Gillespie v. Man. (A.G.),

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Philp, Twaddle and Monnin, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 MBCA 1
• Citation: (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 229 (CA),2000 MBCA 1,2000 CanLII 26952 (MB CA),185 DLR (4th) 214,[2000] 6 WWR 605,144 CCC (3d) 193,[2000] MJ No 218 (QL),145 Man R (2d) 229,218 WAC 229,41 CPC (4th) 199,185 D.L.R. (4th) 214,[2000] M.J. No 218 (QL),145 ManR(2d) 229,(2000), 145 ManR(2d) 229 (CA),145 Man.R.(2d) 229,218 W.A.C. 229
• Date: 20 April 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

Gillespie v. Man. (A.G.) (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 229 (CA);

    218 W.A.C. 229

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.003

Gordon Denis Gillespie (appellant) v. Attorney General of Manitoba (respondent)

(AR 99-30-04436; 2000 MBCA 1)

Indexed As: Gillespie v. Manitoba (Attorney General)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Philp, Twaddle and Monnin, JJ.A.

April 20, 2000.

Summary:

Two accused (Lindsay and Gillespie) required to appear in court claimed that the perimeter security program at the Winnipeg Law Courts complex violated their right to be secure from an unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) and that the failure to implement the same program in other Mani­toba courthouses violated their equality rights (Charter, s. 15).

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 137 Man.R.(2d) 68, held that the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process extended to implementing a security program to ensure safe public access to the justice system without fear of physical violence. The security program, per se, was reasonable, but it was still open to question the reasonableness of any particular search on the ground that it fell outside the parameters of the program. Finally, the failure to implement the security program in all other Manitoba courthouses did not vio­late s. 15. Gillespie appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96, allowed the appeal on the ground that statutory or common law au­thority for the program was not established on the evidence. Accordingly, all arbitrary searches conducted under the perimeter security program were contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench subsequently made an order authorizing the Sheriff to search all persons entering the courthouse. At issue on appeal was whether the order was authorized under either the court's inherent jurisdiction or s. 24 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Scott, C.J.M., and Monnin, J.A., dissenting, al­lowed the appeal and set aside the Chief Justice's order on the ground of a total absence of jurisdiction. The court declined to stay the decision until the legislature enacted legislation authorizing the security that had been in place for the last 1.5 years.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction - The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench made an order authorizing the Sheriff to search all per­sons entering the courthouse - The Mani­toba Court of Appeal held that the order was not authorized under the court's inherent jurisdiction or the Chief Justice's authority under s. 24 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act respecting "the judicial functions of the court" - The court stated, inter alia, that "the impugned order in the present case purports to require persons obligated to attend the courthouse to sub­mit to a search which, without the order, would be unauthorized by law. It is an order of general application without time limit. It was not made to deal with a spe­cific situation, but generally to change the law concerning the right to security from search. The power to do so does not, in my opinion, fall within the inherent power of the court." - See paragraphs 1 to 34.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "inherent jurisdiction has never been conferred on a court ex­pressly, but exists as an auxiliary power to be invoked when necessary for the court 'to fulfil itself as a court of law' ... Inherent power, ..., is the power a judge may draw upon to assist or help him or her in the exercise of the ordinary jurisdiction of the court. It does not generally stand alone waiting to be exercised on the judge's own initiative without a suit or application or without parties." - See para­graphs 17 to 18.

Practice - Topic 5854

Judgments and orders - Enforcement of judgments - Stay of - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that an ex parte order by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench respecting courthouse security (man­datory search by Sheriff of all persons entering the courthouse) was made without jurisdiction - The Attorney General sub­mitted that the decision should be stayed to permit the legislature to enact legislation respecting a security system - The Mani­toba Court of Appeal declined to grant a stay where there was no previously valid law permitting courthouse searches - It would not be appropriate to temporarily validate an order made in the total absence of jurisdiction - See paragraphs 41 to 48.

Practice - Topic 8984

Appeals - When appeal available - From final judgment or order - The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench made an ex parte order respecting courthouse security -An accused opposed to the security sys­tem appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "as a matter of policy, this court should ordinarily decline to hear appeals from ex parte orders where there has not first been a motion in the Queen's Bench to set aside or vary the order" - However, where the principal attack was a total absence of jurisdiction for the order, the order was appealable under s. 89 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act - The order might otherwise be unappealable - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Sheriffs - Topic 1005

Powers - Courthouse security - [See first Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), revsing. 137 Man.R.(2d) 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 3, 7].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1964] A.C. 1254 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Hothi et al. (1985), 33 Man.R.(2d) 180 (Q.B.), affd. (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Tait (1962), 108 C.L.R. 620 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241, dist. [para. 28].

R. v. Unnamed Person (1985), 10 O.A.C. 305; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Carlson v. Indiana (State) (1966), 220 N.E.2d 532, refd to. [para. 39].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, reconsideration allowed [1997] 2 S.C.R. 117, refd to. [para. 42].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 44].

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union et al. (1967), 63 D.L.R.(2d) 356 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Ladner Downs v. Thauberger, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 522 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 84].

Tringali v. Stewardson Stubbs & Collett Ltd. (1966), 66 S.R.(N.S.W.S.C.) 335, refd to. [para. 92].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 98].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Bruns­wick Inc. et al. v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 175; 51 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 99].

Montreal Trust Co. et al. v. Churchill Forest Industries (Manitoba) Ltd., [1971] 4 W.W.R. 542 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

W. v. W., [1997] E.W.J. No. 1739 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Taylor v. Attorney General, [1975] 2 N.Z.L.R. 675 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

Board of County Commissioners of Weld County v. 19th Judicial District (1995), 895 P.2d 545 (Colo. S.C.), refd to. [para. 113].

Commonwealth v. Harris, 421 N.E.2d 447 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

Gibson v. State (1996), 921 S.W.2d 747 (Tex. App.), refd to. [para. 120].

Ryan v. County of DuPage (1995), 45 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 121].

Legal Aid Society of Orange County v. Crosson (1992), 784 F.Supp. 1127 (S.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 122].

McMorris v. Alioto (1978), 567 F.2d 897, refd to. [para. 122].

State v. Kurth (1998), 981 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. App.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 137].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 137].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Mani­toba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 139].

Exco Corp. et al. v. Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Co. et al. (1987), 79 N.S.R.(2d) 29; 196 A.P.R. 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Queen's Bench Act, S.M. 1988-89, c. 4, sect. 24(1) [para. 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Carter, Richard W., Keeping a Secure Courthouse (1993), 76(6) Judicature 314, p. 315 [para. 82].

Dockray, M.S., The Inherent Jurisdiction to Regulate Civil Proceedings (1997), 113 L.Q.R. 120, pp. 120 [para. 106]; 126 [para. 108]; 130, 131 [para. 111]; 132 [para. 26].

Hogg, Peter W., The Role of a Chief Judge in Canada, 19 Queen's L.J. 248, p. 249 [para. 90].

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 C.L.P. 23, pp. 23, 27, 28 [para. 81]; 51, 52 [para. 93].

Mason, Keith, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1983), 57 Aus. L.J. 449, generally [para. 24].

Webster's New World Dictionary (3rd College Ed. 1988) [para. 18].

Counsel:

R.I. Histed and D.J. Parker, for the appel­lant;

H.S. Leonoff, Q.C., for the respondent;

R.B. McNicol, Q.C., and J.S. Langhan, for the proposed intervenor.

This appeal was heard on January 25, 2000, before Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Philp, Twaddle and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On April 20, 2000, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Twaddle, J.A. (Huband and Philp, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 49;

Scott, C.J.M. (Monnin, J.A., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 50 to 141.