Morgentaler v. N.B.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 NBCA 26
• Date: 13 January 2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

Morgentaler v. N.B. (2009), 344 N.B.R.(2d) 39 (CA);

    344 R.N.-B.(2e) 39; 884 A.P.R. 39

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.035

Renvoi temp.: [2009] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.035

The Province of New Brunswick (appellant) v. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (respondent)

(95-08-CA; 2009 NBCA 26)

Indexed As: Morgentaler v. New Brunswick

Répertorié: Morgentaler v. New Brunswick

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A.

May 21, 2009.

Summary:

Résumé:

Dr. Henry Morgentaler sued the Province of New Brunswick to challenge the constitutional validity of Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Payment Act (N.B.). He moved, prior to trial, under rule 37 of the Rules of Court (N.B.) for an order granting him public interest standing in relation to his action.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 336 N.B.R.(2d) 121; 862 A.P.R. 121, allowed the motion. The Province appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - Inherent jurisdiction - Dr. Henry Morgentaler was "engaged in public activism and legal battles to secure and improve women's access to safe, legal abortion" - He ran an abortion clinic in Fredericton - New Brunswick's medicare plan did not pay for the procedure because it was not an "entitled" service under Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Payment Act (N.B.) - Morgentaler sued the Province of New Brunswick to challenge the constitutional validity of Regulation 84-20 - He sought, prior to trial, an order granting him public interest standing in relation to his action - The Province invoked rule 23.01(2)(b) of the Rules of Court (N.B.), which provided that a defendant could move to dismiss an action because the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to bring it, and argued that (a) rule 23 governed all motions with respect to standing, and (b) as a result, the court could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction in this case to decide the public interest standing issue - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the argument, held that rule 23 did not apply, exercised its inherent jurisdiction and allowed the public-interest standing issue to be brought before it at this stage - The court then granted Morgentaler the order he sought where (1) there was a serious issue to be tried, (2) Morgentaler was directly affected by the legislation or had a genuine interest in its validity, and (3) Morgentaler was a suitable alternative person to bring the challenge since there were "many valid reasons why women who have had abortions at the Fredericton Clinic would not or could not bring this challenge" - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the decision - Morgentaler's legal capacity was not in issue and the motion judge did not err in granting public interest to Morgentaler - See paragraphs 27 to 61.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Procédure - Cote 221

Personnes pouvant ester en justice - Particuliers et corporations - Qualité pour agir - Qualité pour agir dans l'intérêt public (y compris exigences) - [Voir Practice - Topic 221 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 2004

Compétence - Compétence inhérente - [Voir Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Words and Phrases

Legal capacity - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the expression "legal capacity" found in rule 23.01(2)(b) of the Rules of Court (N.B.) - See paragraphs 42 to 48.

Cases Noticed:

Lexogest Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al. (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 8; 41 W.A.C. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 4].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 12].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 34].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201; 223 A.R. 201; 183 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 34].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, consd. [para. 37].

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 37].

Hy and Zel's Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General).

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 39].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 632, refd to. [para. 39].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice) and Canada (Minister of Finance), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420, refd to. [para. 39].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 39].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 39].

McNichol v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (2006), 298 N.B.R.(2d) 44; 775 A.P.R. 44; 2006 NBCA 54, consd. [para. 44].

Western Delta Lands Inc. et al. v. Zurich Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

MacKenzie v. Davis (2008), 338 N.B.R.(2d) 232; 866 A.P.R. 232; 2008 NBCA 85, consd. [para. 45].

Canada Post Corp. v. Cormier (Euclide) Plumbing and Heating Inc. et al. (2008), 334 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 858 A.P.R. 211; 2008 NBCA 54, refd to. [para. 49].

Australian Conservation Foundation Inc. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1980), 28 A.L.R. 257 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Canadian Bar Association v. British Columbia et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 1342; 59 B.C.L.R.(4th) 38; 2006 BCSC 1342, refd to. [para. 51].

Morgentaler v. Prince Edward Island (Minister of Health and Social Services) (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 365 A.P.R. 181 (P.E.I.T.D.), consd. [para. 59].

Morgentaler v. New Brunswick et al., [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 16 (T.D.), affd. (2005), 279 N.B.R.(2d) 115; 732 A.P.R. 115; 2005 NBCA 3, leave to appeal refused (2005), 345 N.R. 397; 298 N.B.R.(2d) 198; 775 A.P.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Doiron v. Haché (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 79; 755 A.P.R. 79; 2005 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 60].

Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v. Beaverbrook Art Gallery (2006), 302 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 784 A.P.R. 161; 2006 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 23.01(2)(b) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Annual Practice (1967), vol. 1, p. 276 [para. 50].

Abrams, Linda S., and McGuinness, Kevin P., Canadian Civil Procedure (1st Ed. 2008), paras. 2.33 to 2.35 [para. 51]; ྷྷ 2.33 [para. 35]; 2.41 [para. 43].

Cromwell, Thomas A., Locus Standi: A Commentary on the Law of Standing in Canada (1986), p. 3 [paras. 43, 47].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.), vol. 2, pp. 59.2(b) [para. 36]; 59.2(d) [para. 39]; 59-17 [para. 38].

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, p. 51 [para. 49].

Levine, Sharon, Advocating Values: Public Interest Intervention in Charter Litigation (1993), 2 N.J.C.L. 1-410, p. 37 [para. 52].

Ross, June M., Standing in Charter Declaratory Actions (1995), 33 Osgoode Hall L.J. 151, pp. 191 to 194 [para. 36].

Supreme Court Practice - see Annual Practice.

Whitebook - see Annual Practice.

Counsel:

Avocats:

Nancy E. Forbes, for the appellant;

Darlene Jamieson, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 13, 2009, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on May 21, 2009, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B.