Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., (1995) 82 O.A.C. 243 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 82 O.A.C. 243 (SCC)

Ont. v. Cdn. Pacific Ltd. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 243 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

Canadian Pacific Limited (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (respondent) and The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General for Saskatchewan and Canadian Environmental Law Association (interveners)

(23721)

Indexed As: Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

July 20, 1995.

Summary:

Canadian Pacific (C.P.), the operator of a transcontinental railway, was charged with two offences under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act 1980 (s. 13(1)(a)). C.P. was found not guilty at trial, but convictions were entered following a Crown appeal. C.P. appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 63 O.A.C. 222, dismissed the appeal. C.P. appealed again. Three constitutional questions were posed.

1. Does s. 13(1)(a) of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act constitutionally apply to C.P. when maintaining its rightof-way?

2. Is s. 13(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act so vague as to infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, then is s. 13(1)(a) nevertheless justified by s. 1 of the Charter?

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a partial judgment delivered orally at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, answered the first question in the affirmative (see the previous case in this volume). The court reserved judgment on the other two questions.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the decision reported below, answered the second question in the negative and thus did not need to answer the third question.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - Canadian Pacific (C.P.), the operator of a transcontinental railway, was required by the Railway Act (Can.) to maintain its right-of-way free from dead grass, weeds and other unnecessary combustible matter - C.P. did controlled burning near residential areas in Ontario, causing smoke damage and minor fire damage to properties - C.P. was convicted of two offences under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (1980), s. 13(1)(a) - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions - C.P. appealed arguing that s. 13(1)(a) was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad (Charter, s. 7) - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal holding that s. 13(1)(a) was not so vague as to infringe s. 7, nor was the provision overbroad.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - The Ontario Environmental Protection Act (1980), s. 13(1)(a), provided that "... no person shall deposit, add, emit, or discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the deposit, addition, emission or discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment that causes or is likely to cause impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it " - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the principles applicable in analyzing a s. 7 vagueness claim under the Charter - The court then applied these principles in ruling that the underlined phrase in s. 13(1)(a) was not void for vagueness - See paragraphs 22 to 58.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the role of "reasonable hypotheticals" in s. 7 vagueness analysis under the Charter and concluded that "reasonable hypotheticals" have no place in the vagueness analysis - The court contrasted this to the analysis of overbreadth under s. 7 and of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under s. 12 where the court must engage in proportionality analysis where the use of reasonable hypotheticals will be of assistance and may be unavoidable - In the context of vagueness, proportionality plays no role in the analysis - See paragraphs 47 to 58, 68 to 71.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring), of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a minority judgment, discussed the relevance of the defence of due diligence to a s. 7 vagueness analysis under the Charter - See paragraphs 66, 67.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Overbreadth principle - The Ontario Environmental Protection Act (1980), s. 13(1)(a), prohibited the depositing, adding, emitting or discharging of a contaminant into the natural environment "that causes or is likely to cause impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it" - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Gonthier, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring), without considering whether the independent principle of overbreadth (R. v. Heywood (S.C.C.)) was applicable, held that s. 13(1)(a) was not overbroad - Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring), reviewed the principles applicable in an overbreadth analysis (Charter, s. 7) as set out in Heywood and held that s. 13(1)(a) could be interpreted in a manner that would not render the section overbroad - See paragraphs 59 to 62, 72 to 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Overbreadth principle - [See first and third Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8469

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - United States experience - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the United States' approach to the use of "reasonable hypotheticals" in determining vagueness of a law as set out in Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates Inc. - See paragraphs 47 to 58 - The court stated that "it may be trite, but nevertheless worth repeating, that while American rights jurisprudence can be of assistance in interpreting provisions of the Charter, Canadian courts should not simply import American constitutional principles into our law. What may be appropriate in the American constitutional setting may be unacceptable, or even unworkable, in the unique Canadian milieu. For this reason, the Hoffman Estates principle must be approached with considerable caution" - See paragraph 51.

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vagueness rule - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 2

Environmental legislation - General - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Words and Phrases

For any use that can be made of [the natural environment] - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, s. 13(1)(a) - See paragraphs 15 to 58, 79 to 84.

Words and Phrases

Impairment - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "impairment" as it was used in the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, s. 13(1)(a) - See paragraphs 38, 85, 86.

Words and Phrases

Use - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "use" as it was used in the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, s. 13(1)(a) - See paragraphs 39 to 46, 60, 61, 79 to 84.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Corporation of the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] A.C. 367 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Hoffman Estates (Village) v. Flipside Hoffman Estates Inc. (1982), 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 10, 47, 69].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott (1985), 11 O.A.C. 81; 48 C.R.(3d) 1; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 52 O.R.(2d) 353; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [paras. 10, 70].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, appld. [paras. 12, 64].

R. v. Lopes (1988), 3 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 78 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Royal Pacific Seafarms Ltd. (1989), 7 W.C.B.(2d) 355 (B.C.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Noranda Inc. (Mines Noranda Ltée) (1989), 4 C.E.L.R. 158 (Qué. Cr. P.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Algoma Steel Corp. (1991), 14 W.C.B.(2d) 264 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Satellite Construction Ltd. (1992), 8 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 215 (N.S. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Commander Business Furniture Inc. (1992), 9 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 185 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [paras. 33, 70].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380, affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 31 C.R.(4th) 60, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. McKenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Smith (K.M.) (1992), 131 A.R. 59; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Winlaw (1988), 13 M.V.R.(2d) 112 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Bruhjell, [1986] B.C.J. No. 746 (Q.L.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Campbell (W.S.) (1991), 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 271 A.P.R. 269 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Reward, The (1818), 2 Dods. 265; 165 E.R. 1482, refd to. [para. 41].

Qualico Developments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1984), 51 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Galt Art Metal Co. v. Pedlar People Ltd., [1935] O.R. 126 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Elias v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1992), 95 D.L.R.(4th) 303 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Watts v. Centennial Insurance Co. (1967), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 175 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Rockert, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 704; 19 N.R. 308, refd to. [para. 42].

Stevenson v. R. (1980), 19 C.R.(3d) 74 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Conlin v. Prowse (1993), 109 D.L.R.(4th) 243 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 42].

Pickering (Township) v. Godfrey, [1958] O.R. 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. LeBeau; R. v. Lofthouse (1988), 25 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 58 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Parker v. Levy (1974), 417 U.S. 733 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 52, 69].

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), 310 U.S. 88, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 435; [1987] 5 W.W.R. 1; 58 C.R.(3d) 193; 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [paras. 53, 82].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 82; 61 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 53, 71].

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. 66].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie - see R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City).

Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), 413 U.S. 601 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 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. 70].

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. 70].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 74].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 75].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346; 23 C.R.(4th) 189, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 124; 15 C.R.(4th) 66, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506; 15 N.R. 287, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Hibbert (L.) (1995), 184 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 12 [para. 56].

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 16, sect. 67 [para. 18].

Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, sect. 5.3 [para. 18].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 78].

Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. E-10.2, sect. 2(v), sect. 34.1 [para. 18].

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 150, sect. 3(f)(i)(A), sect. 3(n), sect. 23(1) [para. 18].

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, sect. 1(1)(c), sect. 1(1)(k) [para. 8]; sect. 2 [para. 27]; sect. 13 [para. 8]; sect. 13(1)(a) [para. 15]; sect. 23(1)(c), sect. 23(2), sect. 73 [para. 17].

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19, sect. 1(1)(a), sect. 14(1) [para. 16].

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. E-9, sect. 20 [para. 18].

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, S.A. 1992, c. E-13.3, sect. 98 [para. 18].

Environmental Quality Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. Q-2, sect. 20 [para. 18].

Waters Protection Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. W-5, sect. 8 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Butler, Andrew S., A Presumption of Statutory Conformity with the Charter (1993), 19 Queen's L.J. 209, pp. 225, 226, 227 [para. 24].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Crimes Against the Environment (1985), Working Paper No. 44, pp. 8 [para. 31]; 46 [para. 27].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed.), pp. 242, 248 [para. 74]; 330, 383, 384 [para. 41].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 39, 106 [para. 74].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 94 [para. 41].

Jadach, Christina L., Pre-enforcement Constitutional Challenge to Legislation after Hoffman Estates: Limiting the Vagueness and Overbreadth Doctrines (1983), 20 Harvard J. of Legislation 617, p. 620 [para. 52].

Law Reform Commission of Canada - see Canada, Law Reform Commission.

United Nations Report of the Experts Group on Environmental Law of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development (1986), Article 4 [para. 45].

Counsel:

H.C. Wendlandt and G. Despars, for the appellant;

David Lepofsky and Pat Moran, for the respondent;

Jean Bouchard, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Kenneth J. Tyler and Stewart J. Pierce, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Graeme G. Mitchell, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Richard D. Lindgren, for the intervener, the Canadian Environmental Law Association (written submission only).

Solicitors of Record:

Canadian Pacific Legal Services, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Ministry of the Attorney General and Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

W. Brent Cotter, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

Canadian Environmental Law Association, Toronto, Ontario, for the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

This appeal was heard on January 24, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on July 20, 1995, including the following opinions:

Gonthier, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 63;

Lamer, C.J.C., concurring reasons (Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 64 to 87.