited
 by
 s
 15
 
aboriginal
 or
 treaty
 rights,
 are
 not
 affected
 by
 s
 15
 of
 the
 Charter
 
  ! Although
  there
  are
  legal
  restrictions
  properly
  predicated
  on
  mental
 

  disability
  (ie,
  a
  blind
  person
  is
  disqualified
  from
  driving),
  many
  disabilities
 
Religion
 
  can
 be
 accommodated
 by
 changes
 to
 work
 places
 and
 public
 facilities
 that
 
! Another
 ground
 expressly
 prohibited
 by
 s
 15
  permit
 those
 who
 are
 blind,
 for
 example,
 to
 function
 effectively.
 Therefore
 
! The
 funding
 of
 the
 schools
 of
 a
 religious
 denomination
 without
 comparable
  the
 rules
 that
 discrimination
 may
 be
 unintended,
 indirect
 and
 may
 require
 
provision
  for
  the
  supports
  of
  the
  schools
  of
  other
  religious
  denominations
  reasonable
 accommodation,
 are
 of
 special
 importance
 here
 
 
would
  be
  forbidden
  by
  s
  15,
  unless
  that
  denominational
  school
  system
  is
  ! In
  several
  of
  the
  “accommodation”
  cases
  (ie
  where
  an
  accommodation
  had
 
protected
 under
 the
 special
 provision
 of
 s
 93
 
  been
 made
 to
 the
 special
 needs
 of
 a
 class
 of
 persons
 with
 disabilities),
 the
 

  constitutional
  challenge
  to
  the
  appropriateness
  /
  method
  of
  the
 
Sex
  accommodation
  failed,
  indicating
  that
  deference
  should
  be
  paid
  to
  a
 
! “Sex”
 is
 anther
 grounds
 of
 discrimination
 that
 is
 expressly
 prohibited
 by
 s
 15
  legislated
  effort
  to
  accommodate
  such
  needs.
  Court
  defers
  to
  parliament
 
! R
  v
  Hess:
  the
  offence
  of
  statutory
  rape
  did
  not
  offend
  s
  15,
  although
  the
  to
 determine
 best
 accommodation
 method.
 
 
offence
  could
  only
  be
  committed
  by
  a
  male,
  on
  the
  basis
  that
  since
  the
 
 
prohibited
  act
  (intercourse)
  was
  defined
  by
  reference
  to
  penetration,
  so
  it
  ! But
 this
 pattern
 of
 deference
 was
 broken
 in
 Nova
 Scotia
 v
 Martin-­‐-­‐
 
could
 as
 a
 matter
 of
 biological
 fact
 be
 committed
 only
 by
 males
  ! Nova
  Scotia
  v
  Martin:
  the
  SCC
  struck
  down
  provisions
  of
  a
  statutory
 
! Brenner
  v
  Canada:
  a
  provision
  of
  the
  Federal
  Citizenship
  Act
  distinguished
  worker’s
 compensation
 scheme
 that
 dealt
 with
 chronic
 pain;
 it
 provided
 a
 4
 
between
  men
  and
  women
  was
  struck
  down
  under
  s
  15
  in
  regulating
  the
  week
  rehab
  period
  for
  worker
  suffering
  from
  chronic
  pain.
  HELD:
  (i)
  the
 
citizenship
  status
  of
  persons
  born
  outside
  Canada
  before
  1977,
  the
  Act
  restriction
 on
 benefits
 for
 chronic
 pain
 distinguished
 between
 worker
 with
 
provided
  that
  a
  person
  born
  to
  a
  Canadian
  father
  was
  automatically
  entitled
  chronic
 pain
 and
 workers
 with
 other
 kinds
 of
 work
 related
 injuries;
 (ii)
 the
 
to
 citizenship
 upon
 registration
 in
 Canada
 of
 the
 birth,
 but
 a
 person
 born
 to
  distinction
  was
  based
  on
  physical
  disability
  (an
  expressly
  prohibited
 
a
  Canadian
  mother
  had
  to
  apply
  for
  citizenship
  and
  undergo
  a
  security
  ground),
  even
  though
  members
  of
  the
  comparison
  group
  were
  also
 
check.
  This
  law
  could
  not
  be
  saved
  under
  s
  1,
  failing
  on
  the
  rational
  disabled;
 (iii)
 the
 distinction
 impaired
 human
 dignity
 of
 chronic
 pain
 suffers,
 
connection
 test.
 
  and
 therefore
 amounted
 to
 discrimination;
 (iv)
 it
 could
 not
 be
 saved
 by
 s
 1
 
 

 
 
Age
 
  Citizenship
 
! Another
 ground
 of
 discrimination
 that
 is
 expressly
 prohibited
 
  ! Not
 a
 ground
 of
 discrimination
 that
 is
 expressly
 mentioned
 in
 s
 15,
 but
 it
 is
 
! Law
  v
  Canada:
  the
  SCC
  upheld
  a
  law
  that
  denied
  a
  benefit
  to
  young
  an
 analogous
 ground
 (Andrews
 v
 Law
 Society)
 
persons,
  namely
  those
  who
  were
  under
  35
  were
  denied
  pension
  plan
 
 
payments
  upon
  death
  of
  surviving
  spouses.
  Although
  there
  was
  a
  Marital
 Status
 
distinction
  on
  age,
  there
  was
  no
  impairment
  of
  human
  dignity.
  The
  ! Not
  a
  ground
  of
  discrimination
  that
  is
  expressly
  mentioned
  in
  s
  15,
  but
  in
 
exclusion
 of
 persons
 under
 35
 from
 the
 benefit
 scheme
 did
 not
 imply
 that
  Miron
 v
 Trudel
 the
 SCC
 held
 it
 to
 be
 an
 analogous
 ground
 
 
they
  were
  less
  capable
  or
  less
  worthy,
  but
  simply
  was
  designed
  to
 
 
recognize
  the
  reality
  that
  older
  people
  would
  be
  in
  greater
  need
  of
  support
  Sexual
 Orientation
 
 
and
 to
 apply
 limited
 resources
 to
 those
 in
 greater
 need
 
  ! =
  an
  analogous
  ground
  (Egan):
  in
  this
  case
  the
  SCC
  held
  that
  the
  federal
 
! Gosselin
  v
  Quebec:
  Quebec’s
  social
  assistance
  law
  provide
  that
  welfare
  Old
 Age
 Security
 Act
 offended
 s
 15
 by
 making
 spousal
 allowance
 available
 
recipients
  under
  30
  received
  benefits
  of
  only
  about
  1/3
  of
  the
  standard
  to
  a
  spouse
  “of
  the
  opposite
  sex”
  but
  not
  to
  a
  same-­‐sex
  partner.
  The
 
amount
  that
  was
  payable
  to
  persons
  30
  or
  over.
  Held:
  while
  there
  was
  a
  provision
 was
 upheld
 under
 s
 1.
 
 
distinction
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 age,
 there
 was
 no
 impairment
 of
 human
 dignity
 
 
 

  Place
 of
 Residence
 

  ! NOT
  an
  analogous
  ground:
  it
  lacks
  the
  element
  of
  immutability
  that
  is
 

  common
 to
 the
 listed
 grounds
 and
 is
 required
 for
 the
 analogous
 grounds
 
 
 Page
 79
 of
 86
 

 
Occupation
 
  ! The
 focus
 of
 s.
 15(2)
 is
 on
 enabling
 governments
 to
 pro-­‐actively
 combat
 
! NOT
  an
  analogous
  ground:
  it
  lacks
  the
  element
  of
  immutability
  that
  is
  discrimination
 thus
 s.
 15(1)
 cannot
 be
 read
 in
 a
 way
 that
 finds
 an
 ameliorative
 
common
 to
 the
 listed
 grounds
 and
 is
 required
 for
 the
 analogous
 grounds
 
  program
 aimed
 at
 combating
 disadvantage
 to
 be
 discriminatory.
 
 
! The
 TEST
 under
 s
 15(2)
 is
 as
 follows:
 A
 program
 does
 not
 violate
 the
 s.
 15
 equality
 

 
guarantee
 if
 the
 government
 can
 demonstrate
 that:
 
REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 EQUALITY
 RIGHTS
  o (1)
 the
 program
 has
 an
 ameliorative
 or
 remedial
 purpose;
 and
 
o (2)
 the
 program
 targets
 a
 disadvantaged
 group
 identified
 by
 the
 

  enumerated
 or
 analogous
 grounds.
 
ANDREWS
 v.
 LAW
 SOCIETY
 OF
 BRITISH
 COLUMBIA
 [1989]
  • Apply
 test
 to
 this
 case:
 The
 government
 was
 hoping
 to
 redress
 the
 social
 and
 
FACTS:
 s.
 42
 of
 the
 Barristers
 and
 Solicitors
 Act
 denies
 admission
 to
 non-­‐citizens
 who
 are
 in
 all
  economic
 disadvantage
 of
 the
 targeted
 bands,
 and
 the
 government’s
 aims
 correlate
 
other
 respects
 qualified.
  to
 the
 actual
 economic
 and
 social
 disadvantage
 suffered
 by
 members
 of
 the
 three
 
ISSUE:
 Does
 s
 42
 offend
 s
 15
 of
 the
 Charter?
 
  aboriginal
 bands.
 
 
HELD:
 Majority
 held
 that
 law
 was
 unconstitutional
  o
 Therefore,
 the
 government
 program
 is
 protected
 by
 s
 15(2)
 and
 the
 
REASONING:
  program
 does
 not
 violate
 the
 equality
 guarantee
 of
 s.
 15
 of
 the
 Charter.
 
Wilson
 J
 (Majority)
 
 
! A
 rule
 which
 bars
 an
 entire
 class
 of
 persons
 from
 certain
 forms
 of
 employment
  WITHLER
 v.
 CANADA
 (ATTORNEY
 GENERAL)
 [2011]-­‐
 MOST
 RECENT
 APPLICATION
 
 
solely
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 they
 are
 not
 Canadian
 citizens
 violates
 the
 equality
 rights
 
 
of
 that
 class.
  FACTS:
 The
 appellant
 were
 widows
 whose
 federal
 supplementary
 death
 benefits
 were
 
!
 non-­‐citizens
 are
 a
 group
 vulnerable
 to
 having
 their
 interests
 overlooked
 and
 they
  reduced
 because
 of
 their
 husbands'
 ages.
 The
 appellants
 submitted
 that
 the
 age-­‐based
 
fall
 into
 an
 analogous
 group
 to
 those
 enumerated
 in
 s
 15
  benefit
 reduction,
 which
 was
 part
 of
 a
 statutory
 death
 benefit
 scheme
 for
 certain
 federal
 
!
 S
 1
 analysis:
 There
 is
 not
 a
 sufficiently
 rational
 connection
 between
 the
 required
  government
 employees,
 violated
 section
 15
 of
 the
 Charter.
 
personal
 characteristic
 of
 citizenship
 and
 the
 governmental
 interest
 in
 ensuring
  HELD
 SCC:
 the
 court
 concluded
 that
 the
 focus
 must
 be
 on
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 benefit.
 A
 
lawyers
 in
 BC
 are
 familiar
 with
 Canadian
 institutions,
 are
 committed
 to
 Canadian
  contextual
 assessment
 revealed
 that
 the
 age-­‐based
 benefit
 reduction
 did
 not
 breach
 section
 
society,
 and
 are
 capable
 of
 playing
 a
 role
 in
 our
 system.
 
  15.
 
McIntyre
 J
 (Dissenting
 in
 part
 –
 namely
 on
 the
 s
 1
 analysis)
  ANALYSIS:
 
 
! the
 citizenship
 requirement
 affects
 only
 those
 non-­‐citizens
 who
 are
 permanent
  • The
 court
 emphasized
 that
 the
 focus
 of
 a
 section
 15
 analysis
 is
 the
 actual
 impact
 
residents.
 The
 permanent
 resident
 must
 wait
 for
 a
 minimum
 of
 three
 years
 from
 the
  of
 the
 differential
 treatment,
 and
 therefore
 the
 analysis
 requires
 a
 contextual
 
date
 of
 establishing
 permanent
 residence
 status
 before
 citizenship
 may
 be
  consideration
 of
 the
 impact
 of
 the
 legislation
 or
 state
 action.
 
acquired.
 The
 distinction
 therefore
 imposes
 a
 burden
 in
 the
 form
 of
 some
 delay
 on
  • The
 scheme
 was
 designed
 to
 benefit
 a
 number
 of
 different
 groups,
 and
 the
 benefit
 
permanent
 residents
 who
 have
 acquired
 all
 or
 some
 of
 their
 legal
 training
 abroad
  reductions
 reflected
 the
 reality
 that
 different
 groups
 of
 survivors
 have
 different
 
and
 is,
 therefore,
 discriminatory.
 The
 rights
 guaranteed
 in
 s.
 15(1)
 apply
 to
 all
  needs.
 
 
persons
 whether
 citizens
 or
 not
  ! Having
 found
 that
 section
 15(1)
 was
 not
 breached
 by
 the
 benefit
 scheme,
 the
 
! It
 is
 entirely
 reasonable
 that
 legislators
 consider
 and
 adopt
 measures
 designed
 to
  court
 did
 not
 perform
 a
 section
 1
 analysis.
 
maintain
 within
 the
 legal
 profession
 a
 body
 of
 qualified
 professionals
 with
 a
 
 
commitment
 to
 the
 country..
 
 

 
 

 
 
R
 v.
 KAPP
 [2008]
 
 
FACTS:
 The
 appellants
 are
 commercial
 fishers,
 mainly
 non-­‐aboriginal,
 who
 assert
 that
 their
 

 
equality
 rights
 under
 s.
 15
 
 were
 violated
 by
 a
 communal
 fishing
 licence
 granting
 members
 of
 
three
 aboriginal
 bands
 the
 exclusive
 right
 to
 fish
 for
 salmon.
 Claimed
 fishing
 licence
 

 
discriminated
 against
 them
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 race.
 
 
Held:
 appeal
 dismissed
 
 
 
REASONING:
 
 
• As
 critics
 have
 pointed
 out,
 human
 dignity
 is
 an
 abstract
 and
 subjective
 notion
 that,
 
 
even
 with
 the
 guidance
 of
 the
 four
 contextual
 factors,
 cannot
 only
 become
 
 
confusing
 and
 difficult
 to
 apply;
 (obitor)
 
 

 
 Page
 80
 of
 86
 

 
[11]
 Remedies-­‐
 CONSTITUTION
 ACT,
 1982,
 S.
 52
 and
 S.
 24
  THERE
 ARE
 6
 CHOICES
 AVAILABLE
 TO
 THE
 COURTS
 UNDER
 S
 52(1)
 

 
 
! Both
 sections
 can
 be
 used
 as
 remedy
 section
 for
 the
 Charter
 
  Reconstruction
 
o S
 52(1)
 in
 general
 applies
 to
 attacks
 on
 legislation
 
  • General
 rule:
 courts
 may
 not
 reconstruct
 an
 unconstitutional
 statute
 in
 order
 to
 
o S
 24(1)
 in
 general
 applies
 to
 governmental
 action
 
  render
 it
 constitutional
 
 

  • The
 techniques
 of
 temporary
 validity,
 severance,
 reading
 in,
 reading
 down
 and
 
COMPARISONS:
  the
 constitutional
 exemption
 should
 be
 seen
 as
 exceptions
 to
 the
 general
 rule
 
# Section
 
 24(1)
 is
 only
 applicable
 to
 breaches
 of
 Charter
 rights
 
 
 
Section
 52(1)
 is
 applicable
 to
 the
 entire
 Constitution,
 including
 the
 Charter
 
  1.
 Nullification
 
 

  ! Striking
 down/
 declaring
 that
 a
 law
 is
 invalid
 because
 it
 is
 inconsistent
 with
 the
 
# Section
 24(1)
 is
 available
 only
 to
 a
 person
 whose
 rights
 have
 been
 infringed
 
  Constitution.
 
 
Section
  52(1)
  is
  available
  in
  some
  circumstances
  to
  a
  person
  whose
  rights
  ! The
  effect
  of
  such
  a
  holding
  is
  that
  the
  litigation
  will
  be
  determined
  as
  if
  the
 
have
 been
 infringed
 
  unconstitutional
 law
 did
 not
 exist.
 
 

  ! In
 R.
 v.
 Big
 M
 Drug
 Mart
 the
 Act
 was
 actually
 struck
 down
 for
 breach
 of
 the
 
# Section
 24(1)
 may
 be
 applied
 by
 a
 “court
 of
 competent
 jurisdiction”
  Charter
 of
 Rights
 
Section
 52(1)
 may
 be
 applied
 by
 any
 court
 or
 tribunal
 with
 power
 to
 decide
 
 
questions
 of
 law
 
  2.
 Temporary
 Validity
 
 

  ! While
  s
  52(1)
  requires
  a
  court
  to
  hold
  that
  an
  unconstitutional
  statute
  is
 
# Section
 24(1)
 authorizes
 the
 award
 of
 a
 wide
 range
 of
 remedies
 
  invalid,
 the
 courts
 have
 assumed
 the
 power
 to
 postpone
 the
 operation
 of
 the
 
Section
 52(1)
 appears
 to
 authorize
 only
 a
 holding
 of
 invalidity,
 leaving
 it
 to
  declaration
 of
 invalidity.
 
 
the
 genera
 law
 to
 impose
 a
 particular
 remedy
 
  ! The
 statute
 will
 remain
 in
 force
 until
 the
 expiry
 of
 the
 period
 of
 postponement
 
 

  ! In
  Schachter,
  the
  SCC
  held
  that
  a
  provision
  of
  the
  federal
  Unemployment
 
# Section
  24(1)
  confers
  a
  discretion
  on
  the
  court
  as
  to
  whether
  a
  remedy
  Insurance
  Act
  offended
  the
  guarantee
  of
  equality
  in
  s
  15
  because
  it
  allowed
 
should
 be
 awarded
 
  more
 generous
 child
 care
 benefits
 to
 adoptive
 parents
 than
 to
 natural
 parents.
 
Section
  52(1)
  appears
  to
  confer
  no
  discretion
  on
  the
  court,
  requiring
  the
  Although
 the
 Court
 was
 willing
 to
 grant
 a
 temporary
 period
 of
 validity,
 Lamer
 J
 
court
  to
  make
  a
  holding
  of
  invalidity
  if
  it
  concludes
  that
  a
  law
  or
  act
  is
  recognized
 the
 radical
 character
 of
 the
 remedy.
 Cases
 in
 which
 the
 immediate
 
inconsistent
 with
 the
 Constitutuion
 
  striking
 down
 of
 the
 legislation
 would:
 

  o Pose
 a
 danger
 to
 the
 public
 (Swain)
 
Supremacy
 Clause
 [explicit
 basis
 for
 judicial
 review]
  o Threaten
 the
 rule
 of
 law
 (Manitoba
 Language)
 
! SECTION
  52(1)
  of
  the
  Constitution
  Act,
  1867:
  “The
  Constitution
  of
  Canada
  is
  o Result
  in
  the
  deprivation
  of
  benefits
  from
  deserving
  persons
 
the
  supreme
  law
  of
  Canada,
  and
  any
  law
  that
  is
  inconsistent
  with
  the
  (Schachter
 itself)
 
provisions
 of
 the
 Constitution
 is,
 to
 the
 extent
 of
 the
 
 inconsistency,
 of
 no
 force
 
 
or
 effect”
  ! These
  3
  guidelines
  essentially
  limited
  the
  courts’
  use
  of
  suspended
 
! This
  supremacy
  clause
  gives
  to
  the
  Charter
  overriding
  effect.
 
  Since
  the
  declarations
  of
  invalidity
  to
  urgent
  situations
  where
  danger,
  disorder,
  or
 
Charter
  is
  part
  of
  the
  “Constitution
  of
  Canada”,
  any
  law
  that
  is
  inconsistent
  deprivation
 would
 be
 caused
 by
 an
 immediate
 declaration
 of
 invalidity
 
 
with
 the
 Charter
 is
 “of
 no
 force
 or
 effect”
  ! But
 more
 recently,
 the
 courts
 have
 gone
 beyond
 those
 categories
 because
 of
 
! EFFECT:
 preserve
 all
 pre-­‐existing
 remedies
 for
 unconstitutional
 action
 and
 to
  the
  new
  philosophy
  that
  the
  courts
  should
  be
  having
  a
  dialogue
  with
  the
 
extend
  those
  remedies
  to
  the
  Charter
  or
  Rights.
 
  In
  addition,
  the
  charter
  legislature,
 by
 allowing
 the
 legislature
 to
 remedy
 violations
 
 
contains
 its
 own
 remedies
 clause:
 s24(1).
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Page
 81
 of
 86
 

 
3.
 Severance
 
  6.
 Constitutional
 Exemption
 
 
! Holding
  that
  only
  part
  of
  the
  statute
  is
  inconsistent
  with
  the
  Constitution,
  ! Granting
  a
  “constitutional
  exemption”
  from
  “otherwise
  valid
  legislation”
  that
 
striking
 it
 down
 and
 severing
 it
 from
 the
 remainder
 of
 the
 statute.
 Appropriate
  would
  be
  unconstitutional
  in
  its
  application
  to
  particular
  individuals
  or
 
when
 the
 rest
 of
 the
 statute
 can
 survive
 independently.
 
  groups"
 never
 been
 used
 
 
! Severance
 occurs
 in
 most
 charter
 cases,
 it
 is
 unusual
 for
 a
 breach
 to
 taint
 the
  ! In
  Big
  M
  Drug
  Mart
  –
  in
  Obiter
  they
  dabbled
  with
  option
  of
  reading
  in
 
entire
 statute.
 
  exemption
  to
  non
  Sunday
  sabath
  worshipers.
  This
  would
  uphold
  the
  law,
  yet
 
! Severance
  is
  a
  doctrine
  of
  judicial
  restraint:
  b/c
  its
  effect
  is
  to
  minimize
  the
  compromise
 courts
 role.
 
 
impact
  of
  a
  successful
  Charter
  attack
  on
  law:
  the
  courts
  intrusion
  into
  the
  ! The
 defendant
 in
 Ferguson
 was
 a
 police
 officer
 who
 was
 attacked
 by
 a
 violent
 
legislative
 process
 goes
 no
 further
 than
 is
 necessary
 to
 vindicate
 charter
 right.
 
  prisoner
  who
  he
  was
  trying
  to
  put
  into
  a
  cell.
  In
  the
  course
  of
  the
  struggle,
  the
 
! Tetreault-­‐
 Gadoury
 v
 Canada:
 
 SCC
 held
 it
 was
 a
 breach
 of
 s
 15
 of
 the
 Charter
  defendant’s
 gun
 went
 off
 and
 killed
 the
 prisoner.
 The
 defendant
 was
 convicted
 
to
 restrict
 unemployment
 insurance
 benefits
 to
 persons
 under
 the
 age
 of
 65.
  of
  manslaughter.
  The
  judge
  held
  that
  he
  was
  entitled
  to
  a
  constitutional
 
The
  court
  simply
  invoked
  the
  power
  of
  severance
  to
  remove
  the
  age
  65
  bar
  exemption.
  On
  appeal,
  the
  SCC
  disagreed,
  holding
  there
  was
  no
  basis
  for
 
from
  the
  Act.
  The
  effect
  of
  this
  was
  to
  require
  payment
  of
  unemployment
  concluding
 that
 the
 4
 year
 sentence
 was
 grossly
 disproportionate
 “in
 the
 facts
 
insurance
 benefits
 to
 persons
 over
 65
 who
 was
 otherwise
 qualified.
 
  of
 this
 case”…”an
 inappropriate
 intrusion
 into
 the
 legislative
 sphere.”
 

  ! However,
 McLachlin
 CJ
 reasons
 did
 not
 include
 a
 retraction
 of
 Seaboyer,
 where
 
4.
 Reading
 In
  the
  court
  held
  that
  a
  constitutional
  exemption
  might
  be
  available
  “in
  some
 
! In
  Schachter,
  the
  SCC
  held
  that
  it
  possessed
  the
  power
  not
  only
  to
  sever
  other
 case”
 
 
language
  from
  a
  statute,
  but
  also
  to
  “read
  in”
  new
  language
  if
  that
  were
 
 
necessary
 to
 remedy
 a
 constitutional
 defect
 
  Limitation
 of
 Actions
 
 
! The
  court
  in
  this
  case
  acknowledged
  that
  caution
  was
  called
  for
  in
  exercising
  ! An
  action
  or
  other
  form
  of
  proceeding
  for
  a
  declaration
  that
  a
  statute
  is
 
this
 remedy.
 Reading
 in
 would
 be
 appropriate
  in
 the
 clearest
 of
 cases
 where
  unconstitutional,
  including
  all
  the
  many
  variants
  of
  the
  declaration
  that
  have
 
the
 cases
 contained
 the
 following:
  been
 described,
 is
 not
 subject
 to
 any
 limitation
 period
 
 
a. The
  addition
  of
  the
  excluded
  class
  was
  consistent
  with
  the
  legislative
  ! If
  the
  reviewing
  courts
  hold
  that
  the
  statute
  is
  unconstitutional,
  then
  the
 
objective
 
  statute
 will
 be
 declared
 to
 have
 been
 unconstitutional
 from
 its
 inception
 and
 
b. There
  seemed
  to
  be
  little
  choice
  as
  to
  how
  to
  cure
  the
  constitutional
  the
  newly
  discovered
  rights
  and
  obligations
  that
  flow
  from
  the
  retroactive
 
defect
 
  disappearance
 of
 the
 statute
 will
 take
 effect
 automatically
 
 
c. The
  reading
  in
  would
  not
  involve
  substantial
  change
  in
  the
  cost
  or
 
 
nature
 of
 the
 scheme
  Remedy
 Clause
 
d. The
  alternative
  of
  striking
  down
  the
  under-­‐
  inclusive
  provision
  would
 
 
be
 an
 inferior
 remedy
 
  ! SECTION
  24(1)
  of
  the
  Charter:
  “anyone
  whose
  rights
  or
  freedoms,
  as
 
! R
  v
  Sharpe:
  overall
  objective
  was
  to
  maintain
  the
  child
  pornography
  guaranteed
  by
  this
  Charter,
  have
  been
  infringed
  or
  denied
  may
  apply
  to
  a
  court
 
legislation;
  the
  only
  way
  to
  save
  it
  was
  to
  read
  in
  2
  provisions.
  Personal
  use
  of
  competent
  jurisdiction
  to
  obtain
  such
  remedy
  as
  the
  court
  considers
 
and
 self-­‐
 made
 audio
 visual
 materials
 for
 personal
 use
 
  appropriate
 and
 just
 in
 the
 circumstances.
 

 
 
 
o Provides
  for
  the
  granting
  of
  a
  remedy
  to
  enforce
  the
  right
  or
  freedoms
 
5.
 Reading
 Down
 
 
guaranteed
 by
 the
 Charter
 
 
! Reading
  down
  is
  the
  appropriate
  remedy
  when
  a
  statute
  will
  bear
  2
 
 
interpretations,
 one
 of
 which
 would
 offend
 the
 Charter
 and
 the
 other
 of
 which
  !
 Standing
 
would
 not.
 In
 that
 case,
 a
 court
 will
 hold
 that
 the
 latter
 interpretation,
 which
 is
  o Standing
  to
  apply
  for
  a
  remedy
  under
  s
  24(1)
  is
  granted
  to
  “anyone”
 
normally
 a
 narrower
 one,
 (hence
 the
 reading
 down)
 is
 the
 correct
 one.
 When
 a
  whose
 Charter
 rights
 have
 been
 infringed
 or
 denied
 
 
statute
 is
 read
 down
 to
 avoid
 a
 Charter
 breach
 there
 is
 no
 holding
 of
 invalidity
  o S
  24(1)
  contemplates
  that
  that
  it
  is
  the
  applicant’s
  own
  rights
 
  that
 

 
have
 been
 infringed
 or
 denied
 
 

 
o In
 Minister
 of
 Justice
 v
 Borowski,
 the
 SCC
 granted
 standing
 to
 an
 anti-­‐

 
abortion
 activist
 to
 bring
 an
 action
 for
 a
 declaration
 that
 the
 Criminal
 
 Page
 82
 of
 86
 

 
Code’s
  abortion
  provisions
  were
  unconstitutional.
  Those
  provisions
  evidence
 obtained
 in
 breach
 of
 the
 Charter
 also
 falls
 into
 the
 defensive
 
could
 never
 have
 applied
 to
 the
 applicant,
 who
 neither
 a
 doctor
 nor
 a
  category,
  but
  the
  exclusion
  of
  evidence
  is
  subject
  to
  a
  special
  set
  of
 
woman,
 but
 he
 was
 granted
 standing
 nevertheless.
 This
 illustrates
 that
  rules
 under
 s
 24(2)
 
the
 availability
 of
 a
 declaration
 of
 invalidity
 under
 s
 52(1)
 is
 governed
  o They
 also
 include
 “affirmative
 remedies,
 such
 as
 ordering
 
 a
 province
 
by
  more
  generous
  standing
  requirements
  than
  are
  the
  remedies
  to
  provide
  state-­‐
  funded
  counsel
  to
  an
  indigent
  litigant
  (New
 
authorized
 by
 s
 24(1)
  Brunswick
  v
  G.(J.))
  ,
  ordering
  the
  return
  of
  good
  improperly
  seized
 

  (Champon)
 or
 a
 mandatory
 injunction
 requiring
 positive
 action
 
 
!
 Apprehended
 Infringements
 
 
 
o S
  24(1)
  stipulates
  that
  the
  applicant’s
  rights
  “have
  been”
  infringed
  or
  o It
 has
 been
 suggested
 that
 the
 court’s
 discretion
 should
 be
 governed
 
denied,
 which
 contemplates
 that
 the
 infringement
 has
 occurred
 at
 the
  by
 3
 factors:
 each
 case
 presents
 own
 case
 by
 case
 careful
 analysis
 
time
 of
 the
 application.
 It
 does
 not
 authorize
 an
 application
 in
 respect
  i. The
 redress
 of
 the
 wrong
 suffered
 by
 the
 applicant;
 
 
of
 a
 merely
 apprehended
 future
 infringement
 
  ii. The
  encouragement
  of
  future
  compliance
  with
  the
  Constitution;
 
o HOWEVER,
 it
 seems
 to
 be
 generally
 accepted
 that
 the
 imminent
 threat
  and
 
 
of
  a
  Charter
  violation
  will
  satisfy
  s
  24(1).
  For
  example,
  s
  24(1)
  will
  iii. The
  avoidance
  of
  unnecessary
  interference
  with
  the
  exercise
  of
 
authorize
  a
  remedy
  for
  English-­‐
  speaking
  parents
  who
  are
  denied
  by
  governmental
 power;
 
 
statute
  their
  Charter
  right
  under
  s
  23
  to
  send
  their
  children
  to
  an
  iv. the
  ability
  of
  the
  court
  to
  administer
  the
  remedy
  awarded.
  But
 
English-­‐
  speaking
  school,
  even
  if
  the
  application
  is
  made
  before
  the
  each
 case
 will
 present
 its
 own
 unique
 considerations.
 
 
school
  year
  has
  started,
  and
  therefore
  before
  any
  parent’s
  child
  has
 
 
actually
 been
 refused
 admission:
 Que
 Assn.
 of
 Protestant
 School
 Bds
  Declaration
 

 
  o
 =
 a
 remedy
 that
 declares
 the
 legal
 position,
 but
 does
 not
 actually
 order
 
!
 Court
 of
 Competent
 Jurisdiction
 
  the
 defendant
 to
 do
 anything
 
 
o S
  24(1)’s
  remedies
  may
  be
  granted
  only
  by
  a
  “court
  of
  competent
  o A
  simple
  declaration
  that
  the
  government
  is
  in
  default
  of
  its
  Charter
 
jurisdiction”.
 (section
 52(1)
 can
 be
 invoked
 by
 any
 court
 or
 tribunal)
  duties
 would
 almost
 invariably
 be
 obeyed,
 and
 would
 therefore
 usually
 
o a
  superior
  court,
  which
  is
  a
  court
  of
  general
  jurisdiction,
  is
  always
  a
  be
 an
 effective
 remedy
 
 
court
 of
 competent
 jurisdiction:
 R
 v
 Smith
 
 
 
o a
 trial
 court,
 even
 if
 it
 is
 not
 a
 superior
 court,
 is
 a
 court
 of
 competent
  Damages
 
 
jurisdiction
  to
  hear
  an
  application
  for
  a
  remedy
  that
  relates
  to
  the
  o The
  award
  of
  damages
  is
  sometimes
  an
  appropriate
  and
  just
  remedy
 
conduct
  of
  the
  trial,
  for
  example,
  the
  exclusion
  of
  evidence
  that
  has
  for
 a
 breach
 of
 the
 Charter
 (Vancouver
 c
 Ward
 2010)
 
been
 obtained
 in
 violation
 of
 the
 Charter
 or
 a
 stay
 of
 proceedings
 that
  o Vancouver
 City
 v
 Ward
 
 
have
 gone
 on
 for
 an
 unreasonable
 time
 
  ! Based
 on
 his
 appearance,
 police
 officers
 mistakenly
 identified
 
o an
  administrative
  tribunal
  is
  a
  court
  of
  competent
  jurisdiction
  if
  its
  W
  as
  the
  would-­‐be
  pie
  thrower,
  chased
  him
  down
  and
 
constituent
  statutes
  give
  it
  power
  to
  apply
  the
  law
  and
  the
  power
  over
  handcuffed
  him.
  W,
  ehp
  loudly
  protested
  his
  detention
  and
 
(1)
 the
 parties
 to
 the
 dispute
 (2)
 the
 subject
 matter
 of
 the
 dispute
 and
  created
  a
  disturbance,
  was
  arrested
  for
  breach
  of
  the
  peace.
 
(3)
 the
 Charter
 remedy
 that
 is
 sought:
 Weber
 
  He
  was
  the
  then
  strip
  searched
  and
  his
  car
  was
  impounded.
 

  The
 police
 had
 not
 grounds
 to
 charge
 him
 so
 he
 was
 released
 
! Range
 of
 Remedies
 
  4.5
 hours
 after
 his
 arrest
 
 
o Subject
  to
  the
  important
  qualification
  that
  the
  remedy
  must
  be
  ! The
  provinces
  strip
  search
  and
  the
  city’s
  vehicle
  seizure
 
appropriate
  and
  just
  in
  all
  the
  circumstances
  of
  the
  case,
  there
  is
  no
  violated
  W’s
  right
  to
  be
  free
  from
  unreasonable
  search
  or
 
limit
 to
 the
 remedies
 that
 may
 be
 ordered
 under
 s
 24(1)
  seizure
 under
 s
 8
 of
 the
 Charter
 
 
o They
 include
 “defensive”
 remedies,
 where
 the
 court
 nullifies
 or
 stops
  ! The
  plaintiff
  was
  awarded
  $5000
  because
  of
  the
  strip
  search
 
some
  law
  or
  act,
  for
  example,
  by
  dismissing
  a
  charge,
  staying
  a
  and
 only
 a
 declaration
 for
 the
 seizure
 of
 his
 vehicle
 
 
proceeding,
 quashing
 a
 search
 warrant
 or
 a
 committal
 or
 a
 conviction,
  ! Goals
  stated
  for
  awarding
  damages:
  (1)
  compensation,
  (2)
  deterring
 
enjoining
  an
  act,
  or
  declaring
  a
  law
  to
  be
  invalid.
  The
  exclusion
  of
  future
 violations,
 (3)vindicate
 charter
 rights.
 
 Page
 83
 of
 86
 

 
The
  language
  of
  s
  24(1)
  is
  broad
  enough
  to
  include
  the
  remedy
  of
  constitutional
  Exclusion
 of
 evidence
 
damages
  for
  breach
  of
  a
  claimant’s
  Charter
  rights
  if
  such
  remedy
  is
  found
  to
  be
  o Evidence
  that
  has
  been
  obtained
  in
  breach
  of
  the
  Charter
  may
  be
 
appropriate
 and
 just
 in
 the
 circumstances
 of
 a
 particular
 case.
 
  excluded
  as
  a
  remedy
  for
  the
  Charter
  breach,
  bit
  this
  remedy
  is
 

  regulated
  by
  s
  24(2),
  which
  provides
  that
  the
  evidence
  shall
  only
  be
 
STEPS
 TO
 DETERMINING
 DAMAGES:
  excluded
  if
  its
  admission
  “would
  bring
  the
  administration
 
  of
  justice
 
1. The
  first
  step
  in
  the
  inquiry
  is
  to
  establish
  that
  a
  Charter
  right
  has
  been
  into
 disrepute”
 
breached
  o Evidence
 that
 has
 been
 obtained
 in
 compliance
 with
 the
 Charter
 is
 NOT
 
2. The
  second
  step
  is
  to
  show
  why
  damages
  are
  a
  just
  and
  appropriate
  remedy,
  covered
  by
  s
  24(2)
  and
  yet
  in
  some
  situation
  the
  exclusion
  of
  the
 
having
 regard
 to
 whether
 they
 would
 fulfill
 one
 or
 more
 of
 the
 related
 functions
  evidence
 will
 be
 an
 appropriate
 and
 just
 remedy
 under
 s
 24(1)
 
of
 compensation,
 vindication
 of
 the
 right,
 and/or
 deterrence
 of
 future
 breaches
 
 
 
 
3. Once
  the
  claimant
  has
  established
  that
  damages
  are
  functionally
  justified,
  the
 
 
rd
state
  has
  the
  opportunity
  to
  demonstrate,
  at
  the
  3
  step,
  that
  countervailing
  Remedies
 outside
 s
 24(1)
 
factors
  defeat
  the
  functional
  consideration
  that
  support
  a
  damage
  award
  and
 
 
render
 damages
 inappropriate
 or
 unjust.
 
  ! Not
  always
  necessary
  for
  a
  court
  to
  rely
  on
  s
  24(1)
  to
  remedy
  a
  Charter
 
! Countervailing
  considerations
  include
  the
  existence
  of
  alternative
  breach
 
 
remedies.
 In
 some
 situations,
 the
 state
 may
 establish
 that
 an
 award
 of
  ! For
  example,
  in
  exercising
  a
  statutory
  discretion,
  a
  court
  may
  properly
  be
 
Charter
  damages
  would
  interfere
  with
  good
  governance
  such
  that
  influenced
 by
 a
 relevant
 Charter
 breach
 
 
damages
  should
  not
  be
  awarded
  unless
  the
  state
  conduct
  meets
  a
  ! R
 v
 Nasogaluak
 2010:
 
minimum
 threshold
 of
 gravity.
 
  o Facts:
  accused
  had
  pleaded
  guilty
  and
  been
  convicted
  of
  impaired
 
4. If
  the
  state
  fails
  to
  negate
  that
  the
  award
  is
  “appropriate
  and
  just”,
  the
  final
  driving
  and
  fleeing
  from
  the
  police,
  offences
  that
  would
  normally
 
step
 is
 to
 assess
 the
 quantum
 of
 the
 damages
 
  attract
 a
 sentence
 of
 imprisonment.
 
 
! To
  be
  “appropriate
  and
  just”,
  an
  award
  of
  damages
  must
  represent
  a
  o Instead
  trial
  judge
  granted
  him
  a
  12-­‐month
  conditional
  discharge
 
meaningful
  response
  to
  the
  seriousness
  of
  the
  breach
  and
  the
  coupled
 with
 a
 12
 month
 driving
 prohibition.
 Police
 had
 used
 excessive
 
objectives
 of
 s
 24(1)
 damages
  force
 in
 making
 the
 arrest
 and
 in
 preventing
 flight,
 and
 inflicted
 injuries
 
o Where
 the
 objective
 of
  compensation
 is
 engaged,
 the
 concern
  on
 the
 accused.
 
 
is
 to
 restore
 the
 claimant
 to
 the
 position
 he
 or
 she
 would
 have
  o Trial
 judge
 held:
 
 police
 actions
 were
 a
 breach
 of
 the
 accused’s
 s
 7
 right
 
been
 in
 had
 the
 breach
 not
 been
 committed
 
  to
 security
 of
 the
 person
 and
 a
 reduced
 sentence
 was
 an
  appropriate
 
o With
  the
  objectives
  of
  vindication
  of
  the
  right
  and
  deterrence,
  and
 just
 remedy
 for
 the
 breach
 under
 s
 24(1)
 
the
 appropriate
 determination
 is
 an
 exercise
 in
 rationality
 and
  o SCC:
  agreed
  there
  was
  a
  breach
  of
  s
  7
  which
  justified
  a
  reduced
 
proportionality.
  Generally,
  the
  more
  egregious
  the
  breach
  sentence
 but
 the
 court
 held
 the
 trial
 judge
 had
 been
 wrong
 to
 rely
 on
 s
 
and
 the
 more
 serious
 the
 repercussions
 on
 the
 claimant,
 the
  24(1)
 as
 a
 justification
 for
 the
 reduced
 sentence
 
 
higher
 the
 award
 for
 vindication
 or
 deterrence
 will
 be
 
  o Sentence
  reduction
  was
  not
  an
  appropriate
  remedy
  under
  s
  24(1),
 

  except
  in
  the
  exceptional
  case
  where
  it
  was
  the
  “sole
  effective
 
• In
  the
  end,
  s
  24(1)
  damages
  must
  be
  fair
  to
  both
  the
  claimant
  and
  the
  remedy”
  for
  a
  Charter
  breach.
  However,
  under
  normal
  sentencing
 
state.
 
  principles,
  a
  Charter
  breach
  that
  related
  to
  the
  circumstances
  of
  the
 

  offence
  or
  the
  offender
  could
  properly
  be
  taken
  into
  account
  in
 
Costs
 
  sentencing.
 
 
o The
  award
  of
  costs
  is
  sometimes
  an
  appropriate
  and
  just
  remedy
  for
  o In
  this
  case,
  the
  police
  breach
  of
  the
  accused’s
  charter
  rights
  was
 
those
  Charter
  breaches
  that
  cause
  an
  inconvenience
  or
  delay
  to
  a
  properly
 taken
 into
 account
 in
 fixing
 the
 accused’s
 sentence
 without
 
litigant
 
  the
 need
 to
 invoke
 s
 24(1).
 
 

  o COURT
 UPHELD
 THE
 REDUCED
 SENTENCE
 
 

 
 

 
 
 Page
 84
 of
 86
 

 
Appeals
 
 
 
! Section
  24(1)
  does
  not
  authorize
  an
  appeal
  from
  the
  decision
  of
  a
  court
  of
  ! The
  court
  looked
  at
  the
  language
  of
 section
  32
 and
  found
  that
  it
  does
  not
 
competent
 jurisdiction
 
  limit
  to
  only
  positive
  acts.
  It
  is
  not
  only
  to
  protect
  against
  encroachment
  on
 
! The
 existence
 of
 a
 right
 of
 appeal
 will
 depend
 upon
 the
 rules
 of
 the
 court
 to
  rights
  or
  the
  excessive
  exercise
  of
  authority,
  as
  McClung
  suggested,
  rather
  it
  is
 
which
 s
 24(1)
 application
 was
 made.
 
  a
 tool
 for
 citizens
 to
 challenge
 the
 law
 in
 all
 its
 forms.
 

 
 
Legislative
 Enforcement
 
  VANCOUVER
 (CITY)
 V
 WARD,
 2010
 SCC
 27,
 [2010]
 2
 SCR
 28
 
! Federal
 Parliament
 and
 the
 Provincial
 Legislatures,
 acting
 within
 their
 own
  FACTS:
 
legislative
  jurisdictions,
  are
  of
  course
  free
  to
  make
  whatever
  provision
  they
 
• Vancouver
 and
 British
 Columbia
 Police
 violated
 the
 Charter
 rights
 of
 
choose
  for
  the
  better
  enforcement
  of
  Charter
  rights.
  But
  the
  Charter
  of
 
Rights
 does
 not
 confer
 any
 new
 legislative
 power.
 Section
 31
 declares
 that
  the
 claimant
 due
 to
 an
 unreasonable
 search.
 
 
 
“nothing
  in
  this
  Charter
  extends
  the
  legislative
  powers
  of
  any
  body
  or
  HELD:
 
authority”
  • As
  a
  result,
  the
  trial
  judge
  awarded
  the
  complainant
  damages
  for
 
! It
 is
 clear
 from
 s
 31
 of
 the
 Charter
 that
 no
 similar
 remedial
 or
 enforcement
  the
 Charter
 breaches.
 
 
 
power
  in
  the
  federal
  Parliament
  is
  to
  be
  inferred
  from
  the
  provisions
  of
  the
  • In
  this
  case,
  the
  Supreme
  Court
  of
  Canada
  (SCC)
  considered
  whether
 
Charter.
 
  government
  actors
  can
  be
  made
  to
  pay
  financial
  damages
  to
 
! Enforcement
 of
 the
 Charter
 is
 the
 function
 of
 the
 courts,
 by
 virtue
 of
 s
 52(1)
  individuals
  after
  infringing
  upon
  their
  rights
  under
  the
  Canadian
 
or
 s
 24
 
Charter
 of
 Rights
 and
 Freedoms.
 
 
 

 
• The
  Supreme
  Court
  wrote,
  “damages
  may
  be
  awarded
 

 
 
 
 
 REQUIRED
 CASES
 FOR
 REMEDIES
 
  for
 Charter
 breach
 under
 s.
 24(1)
 where
 appropriate
 and
 just,”
 and
 
that
 in
 this
 case,
 they
 were
 justified
 in
 giving
 damages
 for
 the
 illegal
 

  search
 
 
VRIEND
 v.
 ALBERTA
 [1998]
  • Ward
  suggests
  that
  section
  24(1)
  damages,
  like
  any
  good
  Charter
 
FACTS:
 
  formulation,
 are
 awarded
 based
 on
 a
 two-­‐stage,
 multi-­‐part
 test.
 
 
! The
 plaintiff
 who
 had
 been
 discharged
 from
 his
 employment
 by
 reason
 of
 his
  o First,
 of
 course,
 it
 will
 be
 for
 the
 plaintiff
 to
 establish
 that
 his
 
homosexuality.
 The
 act
 prohibited
 discrimination
 on
 various
 grounds
 but
 didn’t
  or
 her
 Charter
 rights
 have
 been
 infringed.
 
 
cover
  sexual
  orientation.
 
  He
  claimed
  that
  there
  was
  no
  recourse
  due
  to
  the
  o Second,
  and
  more
  substantially,
  the
  plaintiff
  must
 
OMISSION
 of
 sexual
 orientation
 in
 the
 labour
 act.
 
 
demonstrate
  that
  damages
  will
  fulfill
  one
  or
  more
  of
  the
 
! SC
  reviewed
  Alberta’s
  Individual
  Rights
  Protection
  Act,
  which
  prohibited
 
discrimination
 
 
objects
 of
 s.
 24(1)
 damages:
 
 
HELD:
 
 
  1. compensating
 the
 claimant
 for
 loss
 and
 suffering;
 
 
! The
  court
  agreed
  that
  the
  omission
  of
  sexual
  orientation
  from
  the
  Act
  was
  a
  2. vindicating
 the
 right
 by
 emphasizing
 its
 importance
 
denial
  of
  the
  plaintiff’s
  equality
  rights.
  Held
  that
  the
  constitutional
  defect
  be
  and
 the
 gravity
 of
 the
 breach;
 and
 
 
cured
  by
  reading
  into
  the
  statutory
  lists
  of
  grounds
  of
  prohibited
  3. deterring
  state
  agents
  from
  committing
  future
 
discrimination
 the
 words
 “sexual
 orientation”
  breaches.
 
! Although
  severance
  takes
  away
  words
  that
  the
  legislative
  body
  enacted,
  and
  • Ward
  represents
  a
  step
  forward
  in
  the
  cause
  for
  state
  accountability
 
reading
  in
  adds
  words
  that
  the
  legislative
  body
  did
  not
  enact,
  these
  radical
  and
  protection
  of
  civil
  liberties
  by
  recognizing
  a
  civil
  action
  against
 
results
 need
 not
 be
 other
 than
 temporary
 
government
 for
 constitutional
 breach
 
o It’s
  always
  open
  to
  the
  legislative
  body
  to
  enact
  a
  new
  legislation
  if
 

 
the
  legislators
  are
  not
  content
  with
  the
  scheme
  as
  amended
  by
  the
 
courts.
 In
 this
 sense,
 the
 democratic
 legislative
 process
 retains
 the
 last
 
 
word.
 
 
 
 Page
 85
 of
 86
 

 
CHARTER
 ANSWER
 STRUCTURE
 
 

  a. Is
 the
 limit
 “prescribed
 by
 law”?
 (Consider
 whether
 the
 law
 is
 
(1)
 Application
 of
 the
 Charter:
 s
 32,
 Constitution
 Act,
 1982
  accessible,
 precise
 and
 not
 vague.
 Re:
 accessibility,
 a
 statute
 or
 
! Does
 the
 Charter
 apply
 in
 this
 situation?
  regulation
 suffices:
 Dolphin
 Delivery.
 Re:
 precision
 and
 vagueness,
 
o GOVERNMENT
 ACTION
  make
 a
 judgment
 call)
 
! S
 32-­‐
 this
 charter
 applies
  i. If
 its
 statute-­‐
 its
 prescribed
 by
 aw
 
o To
 the
 parliament
 and
 government
 of
 Canada
 in
 respect
 of
 all
  ii. If
 its
 common
 –
 depends-­‐
 make
 a
 call
 (dolphin
 delivery)
 
matters
 within
 the
 authority
 of
 parliament…
  1. Common
 law
 does
 influence
 the
 way
 a
 charter
 is
 
o To
 the
 legislature
 and
 government
 of
 each
 province
 
  interpreted
 and
 therefore
 it
 indirectly
 applies
 to
 the
 

  common
 law
 (Hill
 v
 Church
 f
 Scientology)
 
(2)
 Is
 there
 an
 override
 provision
 in
 the
 law:
 s
 33
 
 
! Note:
 Only
 mention
 this
 if
 there
 is
 an
 impugned
 Act
 (legislation).
 Does
 not
  ! The
 next
 step
 is
 to
 apply
 the
 Oakes
 test:
 
apply
 to
 government
 actions.
 
 
! Applies
 if
 your
 challenging
 the
 validity
 of
 act
 
  b. Does
 the
 legislation/action
 have
 a
 sufficiently
 pressing
 and
 substantial
 
! 5
 year
 limit
 period
 then
 re-­‐apply
 for
 the
 act
 to
 stay
 fine
 even
 if
 it
 breaches
  objective?
 
charter
  c. Does
 the
 legislation/action
 pass
 the
 proportionality
 test?
 

  i. Is
 the
 limit
 rationally
 connected
 to
 the
 legislative
 purpose?
 
(3)
 Infringement
 of
 a
 Charter
 right
  (the
 law’s
 means
 must
 contribute
 to
 the
 achievement
 of
 its
 
! The
 onus
 is
 on
 the
 applicant/claimant
 to
 demonstrate
 that
 an
 infringement
  objectives)
 
has
 occurred
 (presumption
 of
 constitutionality)
  ii. Does
 the
 limit
 minimally
 impair
 the
 right?
 (Means
 chosen
 

  must
 be
 the
 least
 restrictive
 manner
 of
 accomplishing
 the
 
a.
 What
 is
 the
 purpose
 or
 effect
 or
 the
 law/action
 (Big
 M)
  objective
 of
 the
 impugned
 provisions.
 Requires
 a
 
b.
 Does
 its’
 purpose
 or
 effect
 infringe
 a
 Charter
 right?
 [Note:
 This
 is
 where
  consideration
 of
 alternatives
 available
 to
 government.
 In
 
you
 outline
 the
 law
 of
 the
 relevant
 Charter
 right
 in
 relation
 to
 how
 what
 the
  making
 this
 assessment,
 the
 courts
 accord
 the
 legislature
 a
 
right
 protects,
 e.g.
 does
 the
 effect
 of
 the
 legislation
 infringe
 freedom
 of
  measure
 of
 deference,
 i.e.
 there
 is
 a
 margin
 of
 appreciation)
 
religion?
 To
 answer
 that,
 first
 must
 define
 what
 “religion”
 is
 as
 per
 s
 2(a)]
  (Edwards
 Books)
 

  i.
 language
 
 s
 133
  iii. Is
 the
 law
 proportionate
 in
 its
 effect?
 In
 other
 words,
 when
 

 
  ii.
 aboriginal
 s
 35
  one
 balances
 the
 harm
 done
 to
 the
 claimants’
 (list
 the
 right
 

 
  iii.
 religion
 s
 2(a)-­‐
 
  infringed)
 against
 the
 benefits
 associated
 with
 (state
 what
 the
 

 
  iv.
 s
 7
 –
 life,
 liberty
 and
 security
 of
 person
 
  impugned
 law
 essentially
 does),
 is
 the
 limit
 on
 the
 right
 

 
  v.
 equality
 s
 15
  proportionate
 in
 effect
 to
 the
 public
 benefit
 conferred
 by
 the
 
c.
 Is
 the
 infringement
 more
 than
 trivial?
 (No
 Charter
 right,
 including
  limit?
 
freedom
 of
 religion,
 is
 absolute.
 
  -­‐
 Salutary
 effects?
 
*
 where
 the
 effect
 of
 a
 law
 on
 a
 charter
 is
 trivial
 or
 insubstantial,
 there
 is
  -­‐
 Deleterious
 effects?
 
no
 breach
 of
 the
 Charter
 (r
 v
 Jones)
 –
 say
 this
 always.!
 (Charter
 prohibits
  -­‐
 Balancing
 the
 salutary
 and
 deleterious
 effects
 
only
 burdens
 or
 impositions
 on
 religious
 practice
 that
 are
 non-­‐trivial)
 (R
 v
  of
 the
 law,
 I
 conclude
 that
 the
 impact
 of
 the
 limit
 
Jones)
  on
 (name
 the
 infringed
 right)
 (is/is
 not)
 

  proportionate.
 
(4)
 Section
 1
 analysis
 (Oakes)
 
 
! Burden
 shifts
 to
 legislature/Parliament/government
 to
 justify
 violation
  d.
 
 
 
 
 Conclusion?
 (e.g.,
 Based
 on
 the
 analysis
 above,
 I
 conclude
 
 
The
 Charter
 does
 not
 guarantee
 rights
 absolutely.
 The
 violation
 may
 be
  that
 I
 conclude
 that
 the
 limit
 on
 ____
 is/is
 not
 justified
 under
 
lawful
 if
 it
 results
 in
 a
 reasonable
 limit,
 prescribed
 by
 law,
 that
 is
  s
 1)
 
demonstrably
 justified
 in
 a
 free
 and
 democratic
 society.
 
 
 Page
 86
 of
 86
 

 
(5)
 Overall
 conclusion
 
! Therefore,
 _____
 (does/does
 not)
 offend
 the
 Charter,
 and
 is
 therefore
 
constitutionally
 (valid/invalid)
 

 
(6)
 Remedies:
 ss
 24
 &
 52
 
! The
 next
 step
 would
 be
 a
 Court imposing a remedy