McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors and Attorney General of Nova Scotia, (1978) 19 N.R. 570 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 19 N.R. 570 (SCC);[1978] 2 SCR 662;25 NSR (2d) 128;1978 CanLII 6 (SCC);84 DLR (3d) 1;[1978] SCJ No 25 (QL);44 CCC (2d) 316;36 APR 128;19 NR 570

McNeil v. N.S. Bd. of Censors (1978), 19 N.R. 570 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors and Attorney General of Nova Scotia

Indexed As: McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors and Attorney General of Nova Scotia

Supreme Court of Canada

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

January 19, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of an action by a Nova Scotia citizen for a declaration that certain sections of the Nova Scotia Theatres and Amusements Act were invalid. The impugned legislation granted to the Board of Censors the power to prohibit or censor performances and amusements and the power to prohibit or censor the showing of motion pictures in theatres in Nova Scotia. The action was referred by the Trial Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 30(3) of the Judicature Act.

The capacity of status of the citizen to challenge the Nova Scotia Theatres and Amusements Act was the subject of the decisions of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (see 9 N.S.R.(2d) 483) and the Supreme Court of Canada (see 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 5 N.R. 43; [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265).

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 14 N.S.R.(2d) 225; 11 A.P.R. 225, declared the impugned legislation invalid. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the censorship provisions were concerned with public morality, which was an aspect of criminal law over which the federal government had exclusive power. The province and the Board of Censors appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the legislation was valid provincial legislation over property and civil rights and matters of a local and private nature in the province within ss. 92(13) and 92(16), respectively. See paragraphs 32 to 62, 72 to 73. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the regulation of public morals was not necessarily legislation criminal in nature. See paragraphs 43 to 62.

Laskin, C.J.C., dissenting, Judson, Spence and Dickson, JJ., concurring, would have dismissed the appeal and they were of the opinion that the censorship legislation was criminal in nature and ultra vires. See paragraphs 1 to 31.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1044

Interpretation of British North America Act - Presumption of validity of provincial legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that any question about the validity of provincial legislation is to be approached on the assumption that it was validly enacted - See paragraph 38.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6443

Enumeration in s. 91 of British North America Act, 1867 - Criminal law - Matters held to be criminal in nature - Regulation of public morals - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial censorship of movies on moral grounds was not criminal legislation and was a valid exercise of provincial power over property and civil rights and local matters - See paragraphs 43 to 62.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6446

Enumeration in s. 91 of British North America Act, 1867 - Criminal law - Elements of criminal statute - Effect of provincial statutory prohibition - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a prohibition in a valid provincial statute did not render the statute criminal in nature and invalid - See paragraphs 63 to 66.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6497

Enumeration in s. 91 of British North America Act, 1867 - Criminal law - Indecent performances - The Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 159(2)(b), made it an offence to publicly exhibit an indecent show - Regulation 32 under the Theatres and Amusements Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 304, prohibited any indecent or improper performance in public - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Regulation 32 was invalid, because it proscribed an act made criminal by the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 66 to 71.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7294

Enumeration in s. 92 of British North America Act, 1867 - Property and civil rights - British North America Act, s. 92(13) - Regulatory statutes - Entertainment - Censorship of films - The Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial legislation for the censorship of films was valid provincial legislation respecting property and civil rights within s. 92(13) of the British North America Act - See paragraphs 32 to 62, 72.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7514

Enumeration in s. 92 of British North America Act, 1867 - Matters of a local and private nature in the Province - British North America Act, s. 92(16) - Regulatory statutes - Entertainment - Censorship of films - The Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial legislation for the censorship of films was valid provincial legislation respecting matters of a local and private nature in the province within s. 92(16) of the British North America Act - See paragraphs 72 to 73.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7806

Fundamental freedoms - Power to abridge fundamental freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the censorship of films under the Theatres and Amusements Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 304, was valid and did not abridge fundamental freedoms - See paragraphs 74 to 76.

Cases Noticed:

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 8].

Saumur v. Quebec and Attorney General of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 8].

Payne v. City of St. George, 15 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 9].

Johnson v. Attorney-General of Alberta, [1954] S.C.R. 127, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Board of Cinema Censors, ex parte Montreal Newsdealers Supply Co. Ltd. (1967), 69 D.L.R.(2d) 512, refd to. [para. 18].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, refd to. [para. 18]; consd. [para. 59].

Mann v. The Queen, [1966] S.C.R. 238, refd to. [para. 18]; folld. [para. 61].

Attorney-General of Ontario v. Hamilton Street Rwy., [1903] A.C. 524, refd to. [para. 22].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 22].

Harrell v. Montreal, [1963] Que. P.R. 89, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Fraser, [1966] 1 C.C.C. 110, affd. [1967] S.C.R. 38, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Goldberg and Reitman, [1971] 3 O.R. 323, refd to. [para. 24].

Daylight Theatre Co. Ltd. v. The Queen (1973), 24 C.R.N.S. 368, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Odeon Morton Theatres Ltd. (1974), 45 D.L.R.(3d) 224, refd to. [para. 24].

St. Leonard v. Fournier (1956), 3 D.L.R.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 24].

McDonald v. Down (1939), 71 C.C.C. 179, affd. 75 C.C.C. 404, refd to. [para. 25].

Johnson v. Attorney-General of Alberta, [1954] S.C.R. 127, refd to. [para. 25].

Attorney-General of Ontario v. Koynok, [1941] 1 D.L.R. 548, refd to. [para. 26].

Attorney-General of Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation, [1946] A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 26].

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 26].

Bedard v. Dawson, [1923] S.C.R. 681, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Telegram Publishing Co. Ltd. (1960), 25 D.L.R.(2d) 471, refd to. [para. 27].

Benson and Hedges (Canada) Ltd. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1975), 5 W.W.R. 32, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Skagstead and Skagstead, [1964] 2 C.C.C. 295, refd to. [para. 27].

Millar v. The Queen, [1954] 1 D.L.R. 148, refd to. [para. 27].

Henry Birks and Sons (Montreal) Ltd. v. Montreal, [1955] S.C.R. 799, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Hayduck, [1938] O.R. 653, refd to. [para. 28].

MacDonald v. Vapour Canada Ltd. (1976), 7 N.R. 477; 66 D.L.R. 3d 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board, [1938] A.C. 708, refd to. [para. 30]; appld. [para. 39].

McKay v. The Queen, [1965] S.C.R. 798, refd to. [para. 30].

Severn v. The Queen (1878), 2 S.C.R. 70, appld. [para. 38].

Re The Farm Products Marketing Act, [1957] S.C.R. 198, appld. [para. 38].

Home Oil Distributors Limited v. A.G. of British Columbia, [1940] S.C.R. 444, appld. [para. 39].

Caloil Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1971] S.C.R. 543, appld. [para. 39]; consd. [para. 41].

Lord's Day Alliance of Canada v. Attorney-General for British Columbia, [1959] S.C.R. 497, appld. [para. 49].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney-General of Canada, [1931] A.C. 310, appld. [para. 53].

Bedard v. Dawson, [1923] S.C.R. 681, appld. [para. 55].

Smith v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 776, folld. [para. 60].

Stephens v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 823, folld. [para. 61].

Quong Wing v. The King, 49 S.C.R. 440, folld. [para. 63].

Johnson v. Attorney General of Alberta, [1954] S.C.R. 127, appld. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(27), sect. 92(13), sect. 92(16).

Theatres and Amusements Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 304, sect. 1(g), sect. 2(1), sect. 2(3), sect. 3(2), sect. 3(3), sect. 8, sect. 20(1) [para. 5].

Theatres and Amusements Act Regulations (N.S.), sect. 2, sect. 3(1), sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 13, sect. 16, sect. 18, sect. 32 [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jewett, Censorship of Movies for Canadian Television (1970), 30 Fac. of Law Rev. (U. of T.) 1, at p. 6 et seq. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Donald G. Gibson and William M. Wilson, for the appellants;

Robert Murrant, Dereck M. Jones and B. McIsaac, for the respondent;

T.B. Smith, Q.C. and M.L. Basta, for the Attorney-General of Canada;

J. Polika, for the Attorney-General of Ontario;

Gil Remillard and Anne Laberge, for the Attorney-General of Quebec;

Louis Lindholm, Q.C. and Paul Pearlman, for the Attorney-General of British Columbia;

Hugh MacIntosh, for the Attorney-General of Prince Edward Island;

W. Henkel, Q.C., for the Attorney-General of Alberta;

E.J. Ratushny, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This case was heard on May 24 and 25, 1977, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 19, 1978, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

LASKIN, C.J.C., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

RITCHIE, J. - see paragraphs 32 to 78.

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

JUDSON, SPENCE and DICKSON, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.