Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Knapp v. Quebec Police Commission, (1979) 28 N.R. 541 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 20, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 28 N.R. 541 (SCC);14 CPC 60;48 CCC (2d) 289;101 DLR (3d) 24;28 NR 541;1979 CanLII 24 (SCC);[1979] 2 SCR 618

CBC v. Que. Police Comm. (1979), 28 N.R. 541 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Knapp v. Quebec Police Commission

Indexed As: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Knapp v. Quebec Police Commission

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

June 28, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of an order by the Quebec Police Commission directing the C.B.C. and one of its employees to appear before the Commission to answer a charge of contempt. The C.B.C. and its employee broadcast the picture of a witness before the Commission contrary to an order of the Commission. The C.B.C. and its employee applied for a writ of evocation to declare the order requiring them to appear on the contempt charge void. The Quebec Superior Court granted the application. On appel the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the order was valid. The C.B.C. and its employee appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the order of the Police Commission was beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec Police Commission had no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into and punish a contempt not committed before the Commission, but ex facie.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8618

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - British North America Act, 1867, s. 96 - Provincial legislation granting contempt powers to boards and tribunals - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a provincial legislature may not confer on a provincial tribunal the power to conduct an inquiry concerning a contempt committed ex facie and to punish such a contempt - See paragraphs 38 to 42.

Contempt - Topic 5504

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Superior courts - The Supreme Court of Canada held that superior courts have inherent jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into and punish contempt ex facie - See paragraphs 15 to 35.

Contempt - Topic 5506

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Inferior courts - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, although inferior courts have inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt in their presence, they do not have inherent jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into and punish contempt ex facie - The Supreme Court of Canada held that inferior courts must rely on superior courts to protect them from contempt ex facie - See paragraphs 15 to 35.

Contempt - Topic 5508

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Boards and tribunals - The Supreme Court of Canada held that boards and tribunals have no power to punish for contempt unless such a power is given to them by statute - The Supreme Court of Canada held that they only have the power to maintain order by expelling disorderly persons - See paragraphs 27 to 37.

Statutes - Topic 2256

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Presumption that legislature intends to act within jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there is a presumption that a legislative body intends to confine itself to its own jurisdiction and that general words in a statute are not intended to extend its operation beyond the territorial authority of the legislature - See paragraphs 41, 42.

Cases Noticed:

National Harbour Commission v. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R. 60, refd to. [paras. 7 and 63].

Saulnier v. Quebec Police Commission (1975), 6 N.R. 541; [1976] 1 S.C.R. 572, refd to. [paras. 10 and 66].

R. v. Almon (1765), 97 E.R. 94, appld. [paras. 16 and 72].

R. v. Clement (1821), 4 B. & Ald. 218, appld. [paras. 18 and 74].

W.I. Clement, In the matter of (1822), 11 Price's 68, appld. [paras. 18 and 74].

Ex parte Pater (1864), 5 Best and Smith Q.B. 297, appld. [paras. 22 and 78].

R. v. Lefroy (1873), 8 L.R.Q.B. 134, appld. [paras. 23 and 79].

Ex parte Fernandez (1861), 30 C.P. 321, consd. [paras. 25 and 81].

R. v. Davies, [1906] 1 K.B. 32, appld. [paras. 26 and 82].

In re Gerson, In re Nightingale, [1946] S.C.R. 538, appld. [paras. 29 and 85].

In re Gerson, [1946] S.C.R. 547, appld. [paras. 29 and 85].

Ex p. Lunan, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 589, appld. [paras. 30 and 86].

Procureur général de la Province de Québec v. Denis, [1966] C.S. 467, appld. [paras. 31 and 87].

Re Hawkins and Halifax County Residential Tenancies Board (1974), 19 N.S.R.(2d) 327; 24 A.P.R. 327; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 117, appld. [paras. 33 and 89].

Re Diamond and Ontario Municipal Board, [1962] O.R. 328, refd to. [paras. 33 and 89].

McKeown v. The Queen, [1971] S.C.R. 446, refd to. [paras. 33 and 89].

Re Regina and Monette (1976), 64 D.L.R.(3d) 470, refd to. [paras. 35 and 91].

A.G. of Quebec and Keable v. A.G. of Canada (1978), 24 N.R. 1; [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218, appld. [paras. 36 and 92].

Farrah v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, appld. [paras. 39, 95, 115 and 120].

Séminaire de Chicoutimi v. City of Chicoutimi, [1973] S.C.R. 681, appld. [paras. 39 and 95].

Tomko v. Labour Relations Board (1976), 7 N.R. 317; 10 N.R. 35; 14 N.S.R.(2d) 191; 11 A.P.R. 191; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 112, dist. [paras. 40, 96]; refd to. [paras. 115, 120].

McKay v. The Queen, [1965] S.C.R. 798, appld. [paras. 42 and 98].

C.T.C.U.M. v. Syndicat du Transport de Montreal, [1977] C.A. 476, appld. [paras. 50 and 106].

Cotroni v. Quebec Police Commission (1977), 18 N.R. 541; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1048, appld. [paras. 51 and 107].

Jones v. Board of Trustees of Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7 (1976), 11 N.R. 280; 1 A.R. 100; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 872, refd to. [paras. 115 and 120].

Corporation of the City of Mississauga v. Regional Municipality of Peel (1979), 26 N.R. 200, refd to. [paras. 115 and 120].

Reference re the Farm Products Marketing Act, [1957] S.C.R. 198, appld. [paras. 41 and 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Police Act, S.Q. 1968, c. 17, sect. 8, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 19, sect. 20, sect. 21 [paras. 10 and 66]; sect. 22 [paras. 11 and 67].

Public Inquiry Commission Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 11, sect. 7, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12 [paras. 12 and 68].

Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, art. 46, art. 49, art. 50, art. 51, art. 52, art. 53, art. 54 [paras. 13, 69]; art. 847 [paras. 2, 58].

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 96 [paras. 39 and 94].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (18th Ed. 1829), vol. 4, pp. 283-286 [paras. 19, 21, 75, 77].

Oswald, Contempt of Court (3rd Ed. 1911), pp. 1-21 [paras. 27 and 83].

Counsel:

Gaspard Cote, Q.C., for the appellants;

Jacques Richard and Gerald Tremblay, for the respondents.

This case was heard on December 20, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 28, 1979, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

BEETZ, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 56 (English language) and paragraphs 57 to 112 (French language);

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 113 to 117 (English language) and paragraphs 118 to 122 (French language).

LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ. concurred with BEETZ, J.

MARTLAND, J. concurred with DICKSON, J.