Cosyns v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1992) 53 O.A.C. 127 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, Steele and Rosenberg, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: January 23, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 53 O.A.C. 127 (DC)

Cosyns v. Can. (A.G.) (1992), 53 O.A.C. 127 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Andre Cosyns (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (defendants/appellants)

(No. 234/91)

Indexed As: Cosyns v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, Steele and Rosenberg, JJ.

January 23, 1992.

Summary:

A tobacco farmer brought an action claim­ing that the federal Excise Act and Excise Tax Act and the provincial Retail Sales Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act were ultra vires. The farmer claimed government taxation of tobacco violated his equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter and his right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7. The farmer claimed entitlement to a monetary damage award under s. 24 of the Charter. The defendants (the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario) applied to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to determine whether the challenged statutes were ultra vires or violated s. 7 or 15 of the Charter.

Henry, J., of the Ontario Supreme Court, dismissed the defendants' application. The defendants applied for leave to appeal.

Farley, J., of the Ontario Supreme Court, granted leave to appeal respecting ss. 7 and 15, but denied leave to appeal the vires of the statutes. The defendants appealed the refusal to dismiss the action.

The Ontario Divisional Court held that there was no possibility that the s. 7 or 15 arguments could succeed, accordingly, all references to those sections were to be struck from the statement of claim. The farmer's action was accordingly limited to a challenge to the vires of the statutes.

Civil Rights - Topic 933

Discrimination - Government programs - Taxation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5672 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5672

Equality and protection of the law - Tax­ation - A tobacco farmer claimed the taxation of tobacco products was discrimi­natory contrary to s. 15 of the Charter - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that the distinction for taxation purposes between different types of products was not discrimination - The court stated that "neither the plaintiff's occupation as a tobacco farmer, nor his participation in the tobacco industry, can be considered a ground of discrimination analogous to the characteristics listed in s. 15(1)" - The court added that "a classification based on occupation is not a personal characteristic ... for the purposes of s. 15(1)" - See paragraphs 28 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8546 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - A tobacco farmer claimed government taxation of tobacco products violated his right to life, liberty and secu­rity of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, because it affected his right to earn a livelihood - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that s. 7 related to a person's physi­cal and mental integrity and did not guar­antee economic interests such as earning a livelihood - Alternatively, even if s. 7 applied, the farmer failed to provide any basis for finding that the infringement was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice as also required under s. 7 - See paragraphs 19 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamen­tal justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8546 ].

Practice - Topic 8804

Appeals - Duty of appellate court re dis­cretionary orders - The Ontario Divisional Court referred to the standard of review by an appellate court of a trial judge's exer­cise of a discretion - See paragraphs 15 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Operation Dismantle et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 13 C.R.R. 287, refd to. [para. 10].

Porretta et al. v. Stock et al. (1988), 67 O.R.(2d) 628 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 15].

Olivier v. Olivier (1988), 17 R.F.L.(3d) 440, refd to. [para. 16].

Harrington v. Harrington (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

S. v. S. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

McKee v. McKee, [1951] A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 18].

Retzer v. Retzer, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 881; 4 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Miles of Music Ltd. and Roch (1990), 31 O.A.C. 380; 74 O.R.(2d) 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 21].

Biscotti, Costanini and Orton v. Ontario Securities Commission (1990), 40 O.A.C. 129; 74 O.R.(2d) 119 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1991), 45 O.A.C. 293; 1 O.R.(3d) 409 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Haddock, Haddock and Highmark Prop­erties v. Attorney General of Ontario (1990), 73 O.R.(2d) 545 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1991), 44 O.A.C. 179; 2 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Ontario Nursing Home Association v. Attorney General of Ontario (1990), 74 D.L.R.(4th) 365 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Lister et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario (1990), 72 O.R.(2d) 354 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Arlington Crane Services Ltd. v. Attorney General of Ontario (1988), 67 O.R.(2d) 225 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment) (1986), 16 O.A.C. 14; 55 O.R.(2d) 522 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65, refd to. [para. 24].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Co­lumbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Worker's Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; 96 N.R. 227; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 235 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8, refd to. [para. 28].

Mirhadizadeh v. Ontario (1988), 34 O.A.C. 393; 69 O.R.(2d) 422 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. National Citizens' Coalition Inc. et al. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 70; 74 O.R.(2d) 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Sharma; R. v. Greenbaum (1991), 44 O.A.C. 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Abramovic et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1991), 52 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 15, sect. 24.

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(1), sect. 92(13), sect. 92(16) [para. 13].

Excise Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14, gen­erally [para. 1].

Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, generally [para. 1].

Retail Sales Tax Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 454, generally [para. 1].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 21.01(1)(a) [para. 5].

Tobacco Tax Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 502, generally [para. 1].

Counsel:

George R. Strathy and Robert W. Staley, for the plaintiff/respondent;

Robert E. Charney, for the Attorney Gen­eral of Ontario;

Debra M. McAllister, for the Attorney General of Canada.

These appeals were heard on November 14-15, 1991, before O'Driscoll, Steele and Rosenberg, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The judgment of the Divisional Court was delivered by Rosenberg, J., and released on January 23, 1992.