Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment), (1986) 16 O.A.C. 14 (DC)

• Judge: Reid, Montgomery and Ewaschuk, JJ.
• Case Date: July 16, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1986), 16 O.A.C. 14 (DC);1986 CanLII 2833 (ON SC);1986 CanLII 2833 (NB QB);55 OR (2d) 522;29 DLR (4th) 583;1 CELR (2d) 1;19 Admin LR 192;16 OAC 14;25 CRR 50

Aluminum Co. of Can. Ltd. v. Ont. (1986), 16 O.A.C. 14 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Aluminum Company of Canada Limited v. Her Majesty The Queen, in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of the Environment (respondent) and Dofasco Inc. (intervenor)

(No. 55/86)

Indexed As: Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment)

Ontario Divisional Court

Reid, Montgomery and Ewaschuk, JJ.

July 16, 1986.

Summary:

The Ontario Minister of the Environment announced new regulations allowing aluminum cans to be used for beverages. By order in council the Ontario government delayed implementation of aluminum cans for carbonated beverages for two years to allow the Hamilton, Ontario, steel industry to develop a new lightweight can for carbonated beverages. Alcan, a producer of aluminum cans, applied for a declaration that the regulations and order in council were ultra vires the powers of the government, and alternatively, that they violated ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Reid, J., dissenting, dismissed Alcan's application, holding that the regulations and order in council were intra vires and not contrary to the Charter. Reid, J., opined that the impugned legislation was not authorized by statute and therefore was ultra vires.

Civil Rights - Topic 726

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of liberty - What constitutes - The Ontario Minister of the Environment announced new regulations allowing aluminum cans for beverage containers - The government, by order in council, delayed implementation of aluminum cans for carbonated beverages for two years to allow the Hamilton, Ontario, steel industry to develop a new lightweight can - Alcan, a producer of aluminum cans, alleged that the order in council violated its right to liberty contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected Alcan's argument, because s. 7 did not protect economic rights - See paragraphs 28 to 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 908

Discrimination - Non-discriminatory laws - Respecting use of aluminum cans - The Ontario Minister of the Environment announced new regulations allowing aluminum cans for beverage containers - The government however by order in council delayed implementation of aluminum cans for carbonated beverages for two years to allow the Hamilton, Ontario, steel industry to design a new lightweight can - Alcan Co., an aluminum can producer, argued that the legislation violated the equality provisions of s. 15 of the Charter, because the legislation gave an economic advantage to others - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected Alcan's argument, because s. 15 did not apply to corporate entities and even if it did, there was no economic discrimination in this case - See paragraphs 36 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application of - Persons protected - Corporations - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the equality provisions of s. 15 of the Charter did not apply to corporate entities - See paragraph 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - The Charter, s. 7, provided that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" - The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that the concepts "life, liberty and security of the person take on a coloration by association with each other and have to do with the bodily well-being of a natural person. As such they are not apt to describe any rights of a corporation nor are they apt to describe purely economic interests of a natural person" - See paragraph 34.

Statutes - Topic 5520

Delegated legislation - Orders in council - Validity - Whether purpose of order authorized by empowering statute - The Ontario Minister of the Environment announced new regulations allowing aluminum cans for beverage containers - The government by order in council delayed the implementation of aluminum cans for carbonated beverages for two years to allow the Hamilton, Ontario, steel industry to develop a new lightweight steel can - Alcan, a producer of aluminum cans, argued that the order in council was ultra vires because it was passed with an ulterior motive: protection of the steel industry - The Ontario Divisional Court refused to declare the order in council ultra vires - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 19].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. et al. v. R. et al. - see Irving Oil Limited, Canaport Limited, Kent Lines Limited and Thorne's Hardware Limited v. National Harbours Board.

Irving Oil Limited, Canaport Limited, Kent Lines Limited and Thorne's Hardware Limited v. National Harbours Board (1983), 46 N.R. 91; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 577, consd. [paras. 23, 35, 52, 53].

Doctors Hospital and Minister of Health et al., Re (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 164, dist. [para. 25]; folld. [para. 52].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al. (1984), 5 O.A.C. 1; 48 O.R.(2d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 35].

Gershman Produce Co. Ltd. v. Motor Transport Board, [1986] 1 W.W.R. 303; 36 Man.R.(2d) 81 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Reference Re S. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (B.C.), [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, consd. [para. 30].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 30].

Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (1985), 7 C.P.R.(3d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), apprvd. [paras. 34, 38, 39, 41].

P.P.G. Industries Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. McKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, sect. 136(6) [para. 17].

Environmental Protection Act Regulations, reg. 623/85, sect. 6; reg. 633/85, sect. 1(1)(b), sect. 1(2).

Counsel:

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., for the applicant;

Thomas C. Marshall, Q.C., for the respondent;

Jeffrey S. Leon, for the Intervenor.

This application was heard on May 26 and 27, 1986, before Reid, Montgomery and Ewaschuk, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following decision of the Divisional Court was released on July 16, 1986, including the following opinions:

Montgomery, J. (Ewaschuk, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

Reid, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 45 to 55.