Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Alberta Provincial Court and Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al., (1982) 35 A.R. 132 (CA)

• Judge: Prowse, Haddad and Laycraft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: February 17, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 35 A.R. 132 (CA)

Cdn. Nat. Transportation v. Alta. Provincial Court (1982), 35 A.R. 132 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Canadian National Transportation Limited and Canadian National Railway Company v. Alberta Provincial Court and Attorney General of Canada; R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al.

Indexed As: Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Alberta Provincial Court and Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Prowse, Haddad and Laycraft, JJ.A.

February 17, 1982.

Summary:

Canadian National Transportation and C.N.R. appealed from a dismissal of their application for an order to prohibit the Attorney General for Canada from prosecuting them on a charge under s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23 - see sub nom Canadian Pacific Transport Company Limited and Paulley v. Alberta Provincial Court and Attorney General of Canada; R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al. (1982), 32 A.R. 422.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that the matter was criminal in nature and therefor under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces to prosecute.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6443

Federal jurisdiction and enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Criminal law - General - Matters held criminal in nature - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that generally the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, and in particular s. 32(1)(c) is within the competence of the Parliament of Canada under s. 91(27)(criminal law) of the British North America Act - See paragraph 32.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7402

Provincial jurisdiction and enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act - Administration of justice - General principles - Extent of subject matter - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute matters under the Combines Investigation Act, because it was federal legislation falling under the criminal law power in s. 91(27) of the British North America Act - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5662

Federal jurisdiction and enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Regulation of trade and commerce - What constitutes trade and commerce - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23 and in particular s. 32(1)(c) cannot be supported as a valid exercise of federal power under the regulation of trade and commerce in s. 91(2) of the British North America Act - See paragraphs 33 to 77.

Constitutional Law - Topic 4606

Peace, order and good government clause - General principles - Matters not included - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, cannot be supported as a valid exercise of federal power under the peace, order and good government clause - See paragraphs 79 to 81.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hauser, [1977] 6 W.W.R. 501; 7 A.R. 84; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 129 (Alta. C.A.), revd. [1979] 1 S.C.R. 484; 16 A.R. 91; 26 N.R. 541, consd. [paras. 6, 7, 89].

R. v. Aziz (1981), 35 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 11].

Proprietary Articles Trade Assn. v. A.G. for Canada, [1931] A.C. 310, consd. [para. 24].

Reference as to the Validity of the Combines Investigation Act (1927) and s. 498 of the Criminal Code, [1929] S.C.R. 409, consd. [paras. 27, 30].

Reference as to the Validity of s. 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Reference), [1949] 1 S.C.R. 1, consd. [para. 29].

Citizens Insurance Company of Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 A.C. 96, consd. [para. 34].

Labatts Breweries of Canada v. A.G. of Canada (1979), 30 N.R. 496, consd. [para. 40].

Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider, [1925] A.C. 396 (P.C.), consd. [para. 43].

A.G. Canada v. A.G. Ontario (Labour Conventions), [1937] A.C. 326 (P.C.), consd. [paras. 43, 82].

A.G. Ontario v. Barfried Enterprises, [1963] S.C.R. 570, consd. [para. 43].

Vapor Canada v. MacDonald, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134; 7 N.R. 477; 33 D.L.R.(3d) 434, consd. [paras. 43, 57, 60].

R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co., [1925] S.C.R. 434, refd to. [para. 47].

Re Board of Commerce Act, [1920] S.C.R. 456, refd to. [para. 53].

Reference re Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, [1936] S.C.R. 379, consd. [para. 68].

Reference re National Products Marketing Act 1934, [1936] S.C.R. 398, consd. [para. 82].

Re the matter of a Reference concerning the validity of the Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 83].

R. v. Campbell (1964), 46 D.L.R.(2d) 83, appld. [para. 88].

Statutes Noticed:

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 32(1)(c) [paras. 1 to 4, 14, 76, 77]; sect. 15(2) [paras. 4, 5]; sect. 32(1)(e) [para. 12]; sect. 31.2 [para. 23]; sect. 31.5 [para. 76]; sect. 28, sect. 29, sect. 30, sect. 31, sect. 31.1, sect. 31.2, sect. 31.3, sect. 31.4 [paras. 70, 71].

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [paras. 4, 6, 7, 12, 32, 75, 76, 87]; sect. 91(2) [paras. 33, 44, 49, 55, 56, 62, 63, 70, 71, 76, 77]; sect. 91(13), sect. 91(22) [para. 71].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 2(a) [para. 4]; sect. 2(b) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, pp. 88 [para. 85]; 241 [para. 79].

Counsel:

A.D. MacLeod and W.C. Hunter, for the Crown for the Attorney General of Canada;

W. Henkel, Q.C., for the intervenant;

R.W. Lusk and P.G. Foy, for Canadian National;

N. Mullins, Q.C. and L. Taylor, for Canadian Pacific and Kenneth Paulley.

This appeal was heard before PROWSE, HADDAD and LAYCRAFT, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On February 17, 1982, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by PROWSE, J.A.