Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, (1991) 120 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 120 N.R. 241 (SCC);77 DLR (4th) 385;[1991] 1 SCR 139;[1991] SCJ No 3 (QL);120 NR 241;4 CRR (2d) 60;25 ACWS (3d) 40;1991 CanLII 119 (SCC);40 FTR 240

Commonwealth of Can. Com. v. Can. (1991), 120 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada (appellant) v. Comité pour la République du Canada - Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada, François Lépine and Christiane Deland (respondents) and Attorney General for Ontario, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, Kenneth Arthur Little and Thomas Richard Jones (intervenors)

(20334)

Indexed As: Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

January 25, 1991.

Summary:

Two members of the Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada went to Dorval Airport to distribute political propaganda. The airport manager ordered that they cease their activities because they were contrary to the Government Airport Concession Operations Regulations, ss. 7(a) and 7(b). These Regulations prohibited conducting business or soliciting and advertising in an airport. The Committee members commenced an action for a declaration that the Crown had violated their freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and that the areas open to the public at the airport constituted a public forum where fundamental freedoms could be exercised.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported [1985] 2 F.C. 3; 1 F.T.R. 71, allowed the action and granted the declaration. The Crown appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Pratte, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported [1987] 2 F.C. 68; 76 N.R. 338, dismissed the appeal, holding that the members freedom of expression was violated. The court declined to rule that an airport was a public forum. The Crown appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1787

Freedoms - Interference with freedoms - Defences - Ownership - Crown - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed extensively the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) on government property, including the concepts of "public forum" and "public arena" - Differing opinions were expressed on the approach to be taken to determine whether a particular restriction on the use of government property violates the freedom of expression - See paragraphs 1 to 280.

Civil Rights - Topic 1787

Freedoms - Interference with freedoms - Defences - Ownership - Crown - Two interest group members were ordered by an airport manager pursuant to ss. 7(a) and 7(b) of the Government Airport Concession Operations Regulations to cease distributing political propaganda - These Regulations prohibited conducting business or soliciting and advertising in an airport - The members obtained a declaration that their freedom of expression was infringed (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the members' freedom of expression was infringed - Differing opinions were expressed as to how the right was infringed - See paragraphs 1 to 280.

Civil Rights - Topic 1787

Freedoms - Interference with freedoms - Defences - Ownership - Crown - The Government Airport Concession Operations Regulations, ss. 7(a) and 7(b) prohibited conducting business or soliciting and advertising in an airport - Two constitutional questions were posed respecting the Regulations: (1) Are these sections inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter (the freedom of expression), and (2) If contrary to s. 2(b) are the provisions a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter - L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., held that ss. 7(a) and 7(b) were inconsistent with s. 2(b) and could not be justified under s. 1 - Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka and La Forest, JJ., opined that ss. 7(a) and 7(b) were not inconsistent with s. 2(b) and therefore found it unnecessary to consider the second constitutional question - Six of the seven judges expressed opinions to how they arrived at their answers to the constitutional questions - See paragraphs 1 to 280.

Civil Rights - Topic 1806

Freedom of speech or expression - General principles - Public forum - What constitutes - Airport terminals - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1787].

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.7

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Government property - [See first, second and third Civil Rights - Topic 1787].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... a vague law that infringes a guaranteed freedom under the Charter does not constitute a limit prescribed by law and must be struck for that reason alone as unconstitutional" - See paragraph 162 - Thereafter L'Heureux-Dubé, J., discussed the history and application of the void for vagueness doctrine in the context of s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 163 to 179.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, distinguished between the concepts of "vagueness" and "overbreadth" - See paragraphs 180 to 184.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 1787].

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Charter - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vagueness rule - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3107].

Statutes - Topic 1846

Titles, headings and section numbers - Titles - Lamer, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada, referred to the full title and short title of a regulation in interpreting the regulation - See paragraph 34.

Cases Noticed:

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), 307 U.S. 496, refd to. [paras. 4, 14, 16, 138, 225].

Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983), 460 U.S. 37, refd to. [paras. 4, 5, 232].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 20 et seq.].

In re A Solicitor, [1945] 1 K.B. 368, refd to. [para. 30].

O'Connor v. Nova Scotia Telephone Co. (1893), 22 S.C.R. 276, refd to. [para. 34].

DeWare v. The Queen, [1954] S.C.R. 182, refd to. [para. 34].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [paras. 37, 158, 205].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [paras. 62, 79, 88].

Palko v. Connecticut (1937), 302 U.S. 319, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 63, 93, 134].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 64, 120, 265].

R. v. Keegstra (1990), 117 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 64, 80, 82, 100, 114, 196].

Whitney v. California (1927), 274 U.S. 357, refd to. [para. 70].

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, refd to. [para. 71].

Abrams v. United States (1919), 250 U.S. 616, refd to. [para. 72].

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624, refd to. [para. 75].

Reference Re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [paras. 76, 88].

Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [paras. 78, 88].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [paras. 80, 98, 109].

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

Saumur v. City of Québec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [paras. 88, 124, 226].

Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 88].

Cromer v. B.C. Teachers' Federation, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 638, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Kopyto (1987), 24 O.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577, refd to. [paras. 97, 262].

Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 100, 165, 171-173, 183, 187].

Rocket v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Videoflicks et al. (1984), 5 O.A.C. 1; 48 O.R.(2d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

Marsh v. Alabama (1946), 326 U.S. 501, refd to. [paras. 128, 225].

Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200; 5 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 129].

PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980), 447 U.S. 74, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 135, 161, 179, 184, 195-197, 270, 271, 277].

Dupond v. City of Montréal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770; 19 N.R. 478, refd to. [para. 137].

Cox v. Louisiana (1965), 379 U.S. 536, refd to. [para. 140].

Chicago Area Military Project v. City of Chicago (1975), 508 F. 2d 921 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 149].

Rosen v. Port of Portland (1981), 641 F. 2d 1243 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 149].

U.S. Southwest Africa/Namibia Trade & Cultural Council v. United States (1983), 708 F. 2d 760 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 149].

Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974), 418 U.S. 298, refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [paras. 157, 261, 263].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 158].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al. (1990), 118 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 160].

Arcade Amusements Inc. v. Montréal, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 368; 58 N.R. 339, refd to. [para. 164].

Hamilton Independent Variety & Confectionery Stores Inc. and City of Hamilton, Re (1983), 143 D.L.R.(3d) 498 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 164].

Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979), 2 E.H.R.R. 245, refd to. [para. 167].

Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, Re (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 583, affd. 2 O.A.C. 388; 45 O.R.(2d) 80, leave to appeal granted [1984] 1 S.C.R. xi; 3 O.A.C. 318, refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. Red Hot Video Ltd. (1985), 45 C.R.(3d) 36 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. Cohn (1984), 4 O.A.C. 293; 48 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. Pelletier, [1986] R.J.Q. 595; 49 C.R.(3d) 253 (Qué.S.C.), refd to. [para. 168].

Luscher v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 F.C. 85; 57 N.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 58 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 170, 180].

R. v. LeBeau; R. v. Lofthouse (1988), 25 O.A.C. 1; 62 C.R.(3d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 172].

Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, refd to. [para. 173].

United States v. Grace (1983), 461 U.S. 171, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Videoflicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 195, 272].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks et al.

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks et al.

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 196].

Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus Inc. (1987), 107 S. Ct. 2568, refd to. [para. 201].

Roth v. United States (1957), 354 U.S. 476, refd to. [para. 205].

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), 438 U.S. 265, refd to. [para. 205].

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980), 447 U.S. 530, refd to. [para. 232].

Statutes Noticed:

Aeronautics Act Regulations, Government Airport Concession Operations Regulations, SOR/79-373, Canada Gazette, Part II, vol. 113, no. 9, p. 1980, sect. 6 [para. 36]; sect. 7(a), sect. 7(b) [paras. 1-280]; sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 19, sect. 20 [para. 36].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b) [paras. 1-280]; sect. 32 [para. 101].

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 399, art. 400 [paras. 126, 127].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 101].

Government Airport Concession Operations Regulations - see Aeronautics Act Regulations.

United States Constitution, generally [para. 70]; First Amendment [paras. 4, 84, 145, 173].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abella, Rosalie, The Social and Legal Paradigms of Equality (1989), 1 W.R. L.S.I. 5, p. 6 [para. 90].

Concise Oxford Dictionary (7th Ed.), generally [para. 30].

Cory, Hon. Justice Peter deCarteret, Freedom of Expression under the Charter: the Difficulties of Adjudicating, paper delivered at the University of Alberta Centre for Constitutional Studies (1990), generally [para. 66].

Côté, Pierre André, Interprétation des lois, 1982, pp. 38-40 [para. 35]; 216 [para. 32].

Côté, Pierre André, La préséance de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (1984), 18 R.J.T. 105, pp. 124-129 [para. 182].

Côté, Pierre André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), pp. 36-40 [para. 35]; 199 [para. 32].

Cox, Archibald, Freedom of Expression (1981), pp. 59, 60 [para. 241]; 124, 129 [para. 182].

Dienes, C. Thomas, The Trashing of the Public Forum: Problems in First Amendment Analysis (1986), 55 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 109, generally [paras. 6, 142].

Emerson, Thomas L., Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (1963), 72 Yale L.J. 877, pp. 878, 879 [para. 65].

Farber, Daniel A. and John E. Nowak, The Misleading Nature of Public Forum Analysis: Content and Context in First Amendment Adjudication (1984), 70 Va. Law Rev. 1219, generally [paras. 142, 233]; pp. 1224 [para. 143]; 1237 [para. 191].

Jakab, P., Public Forum Analysis After Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association - A Conceptual Approach to Claims of First Amendment Access to Publicly Owned Property (1986), 54 Fordham L. Rev. 545, p. 547 [para. 5].

Jeffries, John Calvin, Jr., Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes (1985), 71 Va. L. Rev. 189, generally [para. 166].

Kalven, Harry, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, [1965] Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, pp. 11, 12 [paras. 3, 139].

Lee, William E., Lonely Pamphleteers, Little People, and the Supreme Court: The Doctrine of Time, Place, and Manner Regulations of Expression (1986), 54 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 757, generally [para. 142].

MacKay, A. Wayne, Freedom of Expression: Is it All Just Talk? (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 713, pp. 719 [para. 85]; 730 [paras. 86, 95].

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (1946), p. 16 [para. 73].

Moon, Richard, Access to Public and Private Property Under Freedom of Expression (1988), 20 Ottawa L. Rev. 339, generally [paras. 132, 142]; p. 341 [para. 9].

Moon, Richard, Freedom of Expression and Property Rights (1988), 52 Sask. L. Rev. 243, generally [para. 132].

Petit Robert (1977), [paras. 29, 30].

Pinard, Danielle, Le principe d'interprétation issu de la présomption de constitutionnalité et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (1990), 35 McGill L.J. 305, generally [para. 38].

Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum (1987), 34 U.C.L.A. Law Rev. 1713, generally [para. 142].

Rogerson, Carol, The Judicial Search for Appropriate Remedies Under the Charter: The Examples of Overbreadth and Vagueness. In Charter Litigation, Edited by Robert J. Sharpe (1987), pp. 242 [paras. 162, 164]; 243, 244 [para. 164]; 259, 269 [para. 182].

Schauer, Frederick F., Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (1982), pp. 81-86 [para. 67].

Sharpe, Robert J., Commercial Expression and the Charter (1987), 37 U.T. L.J. 229, p. 236 [para. 75].

Sharpe, Robert J., Charter Litigation (1987), pp. 242 [paras. 162, 164]; 243, 244 [para. 164]; 259, 269 [para. 182].

Stroud's Legal Dictionary [para. 30].

Stuart, Don, The Canadian Void for Vagueness Doctrine Arrives with No Teeth (1990), 77 C.R.(3d) 101, generally [para. 172].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 16-25 [para. 172].

Tribe, Laurence H., American Constitutional Law (2nd Ed. 1988), pp. 789 [para. 66]; 922, 923 [para. 144]; 987 [para. 141]; 992 [para. 233]; 1022 [paras. 181, 182].

Trotter, Gary T., LeBeau: Toward A Canadian Vagueness Doctrine (1988), 62 C.R.(3d) 183, p. 188 [para. 166]; generally [para. 172].

Counsel:

Gaspard Côté, Q.C., and Claude Joyal, for the appellant;

Gérard Guay, for the respondents. D. Lepofsky, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

W. Glen How, Q.C., for the intervenors, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, Kenneth Arthur Little and Thomas Richard Jones.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gérard Guay, Hull, Québec, for the respondents;

The Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

W. Glen How & Associates, Georgetown, Ontario, for the intervenors, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, Kenneth Arthur Little and Thomas Richard Jones.

This appeal was heard on May 22, 1990, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was rendered on January 25, 1991, in both official languages including the following opinions:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 43;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 44 to 47;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 48 to 209;

Gonthier, J. - see paragraphs 210, 211;

Cory, J. - see paragraphs 212, 213;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 214 to 280.