Harrison v. Carswell, (1975) 5 N.R. 523 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1975
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1975), 5 N.R. 523 (SCC);62 DLR (3d) 68;1975 CanLII 144 (SCC);[1976] 2 SCR 200;25 CCC (2d) 186;[1976] 1 SCR 783;1975 CanLII 160 (SCC);[1975] 6 WWR 673

Harrison v. Carswell (1975), 5 N.R. 523 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Harrison v. Carswell

Indexed As: Harrison v. Carswell

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

June 26, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of trespass pursuant to the provisions of the Manitoba Petty Trespasses Act. The defendant was charged with trespass by the owner of a shopping centre. The defendant used the common areas in the shopping centre to picket a supermarket. The picketing was lawful and peaceful. The trial court convicted the defendant.

On appeal to the Manitoba Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the defendant was set aside.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal was set aside, and the conviction of the defendant was restored. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the owner of the shopping centre had sufficient possession and control of common areas in order to lay a charge of trespassing and that the picketing was not legal justification for the trespass.

Laskin, C.J.C., Spence and Beetz, JJ., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have dismissed the appeal and would have affirmed the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Laskin, C.J.C., stated that members of the public are privileged visitors to public areas in a shopping centre which privilege is revokable only for misbehaviour or unlawful activity. Laskin, C.J.C., stated that the defendant picketer pursued a lawful activity and accordingly was not guilty of trespassing - see paragraphs 24 and 25.

Courts - Topic 3003

Supreme Court of Canada - Duty of the Supreme Court of Canada respecting its judicial or adjudicative function - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the duty of the court is to proceed in the discharge of its adjudicative function in a reasoned way from principled decision and established concepts - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the limits of the judicial function - See paragraphs 6, 17 to 19 and 27.

Torts - Topic 3029

Trespass - Trespass to land - Possession and control - Whether an owner of a shopping centre was in sufficient possession and control of the common areas in the shopping centre in order to lay a charge of trespass - The defendant picketed a supermarket in a shopping centre and was charged with trespass pursuant to the Manitoba Petty Trespasses Act - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction of the defendant.

Labour Law - Topic 8286

Picketing - Place of picketing - Common areas in a shopping centre - The defendant picketed a supermarket in a shopping centre and was charged with trespass pursuant to the Manitoba Petty Trespasses Act - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction of the defendant.

Cases Noticed:

Peters v. The Queen (1971), 17 D.L.R.(3d) 128, folld. [para. 2]; dist. [para. 10].

Grosvenor Park Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Waloshin (1964), 46 D.L.R.(2d) 750, not folld. [para. 3]; refd to. [para. 18].

Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Union, Local No. 31 (1964), 394 P. 2d 921, dist. [para. 5]; folld. [para. 28].

Amalgamated Food Employees' Union, Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza Inc. (1968), 391 U.S. 308, refd to. [para. 5]; folld. [para. 28].

Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Tanner (1972), 407 U.S. 551, refd to. [para. 5]; folld. [para. 28].

Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917), 244 U.S. 205, folld. [para. 6].

Brant Dairy Company Ltd. v. The Milk Commission of Ontario, [1973] S.C.R. 131, refd to. [para. 19].

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Wonderland Shopping Center Inc. (1963), 122 N.W. 2d 785, folld. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Petty Trespasses Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. P-50.

Counsel:

W.S. Martin, Q.C., and D. Booth, for the appellant;

A.R.M. McGregor and F.E. Bortoluzzi, for the respondent;

K. Lysyk, Q.C., for the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 3 and 4, 1975. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 26, 1975 and the following opinions were filed:

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 9.

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 10 to 31.

MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, PIGEON and de GRANDPRE, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.

SPENCE and BEETZ, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.