Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, (1990) 111 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 21, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 111 N.R. 161 (SCC);JE 90-962;47 CRR 193;71 DLR (4th) 68;111 NR 161;40 OAC 241;21 ACWS (3d) 958;[1990] 2 SCR 232;73 OR (2d) 128;[1990] SCJ No 65 (QL);1990 CanLII 121 (SCC);[1990] ACS no 65

College of Dental Surgeons v. Rocket (1990), 111 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and The Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (appellants) v. Howard Rocket, D.D.S., and Brian Price, D.D.S. (respondents) and Attorney General of Quebec (intervener)

(21019)

Indexed As: Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.

June 21, 1990.

Summary:

Two dentists founded the Tridont Dental Centres which operated dental offices in shopping malls. The dentists appeared in a two-page advertisement in several national magazines. The advertisement discussed the development and rapid growth of Tridont and stated that the founders when travelling for business stayed at the Holiday Inn motel chain. The Discipline Committee of The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario brought two charges against the dentists under the Health Disciplines Act Regulations: (1) a charge of professional misconduct for advertising the practice of dentistry (s. 37(39)), and (2) a charge of professional misconduct for acting in a disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional manner (s. 37(40)). The dentists applied for judicial review seeking a declaration that regulations 37(39) and 37(40) were unconstitutional as being contrary to the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter and for an order prohibiting the Discipline Committee from proceeding with the charges.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in an unreported endorsement on the record, dismissed the application. The dentists appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Dubin, A.C.J.O., dissenting, allowed the appeal in part and prohibited the Discipline Committee from proceeding on the first charge (see 27 O.A.C. 52). The court held firstly that commercial advertising was within the scope of s. 2(b) of the Charter; secondly that the extensive prohibition on advertising by dentists in s. 37(39) of the Health Disciplines Act Regulations was contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter and of no force and effect; and thirdly that s. 37(39) could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The court held further that the Discipline Committee was free to proceed on the second charge which was based on s. 39(40) of the Regulations. The Royal College of Dental Surgeons and the Discipline Committee appealed the court's decision respecting s. 37(39). The dentists did not cross-appeal the court's decision respecting s. 39(40).

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that s. 37(39) infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1. The court struck down s. 37(39) under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Civil Rights - Topic 1847

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Regulation of advertising and commercial use of language - The Supreme Court of Canada set out three considerations in determining whether a limitation on commercial advertising violates s. 2(b) of the Charter (the freedom of expression provision) - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Civil Rights - Topic 1847

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Regulation of advertising and commercial use of language - Dentists - The Health Disciplines Act Regulations, s. 37(39), regulated advertising by dentists in Ontario - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 37(39) infringed s. 2(b) (the freedom of expression provision) of the Charter by prohibiting legitimate forms of expression and by purposively limiting the content of that expression - The court held that s. 37(39) could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter and struck down the section under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Civil Rights - Topic 1855

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Regulation of professionals - Dentists - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1847].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1847].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Charter - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1847].

Civil Rights - Topic 8469

Charter - Interpretation - United States experience - The Supreme Court of Canada examined United States jurisprudence under the First Amendment in determining the extent that commercial advertising falls within the ambit of s. 2(b) of the Charter (the freedom of expression provision) - See paragraphs 16 to 19.

Medicine - Topic 7246

Dentists - Discipline - Advertising - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1847].

Cases Noticed:

Klein and Dorvak v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1985), 8 O.A.C. 161; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 489, refd to. [para. 6].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, appld. [paras. 14, 20].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. v. Quebec (Procureur général).

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, appld. [paras. 14, 20, 21, 24, 29, 31, 32, 41].

Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), 316 U.S. 52, refd to. [para. 16].

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976), 425 U.S. 748, refd to. [paras. 16, 18].

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980), 447 U.S. 557, refd to. [para. 17].

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), 433 U.S. 350, refd to. [paras. 17, 18].

Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners (1935), 294 U.S. 608, refd to. [para. 18].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; refd to. [para. 22].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 28].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 4, 27-42]; sect. 2(b) [para. 4 et seq.].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [paras. 43-49].

Health Disciplines Act Regulations, R.R.O. 1980, sect. 37(39) [para. 3 et seq.]; sect. 37(40) [paras. 3-9].

United States Constitution, First Amendment [paras. 16, 17].

Counsel:

R.E. Shibley, Q.C., and H. Travassos, for the appellants;

M. Teplitsky, Q.C., for the respondents;

Jean Bouchard and Marise Visocchi, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Shibley, Righton & McCutcheon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Teplitsky, Colson, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

Attorney General of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on March 22, 1990, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier  and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the court was delivered on June 21, 1990, in both official languages, by McLachlin, J.: