Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec), (1981) 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 28, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1981), 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC);11 Man R (2d) 1;95 APR 1;1 CRR 59;[1981] 6 WWR 1;1981 CanLII 25 (SCC);39 NR 1;[1981] SCJ No 58 (QL);34 Nfld & PEIR 1;[1981] 1 SCR 753;125 DLR (3d) 1

Const. Amendment Ref. (1981), 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC);

    95 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Constitutional Amendment References 1981

Manitoba Constitutional Amendment Reference:

Attorney General of Manitoba (appellant) and The Attorneys General of Quebec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Four Nations Confederacy Inc. (intervenants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Attorneys General of Ontario and New Brunswick (intervenants)

Newfoundland Constitutional Amendment Reference:

Attorney General of Canada (appellant) and Attorneys General of Ontario and New Brunswick (intervenants) v. Attorney General of Newfoundland (respondent) and the Attorneys General of Quebec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta and Four Nations Confederacy Inc. (intervenants)

Quebec Constitutional Amendment Reference:

Attorney General of Quebec (appellant) and Attorneys General of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Four Nations Confederacy Inc. (intervenants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Attorneys General of Ontario and New Brunswick (intervenants)

Indexed As: Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec)

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

September 28, 1981.

Summary:

The Government of Canada proposed a resolution to the Parliament of Canada that the Queen be asked to put a bill before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the patriation of the British North America Act with an amending formula and an entrenched Bill of Rights. The unilateral proposal by the Government of Canada was opposed by all the provinces except Ontario and New Brunswick. In Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec references were made to the Courts of Appeal of those provinces challenging the proposal, claiming in essence that the Canadian Constitution could not be mended without the consent of the provinces.

The questions submitted to the Manitoba and Newfoundland Courts of Appeal were the same and were as follows:

1. If the amendments to the Constitution of Canada sought in the "Proposed Resolution for a joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada", or any of them, were enacted, would federal provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments be affected and if so, in what respect or respects?

2. Is it a constitutional convention that the House of Commons and Senate of Canada will not request Her Majesty the Queen to lay before the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a measure to amend the Constitution of Canada affecting federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments without first obtaining the agreement of the provinces?

3. Is the agreement of the provinces of Canada constitutionally required for amendment to the Constitution of Canada where such amendment affects federal-provincial relationships or alters the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments? In a judgment reported [1981] 2 W.W.R. 193; 7 Man.R.(2d) 269; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 1, the Manitoba Court of Appeal refused to answer question 1 and answered questions 2 and 3 "No". The Attorney General of Manitoba appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In a judgment reported 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 503; 82 A.P.R. 503; 118 D.L.R.(3d) 1, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal answered all three questions "Yes". The Attorney General of Canada appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The questions submitted to the Quebec Court of Appeal were as follows:

[TRANSLATION]

A. If the Canada Act and the Constitution Act 1981 should come into force and if they should be valid in all respects in Canada would they affect:

(i) the legislative competence of the provincial legislatures in virtue of the Canadian Constitution?

(ii) the status or role of the provincial legislatures or governments within the Canadian Federation?

B. Does the Canadian Constitution empower, whether by statute, convention or otherwise, the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada to cause the Canadian Constitution to be amended without the consent of the provinces and in spite of the objection of several of them, in such a manner as to affect:

(i) the legislative competence of the provincial legislature in virtue of the Canadian Constitution?

(ii) the status or role of the provincial legislatures or governments within the Canadian Federation?

The Quebec Court of Appeal answered all four parts of the two questions "Yes". The Attorney General of Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard and decided all three appeals together.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously answered question 1 of the Manitoba and Newfoundland References and question A of the Quebec Reference "Yes". The court held that the proposed federal amendments to the Constitution affected federal-provincial relations and the powers of the provinces. See paragraphs 3 to 31, 128.

The Supreme Court of Canada per Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ., answered question 2 of the Manitoba and Newfoundland References and the conventional aspects of question B of the Quebec Reference "yes", and held that there was a constitutional convention that Parliament will not seek amendments to the Constitution without obtaining the agreement of the provinces. See paragraphs 219 to 248. Laskin, C.J.C., Estey and McIntyre, JJ., dissented and were of the opinion that there was no such convention. See paragraphs 350 to 377.

The Supreme Court of Canada per Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ., answered question 3 of the Manitoba and Newfoundland References and the legal aspects of question B of the Quebec Reference "No" and held that the agreement of the provinces was not legally required for amendment of the Constitution. See paragraphs 1 to 114. Martland and Ritchie, JJ., dissented and were of the opinion that the agreement of the provinces was required. See paragraphs 129 to 218.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5

General - Canadian Constitution - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the types of components of the Canadian Constitution, stating that it included statutes, the common law or judge-made law, including Crown prerogatives, and conventions - The court noted that the statute and common law parts of the constitution are enforced by the courts, while conventions are not, because they are not judge-made and are not law - See paragraphs 221, 227 to 249.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8

General - Canada as federation - In the Constitutional Amendment Reference 1981 the Supreme Court of Canada described and discussed various aspects and the nature of Canada as a federation.

Constitutional Law - Topic 63

General - Conventions - Nature of - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed and defined the nature of constitutional conventions and rejected the notion that a convention could become crystallized into law - See paragraphs 36 to 57, 227 to 245, 357 to 358.

Constitutional Law - Topic 68

General - Conventions - Proof or establishment of - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a constitutional convention - The court stated that the issue involved 3 questions: (1) What are the precedents?; (2) Did the actors in the precedents believe that they were bound by a rule?; (3) Is there a reason for the rule? - See paragraphs 267 to 347.

Constitutional Law - Topic 109

Definitions - Convention - The Supreme Court of Canada defined the nature of a constitutional convention - See paragraphs 36 to 56, 227 to 249, 357 to 358.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1008

Interpretation of Constitution - Constitutional references - Role of the courts - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the role of the courts on a constitutional reference - See paragraphs 12, 226, 250 to 257, 264, 349 - The court noted that an appeal court can refuse to answer questions which are not justiciable - See paragraph 12 - The court stated that an appeal court can interpret or qualify the question referred - See paragraphs 226, 264 - The court stated that in a reference on constitutional conventions the court can answer the question referred, notwithstanding its political and non-justiciable aspects - See paragraphs 250 to 257, 349.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2103

Amendment of Constitution - Classification of amendments - The Supreme Court of Canada classified the types of amendments to the Canadian Constitution - See paragraphs 262 to 266, 288 to 290.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2106

Amendment of Constitution - By unilateral federal action - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canadian Constitution could be amended without the agreement of the provinces - See paragraphs 1 to 114.

Courts - Topic 5

Stare decisis - General principles - Authority and use of precedents - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there is no independent force to be found in selective quotations from a portion of reasons unless regard is had to issues raised and the context in which the quotation is found - See paragraph 53.

Courts - Topic 155

Reception of English law - Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Bill of Rights (1689) was part of the law of Canada - See paragraphs 59.

Statutes - Topic 1644

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Legislative debates - Hansard - The Supreme Court of Canada considered legislative debates in the Canadian and United Kingdom Parliaments in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraphs 62, 210, 281, 293, 307, 311 to 315, 319, 321, 367.

Statutes - Topic 1646

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Conference reports - The Supreme Court of Canada considered Imperial Conference and Dominion-provincial Conference reports in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraphs 68, 75, 78, 79, 80, 316, 331, 333 to 338.

Statutes - Topic 1647

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - White Papers - The Supreme Court of Canada considered a government White Paper in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraphs 168 to 169, 178, 268, 282, 303 to 304, 307, 323, 362, 373 to 374.

Statutes - Topic 1650

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Reports of law reform commissions and special commissions - Royal Commissions - The Supreme Court of Canada considered a Royal Commission report in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraph 98.

Statutes - Topic 1652

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Cabinet minutes - The Supreme Court of Canada considered a Privy Council minute in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraph 296.

Statutes - Topic 1654

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Speech from the Throne - The Supreme Court of Canada considered a speech from the throne is construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraph 274.

Statutes - Topic 1705

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Books and comments - Academic papers - The Supreme Court of Canada considered papers by various academic writers in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraphs 54 to 56, 58, 89, 91, 179, 185 to 186, 234 to 235, 243, 267, 271, 275, 294, 296, 357, 363, 371.

Statutes - Topic 1831

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Preamble - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the extent to which the preamble to a statute could be considered in construing the statute's meaning - See paragraph 103 - The court considered the preamble to the British North America Act in construing the Canadian Constitution - See paragraphs 102, 136, 248, 329.

Words and Phrases

Rule Of Law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the nature of the rule of law - See paragraph 103.

Cases Noticed:

Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A.C. 645, consd. [paras. 39, 356].

Reference re Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, [1936] S.C.R. 461, revd. [1937] A.C. 326, consd. [paras. 41, 94].

Labour Conventions Case, [1936] S.C.R. 461, revd. [1937] A.C. 326, consd. [paras. 41, 94].

Reference re Disallowance and Reservation of Provincial Legislation, [1938] S.C.R. 71, consd. [paras. 44, 237, 255].

British Coal Corp. v. The King, [1935] A.C. 500, consd. [para. 45].

Attorney General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd., [1976] 1 Q.B. 752, refd to. [para. 45].

Commercial Cable Co. v. Government of Newfoundland, [1916] 2 A.C. 610, dist. [para. 46].

Alexander E. Hull & Co. v. McKenna, [1926] 1 R. 402, dist. [para. 46].

Copyright Owners v. E.M.I. (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (1958), 100 C.L.R. 597, dist. [para. 46].

Blackburn v. Attorney General, [1971] 2 All E.R. 1380, dist. [para. 46].

Re British North America Act and Federal Senate, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54; 30 N.R. 271, dist. [paras. 46, 166, 226].

Senate Reference, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54; 30 N.R. 271, dist. [paras. 46, 166, 266].

Madden v. Nelson and Fort Sheppard Ry., [1889] A.C. 626, refd to. [para. 86].

Ladore v. Bennett, [1939] A.C. 468, refd to. [para. 86].

Hodge v. The Queen (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117, consd. [paras. 4, 148].

Liquidators of the Maritime Bank v. Receiver General of New Brunswick, [1892] A.C. 437, consd. [paras. 94, 149, 330].

Reference re Offshore Mineral Rights, [1967] S.C.R. 792, consd. [para. 96].

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31, consd. [paras. 98, 203].

Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co. v. The King, [1916] 1 A.C. 566, consd. [para. 152].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for Canada, [1912] A.C. 571, consd. [para. 153].

Murphy v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [1958] S.C.R. 626, consd. [para. 154].

Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for Ontario, [1937] A.C. 326, consd. [para. 158].

Re: Authority of Parliament in Relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54; 30 N.R. 271, dist. [paras. 46, 166, 226].

Amax Potash Limited et al. v. The Government of Saskatchewan, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 576; 11 N.R. 222, consd. [para. 199].

British Columbia Power Corporation Limited v. British Columbia Electric Company Limited, [1962] S.C.R. 642, consd. [para. 201].

Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, consd. [para. 204].

Reference re Waters and Water Powers, [1929] S.C.R. 200, consd. [paras. 226, 352].

Reference re The Power of the Governor General-in-Council to disallow provincial legislation and the Power of Reservation of the Lieutenant-Governor of a Province, [1938] S.C.R. 71, consd. [paras. 44, 237, 255].

Wilson v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Ry. Co., [1922] 1 A.C. 202, [para. 237].

Gallant v. The King, [1949] 2 D.L.R. 425; 23 M.P.R. 48, consd. [para. 243].

Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. and E. 1, consd. [para. 243].

Commonwealth v. Kreglinger (1925), 37 C.L.R. 393, consd. [para. 255].

Liversidge v. Anderson, [1942] A.C. 206, consd. [para. 255].

Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works, [1943] 2 All E.R. 560, consd. [para. 255].

Adegbenro v. Akintola, [1963] A.C. 614, consd. [para. 255].

Ibralebbe v. R., [1964] A.C. 900, consd. [para. 255].

Arseneau v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 136; 26 N.R. 226, consd. [para. 255].

Blaikie v. Attorney General of Quebec (1981), 36 N.R. 120, consd. [para. 255].

Reference re Magistrates' Courts of Quebec, [1965] S.C.R. 772, consd. [para. 352].

Lord's Day Alliance of Canada v. Attorney General for Manitoba, [1925] A.C. 384, consd. [para. 352].

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario v. Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada and other, [1912] A.C. 271, consd. [para. 352].

Statutes Noticed:

Act for Expediting the Decision of Constitutional and Other Provincial Questions, R.S.M. 1970, c. C-180, sect. 2 [para. 12].

Act to Define the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of the Senate and House of Commons, S.C. 1868, c. 23, sect. 1, sect. 2 [para. 190].

Bill of Rights (1689) [para. 59].

British North America Act, 1867, Preamble [paras. 102, 136, 248, 329]; sect. 9, sect. 15 [para. 228]; sect. 18 [para. 187]; sect. 91 [paras. 94, 138]; sect. 91(1) [paras. 163, 165]; sect. 92 [paras. 94, 138]; sect. 92(10)(c) [para. 95]; sect. 146 [paras. 145, 268].

British North America Act, 1871, [paras. 168, 268, 362].

British North America Act, 1875, sect. 18 [para. 57].

British North America Act, 1886 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1907 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1915 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1916 [paras. 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1927 [paras. 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1930 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1940 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1943 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1946 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1949 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1949 (2) [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1951 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1960 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

B.N.A. Act, 1964 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

Canada Act, 1981.

Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895 [paras. 268, 362].

Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865 [para. 76].

Constitution Act, 1981.

Court of Appeal Reference Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. R-23, sect. 1 [para. 12].

Judicature Act, R.S.N. 1970, c. 187, sect. 6 [para. 12].

Parliament of Canada Act, 1875 [paras. 168, 268, 362].

Rupert's Land Act, 1868 [paras. 268, 362].

Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-8, sect. 4 [paras. 58, 187, 191]; sect. 5 [paras. 58, 191].

Statute Law Revision Act, 1893 [paras. 268, 362].

Statute Law Revision Act, 1950 [paras. 268, 362].

Statute of Westminster, 1931, generally [paras. 268, 362], preamble, sect. 2(1), sect. 2(2), sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 7(1), sect. 7(2), sect. 7(3) [paras. 74, 175].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Balfour Declaration (1926) [paras. 68-71, 173].

Beauchesne, Parliamentary Rules in the Forms (5th Ed. 1958) p. 150 [para. 58].

Beaudoin, Gérald A., Le Partage des Pouvoirs, Editions de l'Université d'Ottawa, Ottawa 1980, pp. 346 [para. 326]; 349 [para. 284].

Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th Ed.), pp. 54-55 [para. 185].

Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (1st Ed. 1885) [para. 234].

Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (10th Ed.), pp. 23-24, 30-31 [para. 356].

Dominion-Provincial Conference Report (1931) [paras. 79, 80, 316, 331, 333 to 338].

Favreau, White Paper on the Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (1965) [paras. 168, 169, 178, 268, 282, 303, 304, 323, 362].

Gérin-Lajoie, Paul, Constitutional Amendment in Canada (1950), pp. 91, 92 [para. 271]; 106 [para. 275]; 129 [para. 296]; 138 [para. 91].

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (1977), pp. 7-11, [paras. 54, 356].

Holdsworth, W.S., The Conventions of the Eighteenth Century Constitution (1932), 17 Iowa L. Rev. 161 [paras. 234, 235].

Imperial Conference Report (1930) [paras. 75, 78].

Jennings, Sir. W. Ivor, The Law and the Constitution (5th Ed. 1959), p. 136 [para. 267].

Keith, A.B., Constitutional of the British Dominions (1933), p. 109 [para. 294].

Lederman, Constitutional Amendment and Canadian Unity, [1978] L.S.U.C. Special Lectures 17 [para. 55].

Lederman, Process of Constitutional Amendment in Canada (1967), 12 McGill L.J. 371 [para. 55].

Livingston, William S., Federalism and Constitutional Change (1956, Oxford University Press), pp. 61 [para. 371]; 62 [para. 363].

Martin, K.M., Comment on Gallant v. R., [1949] 2 D.L.R. 425; 23 M.P.R. 48; (1946), 24 Can. B. Rev. 434 [para. 243].

May, Parliamentary Practice (18th Ed.), p. 195 [para. 185].

May, Treatise of the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usages of Parliament (9th Ed. 1976), p. 382 [para. 58].

Munro, Laws and Conventions Distinguished (1975), 91 L.Q. Rev. 218, 224, 228 [para. 54].

Operation of Dominion Legislation Conference Report 1929 [para. 78].

Rand, Ivan, Some Aspects of Canadian Constitutionalism (1960), 38 Can. B. Rev. 135 [para. 89].

Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (1940), Book 1, pp. 29 ff. [para. 98].

Scott, F.R., Essays on the Constitution (1977), pp. 144, 169, 204-205, 245, 370-371, 402 [para. 55].

Senate-House of Commons Special Joint Committees on Constitution of Canada, Issue No. 5, August 23, 1978, p. 14, Professor Lederman [para. 283].

St. Laurent, Louis, Address on Canadian Constitution (1931), 9 Can. B. Rev. 525 [para. 179].

The Role of the United Kingdom in the Amendment of the Canadian Constitution, Background Paper Published by the Government of Canada, March, 1981, p. 30 [para. 307].

Wheare, The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status (5th Ed. 1953) [para. 73].

Counsel:

A. Kerr Twaddle, Q.C., Douglas A.J. Schmeiser and Brian F. Squair, for the appellant and intervenant Attorney General of Manitoba;

Colin K. Irving, Georges Emery, Q.C., Lucien Bouchard and Peter S. Martin, for the appellant and intervenant Attorney General of Quebec;

Gordon F. Coles, Q.C., Reinhold M. Endres and Mollie Dunsmuir, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

D.M.M. Goldie, Q.C., E.R.A. Edwards and C.F. Willms, for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Ian W.H. Bailey, for the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island;

K. Lysyk, Q.C., Darryl Bogdasavich and John D. Whyte, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

Ross W. Paisley, Q.C., and William Henkel, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Alberta;

John J. O'Neill, Q.C., John J. Ashley and James L. Thistle, for the respondent and intervenant Attorney General of Newfoundland;

D'Arcy C.H. McCaffrey, Q.C., for the Four Nations Confederacy Inc.;

J.J. Robinette, Q.C., John Scollin, Q.C., and Michel Robert, for the respondent Attorney General of Canada on the Manitoba Reference;

Clive Wells, Q.C., Barry Strayer, Q.C., and Barbara Reed, for the appellant Attorney General of Canada on the Newfoundland Reference;

Michel Robert, Raynold Langlois and Louis Reynolds, for the respondent Attorney General of Canada on the Quebec Reference;

Roy McMurtry, Q.C., D.W. Mundell, Q.C., John Cavarzan, Q.C., and Lorraine E. Weinrib, for the Attorney General of Ontario;

Alan D. Reid and Alfred R. Landry, Q.C., for the Attorney General of New Brunswick.

These cases were heard on April 28, 29, 30 and May 1 and 4, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C, MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 28, 1981, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both the English and French languages and the following opinions were filed:

LASKIN, C.J.C., DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ. - see paragraphs 1 to 114

MARTLAND and RITCHIE, JJ., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 115 to 218

MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ. - see paragraphs 219 to 349

LASKIN, C.J.C, ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., dissenting - see paragraphs 350 to 377