Morgentaler v. Prince Edward Island (Minister of Health and Social Services), (1994) 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (PEITD)

• Judge: Jenkins, J.
• Case Date: October 29, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (PEITD)

Morgentaler v. P.E.I. (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (PEITD);

    365 A.P.R. 181

MLB headnote and full text

Henry Morgentaler (applicant) v. Government of Prince Edward Island, as represented by the Minister of Health & Social Services (respondent)

(GSC-12762)

Indexed As: Morgentaler v. Prince Edward Island (Minister of Health and Social Services)

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

Trial Division

Jenkins, J.

February 25, 1994.

Summary:

Morgentaler applied for a declaration that the abortion policy of the Prince Edward Island Hospital and Health Services Com­mission was ultra vires and without force and effect. The government moved to dis­miss or strike the application.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the motion and awarded costs against the government.

Practice - Topic 219

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Validity or interpretation of legisla­tion - Morgentaler applied for a declar­ation that the Prince Edward Island policy for payment of abortions was ultra vires and without force and effect - Morgentaler provided therapeutic abortions to patients who travelled from Prince Edward Island where abortions were not available - The Province challenged Morgentaler's standing - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the chal­lenge, because (1) Morgentaler had a genuine interest; (2) there was no other reasonable and effective manner to bring the matter before the court; and (3) there was a serious or justiciable issue - The policy classification did not prevent a challenge for non-compliance with pro­cedural requirements and for being ultra vires the parent statute - See paragraphs 11 to 32.

Practice - Topic 3090

Applications and motions - Applications - Dismissal of - Grounds - Morgentaler applied for a declaration that the Prince Edward Island policy for payment of abor­tions was ultra vires and without force and effect - Morgentaler provided therapeutic abortions to patients who travelled from Prince Edward Island where abortions were not available - The Province applied to dismiss the application, asserting that it was an abuse of the court's process and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, rejected the arguments where there was a serious or justiciable issue and the application disclosed a rea­sonable cause of action - See paragraphs 33, 43.

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment to - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - [See Practice - Topic 7035.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7035.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment to - Against the Crown or govern­mental bodies - Morgentaler applied for a declaration that the Prince Edward Island policy for payment of abortions was ultra vires and without force and effect - The Province unsuccessfully applied to dismiss the application - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, awarded Morgentaler party and party costs stating that "(i) an issue having been prop­erly brought before the court does not, of itself, preclude application of the usual rule; (ii) there is no prescription, or reason, for preferring Government over other litigants with regard to costs; and (iii) the exception from costs for novel questions is applied where the issue is truly novel, i.e. where there is a dearth of precedent gen­erally, not only from this jurisdiction." - See paragraph 36.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, affing. (1991), 104 N.S.R.(2d) 361; 283 A.P.R. 361; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 8 (C.A.), affing. (1990), 99 N.S.R.(2d) 293; 270 A.P.R. 293 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 3, 22].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

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; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 24 C.P.C. 62; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588, appld. [para. 11].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321, appld. [para. 11].

Flanagan v. Charlottetown (City) (1989), 79 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 166; 246 A.P.R. 166 (P.E.I.T.D.), consd. [para. 12].

Energy Probe et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 39; 68 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 13].

Morgentaler v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) et al. (1989), 98 N.B.R.(2d) 45; 248 A.P.R. 45 (T.D.), consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 16].

Canadian Abortion Rights Action League Inc. et al. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1990), 96 N.S.R.(2d) 284; 253 A.P.R. 284 (C.A.), dist. [para. 18].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350; 18 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689, refd to. [para. 21].

British Columbia Civil Liberties Associ­ation v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1988), 24 B.C.L.R.(2d) 189 (S.C.), consd. [para. 24].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 13 C.R.R. 287; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, consd. [para. 26].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 27].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Canadian Trans­port Commission, [1985] 2 F.C. 136; 60 N.R. 298 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, appld. [para. 34].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 251 [para. 30]; sect. 251(4) [paras. 29, 30].

Health Services Payment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. H-2, generally [para. 23].

Health Service Payment Act Regulations, generally [para. 23].

Rules of Court (P.E.I.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 21.01(1)(b), rule 21.01(3)(b), rule 21.01(3)(d) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cromwell, Thomas, Locus Standi (1986), pp. 89 [para. 16]; 90 [para. 13].

Holland and McGowan, Delegated Legis­lation in Canada (1989), pp. 107-114 [para. 28]; 214 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Anne S. Derrick and Daphne E. Dumont, for the applicant;

Roger B. Langille, Q.C., for the respon­dent.

This motion was heard on October 29, 1993, before Jenkins, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered judgment on February 25, 1994.