Canadian Pacific Transport Co. Ltd. and Paulley v. Alberta Provincial Court and Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al., (1980) 32 A.R. 422 (QB)

• Judge: Medhurst, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 16, 1980
• Citations: (1980), 32 A.R. 422 (QB)

Cdn. Pacific v. Provincial Court (1980), 32 A.R. 422 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Canadian Pacific Transport Company Limited and Paulley v. Alberta Provincial Court and Attorney General of Canada; R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al.

(Nos. 8001 15306; 8001 18003)

Indexed As: Canadian Pacific Transport Co. Ltd. and Paulley v. Alberta Provincial Court and Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Alltrans Express Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Medhurst, J.

December 16, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of charges under s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23. The Provincial Court judge ruled that the Attorney General of Canada had jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings.

The applicants applied to prohibit the Provincial Court judge from permitting the proceedings to continue.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The court held that the Attorney General of Canada had the power to prosecute the proceedings.

Criminal Law - Topic 5675

Federal jurisdiction and enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Regulation of trade and commerce - Maintenance of competition - Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that an offence under s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act, which was valid federal legislation under the authority to regulate trade and commerce, may be prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada - See paragraphs 25 to 34.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6503

Federal jurisdiction and enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act - Criminal law - Respecting particular matters - Maintenance of competition - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that case law generally supports the proposition that the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, can be supported under the criminal law power of the federal government - See paragraph 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hauser et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 481, revsing [1977] 6 W.W.R. 501; 7 A.R. 89; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 129, revsing 7 A.R. 240, consd. [paras. 13, 15].

Proprietary Articles Trade Assn. v. A.G. Can., [1931] A.C. 310, consd. [paras. 13, 22].

R. v. Pelletier (1974), 28 C.R.N.S. 129; 4 O.R.(2d) 677, refd to. [para. 14].

Board of Commerce, [1922] 1 A.C. 191, consd. [para. 22].

Citizens' Insurance Company of Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 App. Cas. 96, consd. [para. 26].

Constitutionality of the Competition Bill, [1976] 1 Can. Business L.J. 197, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd. (1980), 14 C.R.(3d) 289, consd. [para. 27].

Re Anti-Inflation Act (1976), 9 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Klassen (1959), 20 D.L.R.(2d) 406, consd. [para. 29].

Caloil Inc. v. A.G. Can., [1971] S.C.R. 543, consd. [para. 29].

Vapor Canada Ltd. v. MacDonald et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134; 7 N.R. 477, consd. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 32(1)(c) [paras. 1, 7, 32, 34]; sect. 15(2) [para. 7].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 2 [para. 8].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 27(2) [para. 9].

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 92(14) [paras. 10, 12, 13]; sect. 91(21) [paras. 12, 26]; sect. 92(13) [para. 12]; sect. 91(27) [paras. 12, 13, 17, 19].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 [paras. 13, 16, 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hoggs, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1977), p. 281 [para. 31].

Counsel:

N.D. Mullins, Q.C., for Canadian Pacific Transport Company Limited;

R.W. Lusk, for Canadian National Transportation, Limited;

A.D. MacLeod, for the Crown.

This case was heard before MEDHURST, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on December 16, 1980.