Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, (1993) 156 N.R. 81 (SCC)

JudgeLamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateMarch 04, 1993
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1993), 156 N.R. 81 (SCC);105 DLR (4th) 577;JE 93-1526;16 CRR (2d) 193;[1993] 2 SCR 995;156 NR 81;1993 CanLII 58 (SCC);[1993] SCJ No 84 (QL);42 ACWS (3d) 442

Haig v. Can. (1993), 156 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Graham Haig, John Doe and Jane Doe (appellants) v. The Chief Electoral Officer and The Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and The Attorney General of Quebec (intervener)

(23223)

Indexed As: Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley

Supreme Court of Canada

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

September 2, 1993.

Summary:

Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec shortly before the 1992 Constitutional Referendum. He could not be enumerated in Quebec because the applicable Quebec legislation had a six month residency requirement. He could not be enumerated in Ontario under the Canada Elections Act, because he was no longer an Ontario resident. He applied for declaratory relief and mandamus enabling him to vote, naming Her Majesty the Queen and Jean Pierre Kingsley (the Chief Electoral Officer) as respondents. The Crown applied to have Her Majesty the Queen struck as a respondent.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, per Denault, J., in a decision reported 57 F.T.R. 1, allowed the Crown's motion and dismissed Haig's application against Her Majesty the Queen. The matter proceeded against the Chief Electoral Officer. Haig also applied to add the Attorney General as a respondent.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, per Joyal, J., in a decision reported 57 F.T.R. 6, dismissed Haig's application for declaratory relief and mandamus. The court also refused Haig's request to add the Attorney General of Canada as a respondent. Haig appealed the decisions of Denault, J., and Joyal, J. and the Chief Electoral Officer cross-appealed the assumption of jurisdiction over the matter by Joyal, J.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 145 N.R. 233, allowed in part the appeal from the decision of Joyal, J., by allowing the Attorney General to be added as a respondent. The court otherwise dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal respecting Joyal, J.'s, judgment. The court also quashed as moot the appeal against the order of Denault, J. Décary, J.A., dissented, with respect to the appeal on the merits. Haig appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Iacobucci and Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 121

Voting and other democratic rights - Right to vote - General - Section 3 of the Charter provided that "every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein" - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning and purpose of s. 3 - The court held, inter alia, that the right described in s. 3 does not extend to municipal elections or referenda - See paragraphs 64 to 68.

Civil Rights - Topic 125

Voting and other democratic rights - Right to vote - Residency requirements - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet Quebec Election Act residency requirements - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Canada Elections Act and Referendum Act (the federal Acts)) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions of the federal Acts were constitutionally valid, and properly interpreted, did not allow Haig to vote in the federal referendum - In not enumerating Haig, the Chief Electoral Officer correctly exercised his discretionary and remedial powers under the federal Acts - Further Haig's Charter rights under ss. 2(b), 3 and 15 were not violated - See paragraphs 1 to 100.

Civil Rights - Topic 125

Voting and other democratic rights - Right to vote - Residency requirements - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Canada Elections Act and Canada Referendum Act) - Haig argued that his inability to be enumerated for the federal referendum constituted a violation of his right to vote (Charter, s. 3) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no violation of s. 3 because there was no constitutional right to vote in a referendum under s. 3 of the Charter - See paragraphs 60 to 68.

Civil Rights - Topic 125

Voting and other democratic rights - Right to vote - Residency requirements - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum held in all provinces except Quebec, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Elections Act (Can.) and Referendum Act (Can.)) - Haig argued that his Charter rights (ss. 2(b), 3, 15) were violated because the federal legislation was constitutionally underinclusive to the extent it failed to provide for the enumeration of Haig in a "national" referendum - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument - See paragraph 61.

Civil Rights - Topic 125

Voting and other democratic rights - Right to vote - Residency requirements - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Elections Act (Can.) and Referendum Act (Can.)) - The order-in-council authorizing the federal referendum directed that the referendum be held in all provinces except Quebec, which planned to hold its own referendum - Haig argued that the order-in-council violated his Charter rights (ss. 2(b), 3, 15), because it failed to include Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument - See paragraphs 61, 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 908

Discrimination - Nondiscriminatory laws -Election residency requirements - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Canada Elections Act and Canada Referendum Act) - Haig argued that his equality right (Charter, s. 15(1)) as a new resident of a province was violated because he could not vote in the federal referendum - Further, the equality rights of all Quebec residents were denied because the federal referendum was held in all provinces except Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no violation of s. 15(1) - See paragraphs 88 to 98.

Civil Rights - Topic 1848

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Voting qualifications - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Canada Elections Act and Canada Referendum Act) - Haig argued that his inability to vote in the federal referendum because of his failure to meet the residency requirement constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument and discussed the scope of s. 2(b) - See paragraphs 69 to 87.

Civil Rights - Topic 5642

Equality and protection of the law - Federal legislation not applicable in all provinces - [See fourth Civil Rights - Topic 125 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5642

Equality and protection of the law - Federal legislation not applicable in all provinces - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "clearly, in a federal system, province-based distinctions do not automatically give rise to a presumption of discrimination. Section 15(1) of the Charter, while prohibiting discrimination, does not alter the division of powers between governments, nor does it require that all federal legislation must always have uniform application to all provinces ... differences between provinces are a rational part of the political reality in the federal process. Difference and discrimination are two different concepts and the presence of a difference will not automatically entail discrimination" - See paragraph 97.

Elections - Topic 545

Electoral officers - Powers - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - Federal election and referendum legislation prevented him from voting in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum held in all provinces except Quebec, because he was no longer an Ontario resident - It was argued that, notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous terms of the federal legislation, the Chief Electoral Officer had the discretion to adapt or interpret the legislation so as to give Haig the chance to vote in the federal referendum (Elections Act (Can.), s. 9(1) and Referendum Act (Can.), s. 7(3)) - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument - See paragraphs 49 to 59.

Elections - Topic 2042

Voters - Qualifications - Interpretation of - Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec - Haig could not be enumerated in Quebec for the 1992 Quebec constitutional referendum because he did not meet the six month residency requirement (Election Act (Que.)) - He could not vote in Ontario in the 1992 federal constitutional referendum held in all provinces except Quebec, because he was no longer an Ontario resident (Elections Act (Can.) and Referendum Act (Can.)) - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the Elections Act (Can.) and the Referendum Act (Can.) and held that they could not properly be interpreted to extend voting entitlement to those citizens who, on the enumeration day, were not ordinarily resident in one of the jurisdictions where the federal government held its referendum - See paragraphs 35 to 48.

Elections - Topic 2044

Voters - Qualifications - Residence - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 125 ].

Words and Phrases

Ordinarily resident - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in the Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 53(1) - See paragraphs 39 to 48, and 117 to 136.

Cases Noticed:

Action Travail Des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Action Travail Des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 16, refd to. [para. 65].

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; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 70].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 70].

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

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, refd to. [para. 70].

Singer (Alan) Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur général) et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 70].

Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Singer (Alan) Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur général) et al.

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. [paras. 70, 155].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 70].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

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; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 70].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 70].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 70, 155].

Allman v. Commissioner of the Northwest Territories (1983), 44 A.R. 170; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 467 (N.W.T.S.C.), affd. 50 A.R. 161; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 230 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1984] 1 S.C.R. v, refd to. [para. 74].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [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. [para. 80].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 85].

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; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 91].

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; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 77 C.R.(3d) 273; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 49 C.R.R. 79, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. S.S. - see R. v. Sheldon S.

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. - see Irving Oil Ltd.

Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 96].

Cawley v. Branchflower (1884), 1 B.C.R. (Pt. II) 35, refd to. [para. 110].

Lincoln Election, Re (1876), 2 O.A.R. 316, refd to. [para. 110].

Provincial Elections Act, Re (1903), 10 B.C.R. 114 (S.C. en banc), refd to. [para. 119].

Voters' List of Seymour (Township), Re (1899), 2 Ont. Elec. 69 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Hipperson v. Newbury District Electoral Registration Officer, [1985] Q.B. 1060 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Fitzmartin v. Newburgh (Village) (1911), 24 O.L.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Tenold v. Chapman (1981), 9 Sask.R. 278 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 123].

Fells v. Spence, [1984] N.W.T.R. 123; 54 A.R. 222 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 124].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1992] 3 F.C. 192; 146 N.R. 40 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 155].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 73, 141]; sect. 2(b) [para. 26]; sect. 2(d) [para. 82]; sect. 3 [para. 64]; sect. 4, sect. 5 [para. 66]; sect. 6 [para. 26]; sect. 15 [para. 84]; sect. 15(1) [para. 88].

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, S.B.C. 1991, c. 2, generally [para. 142].

Constitutional Referendum Act, S.A. 1992, c. C-22.25, generally [para. 142].

Constitutional Referendum Act, S.A. 1992, c. 36, sect. 2 [para. 142].

Election Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. E-3.3, sect. 1, sect. 2 [para. 18].

Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, sect. 9(1) [para. 20]; sect. 50 [para. 39]; sect. 50(1), sect. 53(1), sect. 55 [para. 20]; sect. 56, sect. 57, sect. 58, sect. 59 [para. 41]; sect. 60 [para. 120]; sect. 62 [para. 41].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2, sect. 17, sect. 18 [para. 23]; sect. 18.1 [para. 14]; sect. 48 [para. 23].

Order-in-Council, P.C. 1992-2045 (Sept. 17, 1992) [para. 21].

Process for Determining the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, An Act Respecting, S.Q. 1991, c. 34, sect. 32 [para. 6].

Process for Determining the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, An Amendment Act Respecting, S.Q. 1992, c. 47, generally [para. 9].

Referendum Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-64.1, sect. 7 [para. 17]; sect. 8, sect. 9 [para. 10]; sect. 13 [para. 12]; sect. 16 [para. 17].

Referendum Act, S.B.C. 1990, c. 68, generally [para. 142].

Referendum Act, S.C. 1992, c. 30, sect. 3(1) [para. 19]; sect. 5(1) [para. 10]; sect. 6(1), sect. 7 [para. 19]; sect. 53 [para. 35]; sect. 53(1) [para. 39]; sect. 55 [para. 35]; sect. 65(1), sect. 68 [para. 128].

United States Constitution, First Amendment, generally [para. 72].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin, G.A. and Ratushny, E., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 265, 266 [para. 66].

Beckton, Clare, Freedom of Expression, in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (1982), W.S. Tarnopolsky and G.A. Beaudoin, eds., p. 76 [para. 76].

Berlin, I., Two Concepts of Liberty, in Four Essays on Liberty (1969), pp. 118-172 [para. 79].

Blais, Jacques, Freedom of Expression and Public Administration, in Freedom of Expression and the Charter (1991), D. Schneiderman, ed., p. 446 [para. 77].

Boyer, J.P., Election Law in Canada: The Law and Procedure of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Elections (1987), vol. 1, pp. 383 [para. 109]; 426 [para. 125].

Canada, Consensus Report on the Constitution, 1992, generally [para. 145].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1992, 3rd Sess., 34th Parliament, vol. 132, No. 144, pp. 10854 [para. 146]; 10889 [para. 144]; No. 165, p. 12732 [para. 145]; No. 166A, p. 12786 [para. 153].

De Montigny, Yves, The Difficult Relationship Between Freedom of Expression and Its Reasonable Limits (1992), 55 Law & Contemp. Probs. 35, p. 40 [para. 77].

Emerson, T.I., The System of Freedom of Expression, pp. 4 [para. 75]; 627 [para. 72].

Fiss, Free Speech and Social Structure, in A Less Than Perfect Union: Alternative Perspectives on the U.S. Constitution (1988), J. Lobel, ed., p. 352 [para. 76].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), vol. 2, p. 42-2, [para. 64].

House of Commons Debates - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hutchinson, Allan C., Money Talk: Against Constitutionalizing (Commercial) Speech (1990), 17 Can. Bus. L.J. 1, pp. 31, 33 [para. 77].

Lederman, W.R., Democratic Parliaments, Independent Courts and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1985), 11 Queen's L.J. 1, generally [para. 79].

Lobel, J., A Less Than Perfect Union: Alternative Perspectives on the U.S. Constitution (1988), p. 352 [para. 76].

Mackay, A.W., Freedom of Expression: Is It All Just Talk? (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 713, generally [para. 79].

Qualter, T.H., The Election Process (1970), p. 21 [para. 125].

Schneiderman, D., Freedom of Expression and the Charter (1991), p. 446 [para. 77].

Tarnopolsky, W.S. and Beaudoin, G.A., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (1982), p. 76 [para. 76].

Counsel:

Philippa Lawson, for the appellants;

N.J. Schultz and H. McManus, for the Chief Electoral Officer;

Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C., and Richard Morneau, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Jean-François Jobin and Dominique A. Jobin, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Philippa Lawson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;

Fraser & Beatty, Ottawa, Ontario, and Jacques Girard, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Chief Electoral Officer;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Ste-Foy Department of Justice, St-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on March 4, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on September 2, 1993, including the following opinions:

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 100;

McLachlin, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 101 to 105;

Cory, J., (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 106 to 140;

Iacobucci, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 141 to 159;

Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting - see paragraph 160.

To continue reading

Request your trial
253 practice notes
194 cases
  • Vriend et al. v. Alberta, (1998) 224 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 2, 1998
    ...839 ; 149 N.R. 241 ; 83 Man.R.(2d) 241 ; 36 W.A.C. 241 , refd to. [para. 63]. Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81 , refd to. [para. 64]. Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313 ; 74 N.R. 99 ; 78 A.R. 1 ; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 16......
  • Reference Re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 228 N.R. 203 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • August 20, 1998
    ...and Referendum Act (Manitoba), Re, [1919] A.C. 935 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 58]. Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 58]. R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 7......
  • Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al. v. British Columbia, (2007) 242 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 8, 2007
    ...v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 150]. Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; 173 N.R. 241, refd to. [......
  • Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al., (2009) 272 B.C.A.C. 29 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • March 25, 2008
    ...(City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [paras. 27, 129]. Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 29, 103]. Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 17 – 21, 2018)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 24, 2018
    ...ss 1, 2(b), 3, 15(1) and 33, Baier v Alberta, 2007 SCC 31, Delisle v Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1999] 2 SCR 989, Haig v Canada, [1993] 2 SCR 995, Harper v Canada (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 57, Libman v Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 2 SCR 569, Reference re Provincial Electoral ......
54 books & journal articles
  • Sources of Authority: Federal-Level Powers and the Constitution Acts
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Land-use Planning
    • June 23, 2017
    ...Canadian Charter applies to municipalities — like the appellant — at all. To my mind, the analysis 197 [1997] 3 SCR 844 [ Godbout ]. 198 [1993] 2 SCR 995. 199 Ibid at 1031. Sources of Authority: Federal-Level Powers and the Constitution Acts 203 I have undertaken thus far leads inexorably t......
  • Measuring judicial activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: a comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 3, September 2003
    • September 1, 2003
    ...844 * * Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703 * Haig v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995 Harvey v. New Brunswick (A.G.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876 * Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 * * Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justi......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books International Human Rights Law Preliminary Sections
    • June 18, 2004
    ...251, 305–7, 355 Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 ........................................................ 296 Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995.................................................................. 242 Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 172 OAC 276 (C.A.) .........
  • The Constitutionalization of Collective Bargaining Law
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Labour and Employment Law. Cases, Materials, and Commentary. Ninth Edition
    • June 24, 2018
    ...documents to the public in order to enable meaningful discourse: CLA, at para. 37. As stated by L’Heureux-Dubé J. in Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995: The distinctions between “freedoms” and “rights”, and between positive and negative entitlements, are not always clearly made, nor are th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT