Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal (City), (1985) 58 N.R. 339 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 24, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 58 N.R. 339 (SCC);JE 85-414;18 DLR (4th) 161;30 ACWS (2d) 481;29 MPLR 220;58 NR 339;[1985] 1 SCR 368;[1985] SCJ No 16 (QL);1985 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal (1985), 58 N.R. 339 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Arcade Amusements Inc. v. City of Montreal and Attorney General of Quebec (mis en cause); Fountainhead Fun Centres Ltd., Nivel Sales (1969) Limited, Boules de Miel Carnaval Inc. and Zuckerman v. City of Montreal and Attorney General of Quebec (mis en cause) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(No. 16708)

Indexed As: Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montreal (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.

April 24, 1985.

Summary:

The City of Montreal passed a bylaw to control the location and operation of amusement machines and amusement halls. In particular, s. 8 of the bylaw prohibited people under the age of 18 from entering an amusement hall. Several amusement halls challenged the bylaw's validity in general; one amusement hall challenged only the validity of s. 8.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a judgment reported (1978), 4 M.P.L.R. 193, dismissed both petitions to annul. The amusement halls appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported, [1981] C.A. 469; 128 D.L.R.(3d) 579, allowed the appeals and annulled the bylaw. The city appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and held that only s. 8 and the related s. 12D were invalid, severing them from the balance. The court held that the Charter of the City of Montreal did not expressly authorize discrimination on the basis of age, so that s. 8 was ultra vires. See paragraphs 91 to 136. The court held that the balance of the bylaw was not prohibitory and invalid either territorially or subjectively. See paragraphs 27 to 76. The court held further that the bylaw was not invalid for vagueness in exempting machines designed to amuse "young children", because the term "young children" was readily understood by those dealing with the bylaw. See paragraphs 77 to 90.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6444

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - Matters not criminal in nature - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a municipal bylaw to regulate amusement halls for the purpose of protecting youth and preventing delinquency was valid and did not constitute an unconstitutional invasion of the federal jurisdiction over criminal law - The court held that the regulation of local commerce, zoning, the protection of youth and the prevention of crime were all areas within provincial authority - See paragraphs 137 to 142.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6453

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - General - Elements of criminal law - Statutes - Prohibition - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a statute which is not prohibitory cannot be within the criminal law - See paragraphs 137 to 138.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7227

Provincial jurisdiction - Property and civil rights - Land - Land use - Zoning - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a municipal bylaw to regulate amusement halls for the purpose of protecting youth and preventing delinquency was valid and did not constitute an unconstitutional invasion of the federal jurisdiction over criminal law - The court held that the regulation of local commerce, zoning, the protection of youth and the prevention of crime were all areas within provincial authority - See paragraphs 137 to 142.

Evidence - Topic 2264

Judicial notice - Human conduct - General - The Supreme Court of Canada approved a trial judge's taking of judicial notice of "human nature, the nature of things and the social conditions of his time" in determining that the purpose of a municipal bylaw to control amusement halls was to protect juveniles against exploitation and crime - In particular the court took judicial notice that adolescents with limited financial means ran a risk of undesirable influences in amusement halls - See paragraph 25.

Land Regulation - Topic 2614

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Validity - Prohibitory - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the rule that a zoning bylaw may not under the guise of zoning prohibit an activity (a part of the general rule that the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to prohibit it) - The court held that a municipal bylaw seeking to control the location and use of amusement machines and amusement halls, in particular prohibiting people under 18 from using them, was neither territorially or subjectively prohibitory - See paragraphs 27 to 76.

Municipal Law - Topic 3208

Bylaws - General - Presumption of validity - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where a Court of Appeal could not find any explanation for a bylaw, it should have presumed that the bylaw was adopted in good faith and in the public interest and held it to be valid rather than inexplicable and wrongful - See paragraph 61.

Municipal Law - Topic 3729

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Severability - A municipal bylaw sought to control the location and use of amusement halls - In particular a section of the bylaw prohibited the use of amusement halls by people under the age of 18 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the age provision was invalid, but severable from the balance of the bylaw, which was valid - See paragraphs 92 to 93.

Municipal Law - Topic 3731

Bylaws - Construction or interpretation - Purpose - A municipal bylaw sought to control the location and operation of amusement machines and amusement halls - In particular the bylaw prohibited people under the age of 18 from using an amusement hall - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of the bylaw was to protect juveniles from commercial and other exploitation and crime - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Municipal Law - Topic 3846

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds - Discrimination - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the rule that the power to make bylaws does not include the power to enact discriminatory provisions unless the enabling legislation expressly authorizes it - The court noted that to be invalid discriminatory bylaws must be unreasonable in the wide or legal sense, that is, if they are partial and unequal in operation between different classes, if they are manifestly unjust, if they disclose bad faith and if they involve such oppressive or gratuitous interference with the rights of subjects as can find no justification in the minds of reasonable men - The court held that a bylaw prohibiting those under 18 from using amusement halls was invalid discriminatory legislation, because such discrimination was not expressly authorized by the enabling statute - See paragraphs 91 to 136.

Municipal Law - Topic 3848

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds - Uncertainty or vagueness - A municipal bylaw seeking to control the location and use of amusement machines and amusement halls, exempted "apparatus designed to amuse or entertain young children" - It was alleged that the term "young children" was vague and rendered the bylaw invalid - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the term was not vague, because those dealing with the bylaw readily understood the phrase to mean machines designed to amuse only children of approximately six years of age and under - See paragraphs 77 to 90.

Municipal Law - Topic 3860

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds - Unauthorized by empowering statute - A municipal bylaw sought to control the location and use of amusement machines and amusement halls, in particular the bylaw prohibited the use of amusement halls by people under the age of 18 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the age restriction was invalid, because the enabling statute did not authorize such discrimination - See paragraphs 91 to 136.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of new evidence - To support the findings of the trial judge on an issue and to meet the objections of the court of appeal of lack of evidence on the issue a party to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada attached to its submission published material arising after the judgments of the court of appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to consider the new material, stating "that the record cannot be added to in this way at this stage" - See paragraphs 18 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Landreville v. Ville de Roucherville, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 801; 22 N.R. 407, refd to. [para. 17].

Toronto City v. Virgo, [1896] A.C. 88, dist. [paras. 28, 74].

Payne v. Prince George, City of, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 458; 15 N.R. 386, dist. [para. 75].

London Drugs Limited v. City of North Vancouver (1972), 24 D.L.R.(3d) 305, appld. [para. 80].

City of Montreal v. Morgan (1920), 60 S.C.R. 393, appld. [para. 84].

Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, appld. [para. 100].

Jonas v. Gilbert, [1881] S.C.R. 356, consd. [para. 105].

R. v. Paulowich, [1940] 1 W.W.R. 537, consd. [para. 105].

Ottawa Electric Ry. Co. Ltd. and Town of Eastview, Re (1925), 56 O.L.R. 53, consd. [para. 105].

R. ex rel. St-Jean v. Knott, [1944] O.W.N. 432, consd. [para. 105].

R. v. Flory (1889), 17 O.R. 715, consd. [para. 105].

Phaneuf v. Corporation du Village de St-Hugues (1936), 61 Q.B. 83, consd. [para. 105].

City of Montreal v. Civic Parking Centre Ltd., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 541; 41 N.R. 393, consd. [para. 105].

S.S. Kresge Co. Ltd. v. Windsor (1957), 7 D.L.R.(2d) 708, consd. [para. 105].

City of Calgary v. S.S. Kresge Co. Ltd. (1966), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 617, consd. [para. 105].

R. v. Varga (1980), 106 D.L.R.(3d) 101, consd. [para. 105].

Enterprises Anicet Gauthier Inc. v. Ville de Sept-Iles, [1983] C.S. 709, consd. [para. 105].

In re Barclay and the Municipality of the Township of Darlington (1854), 12 U.C.R. 95, consd. [para. 107].

R. v. Levy (1899), 30 O.R. 403, consd. [para. 108].

T.W. Hand Fireworks Co. Ltd. and the City of Peterborough, Re, [1962] O.R. 794, consd. [para. 109].

Fountainhead Fun Centres Ltd. v. Ville St-Laurent, [1979] C.S. 132, consd. [para. 110].

Leavey and City of London, Re (1980), 107 D.L.R.(3d) 411 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 111].

Hamilton Independent Variety and Confectionery Stores Inc. and City of Hamilton, Re (1983), 143 D.L.R.(3d) 498 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 112].

Hanson v. Ontario Universities Athletic Association et al. (1976), 65 D.L.R.(3d) 385, consd. [para. 122].

Township of Scarborough v. Bondi, [1959] S.C.R. 444, consd. [para. 126].

Wahl v. Medicine Hat (1977), 8 A.R. 367; 5 Alta. L.R.(2d) 70, revd., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 12; 27 N.R. 271, consd. [para. 127].

Hamilton v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, consd. [para. 128].

Bright and City of Langley, Re (1982), 131 D.L.R.(3d) 445 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 132].

Johnson v. A.G. of Alberta, [1954] S.C.R. 127, refd to. [para. 137].

Regent Vending Machines Ltd. v. Alberta Vending Machines Ltd., and A.G. of Alberta (1957), 6 D.L.R.(2d) 144, refd to. [para. 137].

Parkway Amusement Company Limited v. Cite de Montreal, [1958] C.S. 207, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Westendorp, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43; 46 N.R. 30; 41 A.R. 306, refd to. [para. 137].

Goldwax v. City of Montreal, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 525, refd to. [para. 137].

Citizens Insurance v. Parsons (188182), 7 A.C. 96, appld. [para. 140].

Bedard v. Dawson, [1923] S.C.R. 681, appld. [para. 140].

Adoption Act, Re, [1938] S.C.R. 398, appld. [para. 140].

Di Iorio v. Warden of the Common Jail of the City of Montreal, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 3 N.R. 361, appld. [para. 140].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128, appld. [para. 140].

Dupond v. City of Montreal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770; 19 N.R. 478, appld. [para. 140].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Lechasseur, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 253; 38 N.R. 516, appld. [para. 140].

Schneider v. British Columbia, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, appld. [para. 140].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of the City of Montreal, S.Q. 1959-60, c. 102, sect. 516, sect. 517(f), sect. 517(g), sect. 517(s), sect. 518 [para. 8]; sect. 520(6), sect. 520(7) [para. 115]; sect. 521(3), sect. 521(4), sect. 521(7) [para. 8]; sect. 521(33) [paras. 8, 55]; sect. 524(2) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cote, P.A., Le reglement municipal indetermine (1973), 33 R. du B. 474485 [para. 82].

Dussault, Rene, and Borgeat, Louis, Traite de droit administratif (1984), T.I., p. 558 [para. 104].

Pepin and Ouellette, Principes de Contentieux Administratif, p. 126 [para. 83].

Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, Redaction et interpretation des lois (1978), p. 34 [para. 103].

Rogers, Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed.), vol. 1, para. 63.16 [para. 98].

Counsel:

Neuville Lacroiz and Jean Rochette, for the appellant, City of Montreal;

Jean-J. Samson and Real A. Forest, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

James M. Mabbutt, for the Attorney General of Canada: Andre Tremblay, Michel Cote, Q.C., and Jacques Jeansonne, for the respondents, Fountainhead Fun Centres Ltd., Nivels Sales (1969) Limited, Boules de Miel Carnaval Inc. and Louis Zuckerman;

Sydney Phillips, Q.C., for the respondent, Arcade Amusements Inc.

This case was heard on March 22-24, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 24, 1985, Beetz, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada, in which Ritchie, J., did not take part.