Attorney General of Alberta v. Plantation Indoor Plants Ltd., (1982) 34 A.R. 348 (CA)

• Judge: Lieberman, McClung and Belzil, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 27, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 34 A.R. 348 (CA)

Alta. (A.G.) v. Plantation Indoor Plants (1982), 34 A.R. 348 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Attorney General of Alberta v. Plantation Indoor Plants Limited

(No. 14478)

Indexed As: Attorney General of Alberta v. Plantation Indoor Plants Ltd.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Lieberman, McClung and Belzil, JJ.A.

January 27, 1982.

Summary:

The Attorney General of Alberta applied for an injunction to restrain the defendant from selling goods on Sundays contrary to the Lord's Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-13. The defendant had been convicted several times for breach of the Act and intended to keep on doing Sunday business. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment reported 29 A.R. 477 dismissed the application on the ground that the remedies under the Lord's Day Act had not been fully pursued. The Attorney General appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from breaching the Act pending trial.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6443

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - Matters criminal in nature - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Lord's Day Act was part of the criminal law under federal jurisdiction - See paragraph 5.

Criminal Law - Topic 5610

Punishments - Prohibition against double punishment - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the issuance of an injunction to restrain further violations of the Lord's Day Act did not constitute a double penalty for violations of the Act and did not offend s. 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraphs 7 to 9.

Injunctions - Topic 7078

Particular matters - Violation of statute - Criminal statutes - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that an injunction could be granted to restrain a breach of the criminal law, particularly the Lord's Day Act - The Court granted an injunction to restrain repeated violations of the Lord's Day Act, where previous prosecutions had not stopped the offender, who intended to keep on violating the Act - See paragraphs 5 to 6, 10 to 18 and 20 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

Attorney General for Ontario v. Hamilton Street Rly. Co., [1903] A.C. 524, refd to. [para. 5].

Robinson v. Adams (1924), 56 O.L.R. 217, refd to. [para. 5].

Regina v. Odeon Morton et al., [1974] 2 W.W.R. 1, appld. [para. 5].

United Nurses of Alberta v. A.G. (Alta.) (1980), 25 A.R. 69, appld. [para. 5].

Attorney General of Ontario v. Grabarchuk (1976), 67 D.L.R.(3d) 31, appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Turcotte, [1970] 5 C.C.C. 245 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 9].

A.G. v. Bastow, [1957] 1 All E.R. 487, consd. [para. 11].

Attorney General v. Lees & Courtney, [1932] 3 W.W.R. 533, consd. [para. 14].

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 303, consd. [para. 15].

Attorney General v. Harris, [1961] 1 Q.B. 74, consd. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 5(1)(b) [para. 8].

Lord's Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-13, sect. 4 [para. 2]; sect. 13, sect. 14 [para. 11]; sect. 16 [para. 13].

Counsel:

J.W. McFadzen, for the appellant;

R.A. Graesser, for the respondent.

This case was heard before LIEBERMAN, McCLUNG and BELZIL, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On January 27, 1982, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McCLUNG, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 19;

BELZIL, J.A. - see paragraphs 20 to 23.

LIEBERMAN, J.A., concurred with McCLUNG, J.A.