604598 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission (Sask.), (1998) 163 Sask.R. 104 (CA)

• Judge: Cameron, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: February 05, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1998), 163 Sask.R. 104 (CA)

604598 Sask. v. Liquor & Gaming (1998), 163 Sask.R. 104 (CA);

    165 W.A.C. 104

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.022

The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (appellant) v. 604598 Saskatchewan Ltd., carrying on business under the name of "The Great Canadian Superbar" (respondent) and the Attorney General for Saskatchewan (interested party)

(No. 2670)

Indexed As: 604598 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission (Sask.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Cameron, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.

February 5, 1998.

Summary:

Allegations were made that the Great Canadian Superbar (the Superbar) served free drinks contrary to the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Licensee Policy Manual and had performances by male strippers contrary to s. 54(1)(b) of the Alcohol Con­trol Regulations, 1994. The Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission upheld a decision to suspend the Superbar's restaurant permit with lounge endorsement for a five day period. The Superbar applied to quash the decision and for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Commission from commenc­ing or continuing any further proceedings respecting the decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 153 Sask.R. 167, concluded that s. 54(1)(b) contravened s. 2(b) of the Charter and was void and of no force and effect. The court ordered the Commission's decision to be quashed. The court held that a writ of prohibition would be inappropriate given its finding respecting s. 54(1)(b). The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Cameron, J.A., dissenting, allowed the ap­peal and restored the suspension imposed by the Commission, holding that the Superbar lacked standing to challenge the constitu­tional validity of s. 54(1)(b).

Editor's note: for a related decision involv­ing the same parties see 152 Sask.R. 201; 140 W.A.C. 201.

Civil Rights - Topic 1801

Freedom of speech or expression - General principles - Expression - What constitutes - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Cameron, J.A., in a dissenting judgment, held that a striptease performance consti­tuted an "expression" within the meaning of s. 2(b) of the Charter - See paragraphs 165 to 175.

Civil Rights - Topic 1844

Freedom of speech or expression - Limita­tions on - Entertainment - A bar's permit was suspended for contravening s. 54(1)(b) of the Alcohol Control Regulations - Sec­tion 54(1)(b) provided that "[i]t is a term and condition of every permit that no permittee shall permit or allow in the permitted premises ... any activity or enter­tainment that consists of a striptease per­formance or wet clothing contest." - The trial judge held that s. 54(1)(b) contra­vened s. 2(b) of the Charter - The ac­tivities in question fell within the scope of "freedom of expression" - The purpose and effect of s. 54(1)(b) was to restrict either the content of expression or a form of expression or to control the entertainers' ability to do so and thus limited the free­dom of expression - It was not demon­strated that s. 54(1)(b) was demonstrably justified under s. 1 - Cameron, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in dissent, would have affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 164 to 204 - The majority of the court allowed the appeal on other grounds.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reviewed the law respect­ing the standing of a litigant to challenge the constitutional validity of a law and the effect of public interest standing on stand­ing as of right - See paragraphs 14 to 28 - The court stated that "... standing as of right remains a separate means of gaining access to the courts with a different thresh­old and rules than public interest standing. An applicant may assert personal excep­tional prejudice or, if charged with a crim­inal offence, that a third party's rights are infringed unconstitutionally by the law under which the charge is laid." - See paragraph 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the relevance of an evidential base in determining a liti­gant's standing to challenge the constitu­tional validity of a law - See paragraphs 29 to 33 - The court stated that "... a court should be cautious about mixing questions of standing and the sufficiency of the evidence. It would be inappropriate for a court to refuse standing in a manner which indicated the litigant would have standing if he or she had a better evidentiary base. ... Nonetheless, based on Hy and Zel's [S.C.C.], there is a point where a person will be refused standing because the lack of evidence demonstrates to the court that there is a more reasonable and effective manner to challenge the impugned law." - See paragraph 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - A bar's permit was suspended on the basis that, inter alia, it contravened s. 54(1)(b) of the Alcohol Control Regulations - Section 54(1)(b) provided that "[i]t is a term and condition of every permit that no permittee shall permit or allow in the permitted premises ... any activity or entertainment that con­sists of a striptease performance or wet clothing contest." - The bar challenged the constitutional validity of s. 54(1)(b) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the bar lacked standing as of right, where it was not "exceptionally prejudiced" by s. 54(1)(a)'s prohibition - Section 54(1)(a) did not affect the bar differently then any other holder of a liquor licence - The bar was not entitled to standing on the basis of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (S.C.C.), where no one could be charged with an offence under s. 54(1)(b) - See paragraphs 2, 34 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - A bar's permit was suspended for, inter alia, contravening s. 54(1)(b) of the Alcohol Control Regula­tions - Section 54(1)(b) provided that "[i]t is a term and condition of every permit that no permittee shall permit or allow in the permitted premises ... any activity or entertainment that consists of a striptease performance or wet clothing contest." - The bar asserted that s. 54(1)(b) contra­vened the s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the bar lacked public interest standing, because the performers were better able to challenge the constitu­tional validity of s. 54(1)(b) - Alter­natively, granting standing to the bar to argue that s. 54(1)(b) infringed the per­formers' freedom of expression without evidence from the performers could lead to questionable results based on incomplete evidence - See paragraphs 3, 45 to 74.

Constitutional Law - Topic 28

General - Raising constitutional issues - Status of party to raise constitutional issue - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2561

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Evidence and proof - General - [See second and fourth Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Practice - Topic 205

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - General - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Practice - Topic 219

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - Validity or interpretation of legislation - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See first and fourth Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Cases Noticed:

Smith v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1924] S.C.R. 331, refd to. [para. 14].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 632; 32 C.R.N.S. 376, refd to. [para. 15].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice) and Canada (Minister of Finance), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 24 C.P.C. 62; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588, refd to. [para. 15].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 23 Admin. L.R. 197; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 289; 8 C.H.R.R. D/3789, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 18, 131].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [paras. 18, 102].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 451; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 36, refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, appld. [paras. 18, 156].

Hy and Zel's Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 18, 155].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto et al. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 321; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 57, 188].

Fry (Elizabeth) Society of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Legal Aid Commission (Sask.) (1988), 72 Sask.R. 1; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 95 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board (N.B.), New Brunswick (Attorney Gen­eral) and Saskatchewan (Attorney Gen­eral), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328, appld. [paras. 66, 75, 101].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 686; 50 C.R.R. 59; 74 O.R.(2d) 763, refd to. [paras. 67, 194].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 43 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Ludacka (R.) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 241; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 565 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Saskatchewan Power Corp. v. John Doe et al., [1988] 6 W.W.R. 634; 69 Sask.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Labour Relations Board (Sask.) v. East (John) Iron Works Ltd., [1949] A.C. 134; [1948] 2 W.W.R. 1055 (P.C.), consd. [para. 133].

Central Canada Potash Co. and Canada (Attorney General) v. Saskatchewan, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 42; 23 N.R. 481; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Westfair Foods Ltd. and Canada Safeway Ltd. (1989), 80 Sask.R. 33; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 577; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 11 C.R.(4th) 137; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 169].

Koumoudouros et al. v. Toronto (1984), 2 O.A.C. 54; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 523 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 171].

Nordee Investments Ltd. v. Burlington (City) (1984), 4 O.A.C. 282; 27 M.P.L.R. 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 174].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Mani­toba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, refd to. [para. 202].

Corporation professionnelle des Médicins du Québec v. Thibault, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1033; 84 N.R. 247; 14 Q.A.C. 173, refd to. [para. 203].

Statutes Noticed:

Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Act Regu­lations (Sask.), Alcohol Control Regula­tions, 1994, Reg. 3, sect. 54(1)(b) [paras. 6, 40, 86].

Alcohol Control Regulations - see Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Act Regulations (Sask.).

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2 [para. 91].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) [para. 110].

Bogart, W.A., Standing and the Charter: Rights and Identity, in Robert J., Charter Litigation (1987), p. 1 [para. 51].

Bogart, W.A., Understanding Standing, Chapter IV: Minister of Finance of Can­ada v. Finlay (1988), 10 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 377, generally [para. 51].

Bowal, Peter, and Cranwell, Mark, Case Comment: Persona Non Grata: The Supreme Court of Canada Further Con­strains Public Interest Standing (1994), 33 Alta. L. Rev. 192, generally [para. 49].

Cromwell, Thomas A., From Trilogy to Quartet: Minister of Finance of Canada v. Finlay (1987), 7 Windsor Y.B. Access Justice 103, p. 114 [para. 56].

Cromwell, Thomas A., Locus Standi: A Commentary on the Law of Standing in Canada, p. 7 [para. 1].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.), c. 56, p. 56-3 [para. 112].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada, p. 5-22 [para. 32].

Ross, June, Further Restrictions on access to Charter Review: A Comment on Hy and Zel's Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney Gen­eral) (1994), 5 Constitutional Forum 22, generally [para. 49].

Ross, June, Nude Dancing and the Charter, Review of Constitutional Studies, vol. 1, No. 2, p. 298 [para. 203].

Counsel:

D. Kovatch, for the Liquor and Gaming Authority;

S. Folkins, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

R. Dumonceaux, for the respondent;

P. Koskie, for the Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission.

This appeal was heard on May 8 and 9, 1997, before Cameron, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On February 5, 1998, the judgment was delivered for the Court of Appeal and the following opinions were filed:

Jackson, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 74;

Lane, J.A. - see paragraphs 75 to 79;

Cameron, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 80 to 204.