Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée et al., (1993) 161 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 18, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 161 N.R. 81 (SCC)

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Qué. ltée (1993), 161 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]

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

George Ernest Hunt (appellant) v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée, formerly known as Lake Asbestos Company Limited, Asbestos Corporation Limited, Atlas Turner Inc., Bell Asbestos Mines Limited, JM Asbestos Inc., the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association and National Gypsum Co. (respondents) and T & N, plc, Carey-Canada Inc., formerly known as Carey-Canadian Mines Ltd., Flintkote Mines Limited and Flintkote Co. (defendants) and Workers' Compensation Board and Henfrey, Samson, Bélair Ltd., Receiver-Manager for Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited (third parties) and the Attorney General for Ontario and the Attorney General of Quebec (interveners)

(File No. 22637)

Indexed As: Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

November 18, 1993.

Summary:

Hunt commenced a negligence and con­spiracy action in the Province of British Columbia against several companies for damages for personal injuries sustained from inhalation of asbestos fibres while working in a machinery depot in British Columbia. The asbestos fibres were allegedly contained in products originating from the companies, including several Quebec companies. Hunt demanded that lists of documents be filed by the companies. Being dissatisfied with the response, he applied for orders that respon­sive lists of documents be delivered. The Quebec companies opposed the appli­cation. They argued that they were pro­hibited by the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act from responding in respect to documents in their possession in Quebec. The Quebec statute prohibited, inter alia, the removal from the province of documents of business concerns in Quebec that were required pur­suant to judicial processes outside the prov­ince.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported (1990), 43 B.C.L.R.(2d) 390, agreed with the Quebec companies and refused to require the companies to respond to the demands for discovery of documents. Hunt appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 3 B.C.A.C. 138; 7 W.A.C. 138, dismissed the appeal. Hunt appealed again. The following constitutional question was posed: "Is s. 2 of the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act, R.S.Q., c. D-12, ultra vires the National Assembly of Quebec or constitutionally inapplicable because in its pith and substance is a dero­gation from extraprovincial rights?"

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered the parties from Quebec to produce the documents in question, re­gardless of whether those documents were located inside or outside the Province of Quebec. The court answered the constitu­tional question by stating that the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act should be read as not applying to the provinces since such application would be ultra vires under the constitutional principle set forth by the court in Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, 122 N.R. 81.

Business Law - Topic 5065

Business records - Regulation - Prohib­ition against sending documents out of province - A British Columbian plaintiff sought an order that the defendants provide lists of documents pursuant to the Rules of Court (B.C.) - The defendants, Quebec companies, opposed the order citing the prohibition on removal of business docu­ments from the province (Quebec Business Concerns Records Act) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec Act did not respect the constitutional principles of order and fairness set out in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, 122 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.) - Therefore, the Act was constitutionally inapplicable to other provinces, and consequently not applicable in this case - The court ordered that the defendants produce the relevant documents for inspection whether or not the docu­ments were located in Quebec.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 6605

Foreign judgments - Recognition of judg­ments of another province - [See first Consti­tutional Law - Topic 7 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 9202

Practice - Comity between provinces - Discovery - [See Business Law - Topic 5065 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7

General principles - Comity and private international law interprovincially - In the 1990 decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, 122 N.R. 81, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed con­stitutional principles respecting comity between the provinces and called for a greater degree of recognition and enforce­ment of judgments of other provinces - In the case at bar, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed its Morguard Invest­ments decision and expanded on the con­stitutional issues - The court held that a province is not barred from enacting any legislation that may have some effect on litigation in other provinces or legislation respecting modalities for recognition of judgments of other provinces; however, the province must respect the minimum stan­dards of order and fairness addressed in Morguard - See paragraphs 52 to 60.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7

General principles - Comity and private international law provincially - [See Busi­ness Law - Topic 5065 ].

Courts - Topic 3027

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Limitations - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed its power to consider constitutional questions - See paragraphs 44 to 46 - The court stated that "there are several factors that suggest that the Supreme Court of Canada is not restricted to the identical powers and procedures of the lower courts from which an appeal is made" - See paragraph 45.

Courts - Topic 3038

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction Constitutional issues - [See Courts - Topic 3027 ].

Courts - Topic 3038

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction Constitutional issues - A British Columbian plaintiff sought an order that the defendants provide proper lists of documents (B.C. Rules of Court) - The defendants, Quebec companies, opposed the order citing the prohibition on removal of business documents from Quebec (Que­bec Business Concerns Records Act) - The British Columbia trial and appeal courts, accepting that they lacked jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the Quebec statute, applied the doctrine of comity between provinces and concluded that production by the Quebec companies was not required - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the lower courts erred in law in ignoring the constitutional issue - Rather, the courts had jurisdiction to deal with the constitutional issue, and consequently so did the Supreme Court of Canada - See paragraphs 25 to 32.

Courts - Topic 5683

Provincial courts - Jurisdiction - Re con­stitutionality of statutes - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the power of superior courts within a province to con­sider the constitutionality of foreign laws (including the laws of another province) - The court discussed the ordinary power of superior courts to consider the constitu­tionality of foreign law as a question of fact and the impact of the Canadian Con­stitution on the powers of the superior courts to consider constitutional issues - See paragraphs 27 to 44.

Courts - Topic 5683

Provincial courts - Jurisdiction - Re con­stitutionality of statutes - [See second Courts - Topic 3038 ].

Practice - Topic 4561

Discovery - Documents - Production and inspection - Bars - Quebec Business Concerns Records Act - [See Business Law - Topic 5065 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4141

Discovery - Documents - What docu­ments must be produced - General - [See Business Law - Topic 5065 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 6].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Lac d'Ami­ante du Québec Ltée et al. (1989), 24 Q.A.C. 235 (C.A.), leave to appeal ref­used [1989] 2 S.C.R. viii; 105 N.R. 160; 27 Q.A.C. 234, refd to. [para. 7].

Asbestos Corp. v. Eagle-Picher Industries Inc., [1984] C.A. 151 (Que.), refd to. [para. 10].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 217; 122 N.R. 81; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 256; 52 B.C.L.R.(2d) 160, consd. [para. 13 et seq.].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. Ltd. et al. v. Newfoundland (At­torney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act - see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re.

Renault v. Bell Asbestos Mines, [1980] C.A. 370 (Que.), reving. [1976] C.P. 284 (Que. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Benesh, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff v. Nesmith, [1983] C.S. 790 (Que.), refd to. [para. 18].

2632-7602 Québec Inc. v. Pizza Pizza Canada Inc., [1991] R.J.Q. 2951 (C.S.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canard Estate et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Rees, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 170; 4 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 25].

Buck v. Attorney General, [1965] 1 All E.R. 882 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Manuel v. Attorney General, [1982] 3 All E.R. 786 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 33].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 33].

Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. v. Com­munication Workers of Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733; 48 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. - see Siddall (William) & Sons Fisheries v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd.

Siddall (William) & Sons Fisheries v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 206; 92 N.R. 137; 33 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 34].

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 1; [1982] 5 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 34].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia.

Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd. and Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695; 30 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 34].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, refd to. [para. 41].

Metropolitan Investigation & Security (Canada) Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 546; 3 N.R. 123, refd to. [para. 43].

Morrow (John) Screw and Nut Co. v. Hankin (1918), 58 S.C.R. 74, refd to. [para. 45].

Logan v. Lee (1907), 39 S.C.R. 311, refd to. [para. 45].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 19 R.F.L.(2d) 165; 8 E.T.R. 143, refd to. [para. 45].

Cooper v. Cooper (1888), 13 App. Cas. 88, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 46].

Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137, refd to. [para. 47].

Feigelman, Feigelman, Goldberg, R.L.L. Holdings Ltd. and Pre-Vue Co. (Canada) Ltd. v. Aetna Financial Services Ltd., Lax and Burke, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2; 56 N.R. 241; 32 Man.R.(2d) 241; 29 B.L.R. 5; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 97; 55 C.B.R.(N.S.) 1; 15 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 54 C.P.R.(3d) 145, refd to. [para. 55].

Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman et al. - see Feigelman.

Black & Company v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 55].

Indyka v. Indyka, [1967] 2 All E.R. 689; [1969] 1 A.C. 33 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

Boxer v. Reesor (1983), 43 B.C.L.R. 352 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Cie - see Compagnie.

Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Business Concerns Records Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. D-12, sect. 1(a), sect. 1(b), sect. 1(c) [para. 16]; sect. 2 [paras. 3, 16]; sect. 3(a), sect. 3(b), sect. 3(c), sect. 3(d) [para. 16]; sect. 4 [paras. 7, 10, 16]; sect. 5 [para. 16].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(2), sect. 91(10) [para. 54]; sect. 92 [para. 51]; sect. 92(13), sect. 92(14), sect. 92(16) [para. 47]; sect. 101 [para. 46]; sect. 121 [para. 54].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [paras. 33, 36].

Dossiers d'entreprises, Loi sur les (Qué.) - see Business Concerns Records Act.

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 2 [para. 64]; rule 2(5), rule 26 [paras. 2, 64]; rule 26(1) [para. 7].

Special Procedure Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-27, generally [para. 22].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 40(1) [para. 46]; sect. 45 [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black, Vaughan, The Other Side of Mor­guard: New Limits on Judicial Jurisdic­tion (1993), 22 Can. Bus. L.J. 4, gen­erally [para. 58].

Black, Vaughan and Swan, John, New Rules for the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye (1991), 12 Advocates Q. 489, generally [paras. 43, 56].

Finkle, Peter and C. Labrecque, Low-Cost Legal Remedies and Market Efficiency: Looking Beyond Morguard (1993), 22 Can. Bus. L.J. 58, generally [paras. 59, 65].

Groffier, Ethel, Précis de droit interna­tional privé québécois, 4e éd., 1990, p. 234 [para. 22].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 335 [para. 56].

Strayer, Barry L., The Canadian Constitu­tion and the Courts (3rd Ed. 1988), pp. 73 to 86 [para. 42]; 145 [para. 36].

Counsel:

J.J. Camp. Q.C., David Church and Steven Antle, for the appellant, George Ernest Hunt;

W.S. Berardino, Q.C., Avon Mersey and Michael Sobkin, for the respondent, Lac d'Amiante Québec Ltée;

Jack Giles, Q.C., and Robert J. McDonell, for the respondents, Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Atlas Turner Inc. and Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd.;

Henry S. Brown, Q.C., and Richard B. Lindsay, for the respondent, JM Asbestos Inc.;

Louis J. Zivot, for the respondent, the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association;

John L. Finlay, for the respondent, Na­tional Gypsum Co.;

Michel Hélie, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General for Ontario;

Alain Gingras, for the intervener, the At­torney General of Québec.

Solicitors of Record:

Camp Church & Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent Lac d'Am­iante du Québec Ltée;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Atlas Turner Inc. and Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd.;

Lindsay Kenney, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the respondent JM Asbestos Inc.;

Lang Michener, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the respondent Quebec As­bestos Mining Association;

Arvay, Finlay, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent National Gypsum Co.;

George Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean-Yves Bernard and Alain Gingras, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

This appeal was heard on October 7, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Mc­Lachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The fol­lowing deci­sion of the court was delivered in both official languages by La Forest, J., on November 18, 1993.