Hogan et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General), (2000) 189 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (NFCA)

• Judge: Steele, Cameron and Green, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: February 28, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2000), 189 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (NFCA)

Hogan v. Nfld. (A.G.) (2000), 189 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (NFCA);

    571 A.P.R. 183

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. FE.038

Robert Hogan [other names omitted] (appellants) v. Attorney General for Newfoundland (first respondent) and Attorney General for Canada (second respondent)

(99/12; 2000 NFCA 12)

Indexed As: Hogan et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General)

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

Steele, Cameron and Green, JJ.A.

February 28, 2000.

Summary:

The Province of Newfoundland intended to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada to limit the role of churches in school governance. A plebiscite supported the plan. The amend­ment to Term 17 was passed in the New­foundland Legislature and in Parliament and was given Royal Assent on January 8, 1998. The plaintiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, challeng­ing the amending process.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 173 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 148; 530 A.P.R. 148, declined to declare the plebiscite proclamation invalid, but held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages equal to the amount of the costs of their campaign against the amendment. The court held that Term 17 was validly amended. The plaintiffs appealed the finding that Term 17 was validly amended. The Newfoundland Attorney General cross-appealed the award of damages.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal. The court allowed the cross-appeal and rescinded the award of damages.

Editor's Note: For related decisions see, 154 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121; 479 A.P.R. 121 (Nfld. T.D.), 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132; 500 A.P.R. 132 (Nfld. T.D.), and 166 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161; 511 A.P.R. 161 (Nfld. T.D.).

Civil Rights - Topic 385

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Religious education - The Province of Newfoundland intended to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada to limit the role of churches in school govern­ance - A plebiscite supported the plan - Term 17 was duly amended - The plaintiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, chal­lenging the amending process - They sub­mitted, inter alia, that their ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights were infringed by the amendment - The trial judge stated that the plaintiffs' religious education rights were not protected by the Charter, s. 2 or s. 15, and that the Charter rights of Roman Catholics as a minority were not denied - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that the amendment did not breach Charter rights - See paragraphs 132 to 165.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5

General principles - Canadian Constitution - What constitutes - The Province of New­foundland intended to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfound­land and Canada to limit the role of churches in school governance - A plebi­scite supported the plan - Term 17 was duly amended - The plaintiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, challenging the amending process - They submitted, inter alia, that the Terms of Union were a contract and were not part of the Constitution - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that the Terms of Union were not a contract and were part of the Constitution - See paragraphs 39 to 61.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2103

Amendments - Constitution Act and consti­tional documents - Classification of amendments - The Province of Newfound­land intended to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada to limit the role of churches in school governance - A plebiscite supported the plan - Term 17 was amended - The plaintiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, chal­lenging the amending process - They sub­mitted, inter alia, that the general amend­ing formula in s. 38 of the Constitution Act should have been applied instead of s. 43 - The trial judge held that the bilateral procedure in s. 43 applied, because the amendment concerned one province and not all provinces - The amendment did not infringe freedom of religion, but only took away denominational control of education -The Newfoundland Court of Appeal affirmed that the bilateral procedure in s. 43 applied - See paragraphs 72 to 97.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2111

Amendments - Constitution Act and consti­tutional documents - Procedure - Fairness -The Province of Newfoundland intended to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada to limit the role of churches in school govern­ance - A plebiscite was held - The plain­tiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, campaigned against the amendment - Term 17 was amended - The plaintiffs brought an action against New­foundland and Canada, challenging the amending process - The trial judge, having held that fairness demanded that the gov­ernment should have provided funds to opposing parties, awarded the plaintiffs damages in the amount they expended on their campaign - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal set aside the award of damages -The basis of the plaintiffs' claim was a breach of the Charter and the evidence established that there was no breach of ss. 2(a), 2(b) or 15 of the Charter - See para­graphs 126 to 165.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2112

Amendments - Constitution Act and consti­tutional documents - Application of Char­ter - [See Civil Rights - Topic 385 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 9548

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Newfoundland - The Province of Newfoundland intended to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfound­land and Canada to limit the role of churches in school governance - A plebi­scite supported the plan - Term 17 was amended - The plaintiffs, a group of adher­ents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, challenging the amending process - They claimed that there was a pre-Con­federation agreement that there would be a publicly funded denominational education system in the province for as long as the various denominations wished to have one - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that there was no evidentiary basis estab­lishing such an agreement; the alleged agreement was not made by anyone with authority to bind Newfoundland or the adherents of the Roman Catholic faith; and a collateral agreement could not override the constitutional text - See paragraphs 17 to 38.

Contracts - Topic 9001

Rights and liabilities of strangers to con­tract - Privity of contract - Exceptions - Newfoundland and Canada amended Term 17 of the Terms of Union between New­foundland and Canada to limit the role of churches in school governance - The plain­tiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, challenging the amending process - They claimed that Term 17 was a contract and that they were the beneficiaries who were clearly in the contemplation of the actual contracting parties at the time the contract was made - They submitted, therefore, that the contract could not be changed without their consent - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal rejected the submission - See paragraphs 62 to 69.

Estoppel - Topic 1387

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circum­stances where doctrine not applicable - To limit the exercise of a statutory power - Newfoundland and Canada amended Term 17 of the Terms of Union between New­foundland and Canada to limit the role of churches in school governance - The plain­tiffs, a group of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith, brought an action against Newfoundland and Canada, challenging the amending process - The claimed that it was represented to their class (and the other classes) and denominational author­ities that the right to publicly funded de­nominational education was absolutely secure as long as they wished to exercise that right - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of estoppel, a creation of the courts, could not be used to defeat a statute - See paragraphs 70 to 71.

Cases Noticed:

Currie v. MacDonald (1948), 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314; 82 A.P.R. 314 (Nfld. S.C.), affd. (1949), 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 294; 82 A.P.R. 294 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 3].

Hogan v. Newfoundland (Attorney Gen­eral) et al (1997), 154 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121; 479 A.P.R. 121; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 468 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 9, foot­note 8].

Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 297, refd to. [para. 38].

Ruffolo v. Mulroney et al., [1988] O.J. No. 2670 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Bowater's Newfoundland Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., In Re, [1950] S.C.R. 608, refd to. [para. 42].

Hogan v. Newfoundland (Attorney Gen­eral) et al. (1998), 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132; 500 A.P.R. 132 (Nfld. S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Prince Edward Island v. Canada (1977), 20 N.R. 91; 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 477; 33 A.P.R. 477; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 492 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities et al. (1975), 5 N.R. 421; 59 D.L.R.(3d) 71 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Samson v. R. (1957), 10 D.L.R.(2d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

State of South Australia v. Commonwealth of Australia (1962), 108 C.L.R. 130, refd to. [para. 47].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) (The Precious Metals Case) (1887), 14 S.C.R. 345, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 21].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) (The Precious Metals Case) (1889), 14 App. Cas. 295 (P.C.), reving. (1887) 14 S.C.R. 345, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 23].

Precious Metals Case - see British Colum­bia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attor­ney General).

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (1994), 166 N.R. 81; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Wells v. Newfoundland, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 50; 245 N.R. 275; 180 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 548 A.P.R. 271; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 73, refd to. [para. 59].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Van­winkel, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1; 97 D.L.R.(4th) 261, refd to. [para. 62].

London Drugs v. Kuehne & Nagle Interna­tional Ltd. et al. - see London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel.

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; [1985] 1 C.N.L.R. 120, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 67].

Maritime Electric Co. v. General Dairies Ltd., [1937] 1 D.L.R. 609 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

Glew v. Westfield (Village) (1997), 189 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 482 A.P.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para.71].

Hydro Electric Commission of Kenora (Town) v. Vacationland Dairy Co-operat­ive Ltd., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 80; 162 N.R. 241; 68 O.A.C. 241, 110 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 30].

Quebec Constitutional Amendment Refer­ence (No. 2); Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et l'Asso­ciation Canadienne-Française de l'On­tario and Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793; 45 N.R. 317, refd to. [para. 73].

Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 511; 154 N.R. 1; 59 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Reference Re Education Act (Que.) - see Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84.

Mahe, Martel, Dubé et al. v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321 refd to. [para. 77].

Initiative and Referendum Act, Re (1919), 48 D.L.R. 18 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 80

Potter and McCormick v. Quebec (Attor­ney General) and Canada (Attorney General), [1998] A.Q. No. 3503; 1 R.J.Q. 165 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Sibbeston v. Northwest Territories (Attor­ney General), [1988] 2 W.W.R. 50; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 691 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 88, footnote 37].

Yukon Territory (Commissioner) v. Canada (1987), 2 Y.R. 314; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 108 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1988] 1 S.C.R. xii; 88 N.R. 320, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 37].

Penikett v. Canada - see Yukon Territory (Commissioner) v. Canada.

Zylberberg et al. v. Board of Education of Sudbury et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 23; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 93].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 102].

Eurig Estate v. Ontario Court (General Division), Registrar (1998), 231 N.R. 55; 114 O.A.C. 55; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 104].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man. R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 114].

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; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 212, refd to. [para. 114].

Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; 218 N.R. 241; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 135, footnote 44].

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. [para. 137].

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 244 N.R. 33; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 513 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 139].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; 173 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 142].

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. 142].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 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. 150].

Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1997), 47 O.T.C. 53; 155 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1999] O.J. No. 1104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

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. 153].

Law v. Canada, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 157].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 159].

Bennett, Re (1972), 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 543 (Nfld. S.C.), refd to. [para. 171].

Cawley v. Branchflower (1884), 1 B.C.R.(Pt. II) 35 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 172].

Reform Party of Canada v. Canada (Attor­ney Gen­eral, [1993] 3 W.W.R. 171; 137 A.R. 123 (Q.B.), additional reasons (1995), 174 A.R. 169; 102 W.A.C. 169; 32 Alta. L.R.(3d) 430 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178].

Sheena B., Re (1988), 14 A.C.W.S.(3d) 10 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 179].

Sheena B., Re (1992), 58 O.A.C. 93; 10 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 179].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 9 R.F.L.(4th) 157; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 179].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena, B., Re.

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 179].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2 [para. 132]; 15(1) [para. 156].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 93 [para. 65, footnote 29]; sect. 146 [para. 41, foot­note 18];

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 42 [para. 83, footnote 35]; sect. 43 [para. 74]; sect. 52(2) [para. 39, footnote 16].

Election Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. E-3, sect. 171 [para. 166].

Newfoundland Act, 1949, sect. 1 [para. 40].

Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, Term 17 [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brindle Report (June 8, 1948), generally [para. 28].

Brindle Report (July 24 1948, generally [para. 29].

Fitzgerald, John Edward, Denominational Education, the Roman Catholic Church and Newfoundland's Confederation with Canada, generally [para. 26, footnote 13].

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law in Canada, pp. 2.14 [para. 42]; 4-4 [para. 73].

Hurley, James, Amending Canada's Con­stitution (1996), generally [para. 73, footnote 31].

Slattery, Brian, First Nations and The Constitution: A Question of Trust (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 261, generally [para. 65].

Smallwood, J., I Chose Canada, generally [para. 25].

Counsel:

Joseph Hutchings, for the appellant;

Donald Burrage, for the first respondent;

Warren J. Newman, for the second respon­dent.

This appeal was heard on June 14 to 17, 1999, before Steele, Cameron and Green, JJ.A., of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. On February 28, 2000, Cameron, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.