Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., (1995) 180 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 04, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 180 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1995] 2 SCR 97;1995 CanLII 86 (SCC);124 DLR (4th) 129;39 CR (4th) 141;98 CCC (3d) 20;180 NR 1;31 Admin LR (2d) 261;[1995] CarswellNS 12;JE 95-945;[1995] SCJ No 36 (QL);141 NSR (2d) 1;27 WCB (2d) 9;28 CRR (2d) 1;403 APR 1;54 ACWS (3d) 1115

Phillips v. Richard, J. (1995), 180 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

United Steel Workers of America, Local 9332 and The Honourable Justice K. Peter Richard, in his capacity as Commissioner under the Public Inquires Act and as a Special Examiner under the Coal Mines Regulation Act appointed pursuant to Order-in-Council No. 92-504, dated the 15th day of May 1992 v. Gerald Phillips, Roger Parry, Glynn Jones, Arnold Smith, Robert Parry, Brian Palmer and Kevin Atherton and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Nova Scotia and Westray Families' Group, Town of Stellarton, Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia and Attorney General for Saskatchewan

(23621)

Indexed As: Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 4, 1995.

Summary:

The Province of Nova Scotia, by Order-in-Council 92-504, appointed a Supreme Court judge as a Commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act and a Special Examiner under the Coal Mines Regulation Act to inquire into an underground mine explosion with 26 fatalities. Concurrently, mine employees were charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and faced possible criminal charges from an ongoing R.C.M.P. investigation. The employees applied for a declaration that Order-in-Council 92-504 was ultra vires the Province for infringing the federal powers under ss. 91(27) and 96 of the Con­stitution Act, 1867. They also claimed a denial of their rights under ss. 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 116 N.S.R.(2d) 34; 320 A.P.R. 34, held that (1) the terms of reference in the Order-in-Council were ultra vires in their present form; the Order-in-Council was invalid on the ground that in pith and substance it encroached on the federal crim­inal law and procedures power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867; (2) s. 67(e) of the Coal Mines Regulation Act was ultra vires the Province for the same reason; (3) the Order-in-Council did not violate s. 96 of the Constitution Act; and (4) it was unnec­essary to decide whether the employ­ees' rights under ss. 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Charter were denied. The Attorney General and others appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, in a judgment reported 117 N.S.R.(2d) 218; 325 A.P.R. 218, allowed the appeal. The court held that neither the Order-in-Council nor s. 67(e) were ultra vires the Province. However, proceeding with the inquiry before trial of the charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and completion of the crimi­nal investi­gation would deny the employees' right to remain silent and their right to a fair trial (Charter, ss. 7, 11(d)). Accordingly, the court stated that the appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter was to tempor­arily stay the inquiry until the Occupational Health and Safety Act charges and possible criminal charges were resolved. The Steel Workers Union and the Commissioner appealed the granting of a stay. The employees were denied leave to cross-appeal the finding that the Order-in-Council was intra vires the Province. Before the Court of Appeal deci­sion was released, the Occupational Health and Safety Act charges were quashed and the employees were criminally charged. After the appeal was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada, the employees elected trial by judge alone and the trial commenced.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the stay of the Inquiry. There was no longer any foundation for the stay where the trial was before judge alone. Accordingly, it was unnecessary and unde­sirable to decide the case on the basis upon which it was decided by the Court of Appeal and argued before the Supreme Court of Canada (i.e., on basis that trial would be before judge and jury).

Administrative Law - Topic 7963

Public inquiries - Powers of - Compelling witnesses - An issue arose as to whether, if a provincial inquiry into a mining disas­ter proceeded before any criminal trials of mine employees, the employees were compellable witnesses at the inquiry - The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found it unnecessary and undesirable to resolve the issue, because it was both a moot point and premature - However, three judges found it to be a live issue to be resolved - Those judges, applying R. v. R.J.S. and British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, opined that the employees were compellable witnesses before the inquiry - The judges noted that the employees were protected by s. 13 of the Charter against the self-incriminatory use of their inquiry testi­mony and that s. 7 protected them against the use of derivative evidence - See para­graphs 47 to 75.

Administrative Law - Topic 7992

Public inquiries - Practice - Stay of - The Province established a provincial inquiry into a mine disaster - Concurrently, mine employees faced charges under the Occu­pational Health and Safety Act and an investigation that could lead to criminal charges - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that if the inquiry proceeded before the Occupational Health and Safety Act charges and possible criminal charges were tried, the employees' right to remain silent and their right to a fair trial (Charter, ss. 7, 11(d)) would be denied - The court stayed the inquiry until the charges were disposed of - Prior to release of the Court of Appeal decision, the Occupational Health and Safety Act charges were quashed and the employees were criminal­ly charged - The appeals before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada were argued on the basis of an expected jury trial - After argument before the Supreme Court of Canada, the employees elected trial by judge alone and the trial commenced - The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the stay - The foundation upon which the stay was based (publicity generated by Inquiry violated Charter rights due to effects on jurors) had disap­peared - Accordingly, it was unnecessary and undesirable to decide the issue of law on a basis that had disappeared - Where the employees were tried by a trial judge, the employees' Charter rights would not be denied and a stay was unwarranted - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 3115

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Publication ban - A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that a "publication ban should only be ordered when: (a) such a ban is neces­sary in order to prevent a real and sub­stan­tial risk to the fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and (b) the salu­tary effects of the publication ban out­weigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of those affected by the ban." - See paragraph 109.

Civil Rights - Topic 3143

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Pre-trial publica­tion of evidence - A mining disaster led to a public inquiry and criminal charges against mine employees - The employees claimed that pretrial publicity would vio­late their s. 11(d) Charter right to a fair trial in a con­current or subsequent criminal trial, pri­marily due to the effect of public­ity on potential jurors - After argument before the Supreme Court of Canada, the employees elected trial by judge alone and the trial commenced - The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found it unnec­essary to resolve the issue of fair trial by jury, because it was now moot - However, three judges found it "helpful" to consider the issue - Those judges opined that the unrestricted public hearings would not deny the employees a fair jury trial - "An individual who elected to be tried by judge alone cannot also claim that his fair trial rights have been breached by excessive pretrial publicity" - See paragraphs 87 to 141.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 7992 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 7992 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other pro­ceedings - Derivative evidence - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7963 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7992 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.9

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Anticipa­tory breach - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7992 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.9

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Anticipa­tory breach - A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is true that relief may be granted for a prospective Charter violation. ... However, relief will only be granted in circumstances where the claimant is able to prove that there is a sufficiently serious risk that the alleged violation will in fact occur. ... before a court will restrain government action, it must be satisfied that there is a very real likelihood that in the absence of that relief an individual's Charter rights will be pre­judiced." - See paragraphs 82, 84.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7992 ].

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it should not decide issues of law that are not necessary to a resolution of an appeal. This is particularly true with respect to constitutional issues and the principle applies with even greater emphasis in circumstances in which the foundation upon which the proceedings were launched has ceased to exist. ... The policy which dictates restraint in constitu­tional cases is sound. It is based on the realization that unnecessary constitutional pronouncements may prejudice future cases, the implications of which have not been foreseen. ... This practice applies, a fortiori, when the substratum on which the case was based ceases to exist. The court is then required to opine on a hypothetical situation and not a real controversy. This engages the doctrine of mootness pursuant to which the court will decline to exercise its discretion to rule on moot questions unless, inter alia, there is a pressing issue which will be evasive of review." - See paragraphs 6 to 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - Impartiality - A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the objective of finding twelve jurors who know nothing of the facts of a high­ly-publicized case is, today, patently un­realistic. Just as clearly, impartiality cannot be equated with ignorance of all the facts of the case. A definition of an impartial juror today must take into account not only all our present methods of communication and news reporting techniques, but also the heightened protection of individual rights which has existed in this country since the introduction of the Charter in 1982. It comes down to this: in order to hold a fair trial it must be possible to find jurors who, although familiar with the case, are able to discard any previously formed opinions and to embark upon their duties armed with both an assumption that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise, and a willingness to determine liability based solely on the evidence presented at trial. I am of the view that this objective is read­ily attainable in the vast majority of crimi­nal trials even in the face of a great deal of publicity. ... The solemnity of the juror's oath, the existence of procedures such as change of venue and challenge for cause, and the careful attention which jurors pay to the instructions of a judge all help to ensure that jurors will carry out their duties impartially." - See paragraphs 106 to 108.

Cases Noticed:

Glassco and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Cumming, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 605; 22 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 7].

Manitoba v. Air Canada and Canada (At­torney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 303; 32 N.R. 244; 4 Man.R.(2d) 278, refd to. [para. 8].

Deere (John) Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330, refd to. [para. 9].

Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 887, refd to. [para. 10].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 8 C.R.R. 193; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 11].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 38 C.R.R. 232; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 33 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 12].

Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt (1995), 180 N.R. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 16; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 25].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

O'Hara and Kirkbride v. British Columbia, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 591; 80 N.R. 127, refd to. [para. 27].

Faber v. Sa Majesté la Reine et le Procureur général et ministre de la Jus­tice de la Province du Québec et autres, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 9; 6 N.R. 1 (Fr.); 8 N.R. 29 (Eng.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to [para. 29].

R. v. Kenny (D.) (1991), 92 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 318; 287 A.P.R. 318 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

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, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 985; 84 N.R. 296; 14 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

Batary v. Saskatchewan (Attorney Gen­eral), [1965] S.C.R. 465, refd to. [para. 50].

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Warden of the Common Jail of Montreal (City) et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Jones, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 54].

Haywood Securities Inc. v. Inter-Tech Resource Group Inc. (1985), 24 D.L.R.(4th) 724 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Samson et al. v. Canada et al. (1994), 77 F.T.R. 179 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Delaney v. United States (1952), 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 78].

Keegstra v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1986), 77 A.R. 249; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (1992), 59 O.A.C. 310; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 83].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 84].

Stroble v. California (1952), 343 U.S. 181, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. French (E.G.)(No. 2) (1991), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 14; 292 A.P.R. 14 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Kray (1969), 53 Cr. App. R. 412, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Hubbert (1975), 15 N.R. 143; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 279 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 267; 15 N.R. 139, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 3 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 108].

Telegraph plc, Re, [1993] 2 All E.R. 971 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, refd to. [para. 111].

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (1979), 443 U.S. 368, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Burke (J.)(No. 3) (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 191; 365 A.P.R. 191 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Orysiuk (1977), 6 A.R. 548; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

Stickney v. Trusz (1973), 2 O.R.(2d) 469 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Yanover (1974), 6 O.R.(2d) 478 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

Canada (Solicitor General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confi­dentiality of Health Records in Ontario et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 494; 38 N.R. 588, refd to. [para. 148].

Keable and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 172].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(2) [para. 23].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(c), sect. 11(d), sect. 13 [para. 23].

Coal Mines Regulation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 73, sect. 67(e) [para. 23].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91, sect. 96 [para. 26].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 517, sect. 539 [para. 94].

Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 320, generally [para. 20].

Public Inquiries Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 372, sect. 5 [para. 145].

Trade Union Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 475, generally [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Law Reform Institute, Report No. 62, Proposals for the Reform of the Public Inquiries Act (1992), gen­erally [para. 35].

Blom-Cooper, Sir Louis, Public Inquiries (1993), 46 Current Legal Problems 204, p. 211, note 9 [para. 92].

Cameron, Jamie, Comment: The Constitu­tional Domestication of our Courts -- Openness and Publicity in Judicial Pro­ceedings under the Charter, in The Media, the Courts and the Charter (1986), pp. 340, 341 [para. 91].

Cameron, James M., The Pictonian Col­liers (1974), generally [para. 41].

Canada, Commission of Inquiry, Report of Commission of Inquiry, Explosion in No. 26 Colliery, Glace Bay, Nova Scotia on February 24, 1979, generally [para. 44].

Canada, Commission of Inquiry, Report to the Minister of Labour in the Matter of an Inquiry under Section 86 of the Canada Labour Code Concerning a Fire on June 19, 1975, in the No. 26 Colliery at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia (1976), gen­erally [para. 44].

Canada, Department of Labour, Mine Safety Office, and Nova Scotia Depart­ment of Mines and Energy, Report of Investigation into Mine Rescue Oper­ations at No. 26 Colliery Fire on April 5, 1984 [para. 44].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Ad-ministrative Law: Commissions of Inquiry, Working Paper No. 17 (1977), gen­erally [para. 35].

Grange, S.G.M., How Should Lawyers and the Legal Profession Adapt?, in Com­missions of Inquiry (1990), 12 Dalhousie L.J. 151, generally [para. 37].

Hoegg Ryan, Judith, Coal in our Blood (1992), generally [para. 41].

Le Dain, Gerald E., The Role of the Public Inquiry in our Constitutional System, in Law and Social Change (1973), generally [para. 38].

Minow, Newton N., and Cate, Fred H., Who is an Impartial Juror in an Age of Mass Media? (1991), 40 American Univ. L. Rev. 631, pp. 634, 637, 638 [para. 105].

Nova Scotia, Report of the Royal Com­mission Appointed to Inquire into the Upheaval or Fall or other Disturbance Sometimes Referred to as a Bump in No. 2 Mine at Springhill, on the 23rd day of October, A.D. 1958, generally [para. 44].

Nova Scotia, Report of the Royal Com­mission Appointed to Inquire into the Explosion and Fire in No. 4 Mine at Springhill, N.S., on the 1st Day of No­vember 1956, generally [para. 44].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Public Inquiries (1992), gen­erally [para. 35].

Ratushny, Ed, The Role of the Accused in the Criminal Process, in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989), generally [para. 54].

Counsel:

Raymond F. Larkin, Q.C., Dianne Pothier and David Roberts, for the appellant, United Steelworkers of America, Local 9332;

John P. Merrick, Q.C., for the appellant, The Honourable Justice K. Peter Richard;

No one appearing for the respondent, Gerald Phillips;

Robert Wright, Q.C., for the respondent, Roger Parry;

Robert L. Barnes, for the respondents, Glynn Jones, Arnold Smith, Robert Parry, Brian Palmer and Kevin Atherton;

Reinhold Endres and Louise Walsh Poirier, for the respondent, Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Brian J. Hebert, for the respondent, West­ray Families' Group;

Roseanne Skoke, for the respondent, Town of Stellarton;

Jay L. Naster, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;

Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Que­bec;

Marva J. Smith, for the intervenor, Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

George H. Copley, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Ross MacNab, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

Solicitors of Record:

Pink, Breen, Larkin, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellant, United Steelworkers of America, Local 9332;

Flinn, Merrick, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellant, The Honourable Justice K. Peter Richard;

Blois, Nickerson & Bryson, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, Gerald J. Phillips;

Daley, Black & Moreira, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, Roger Parry;

Burchell, MacAdam & Hayman, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondents, Glynn Jones, Arnold Smith, Robert Parry, Brian Palmer and Kevin Atherton;

Department of Justice, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, Minister of Justice;

Ross, Barrett & Scott, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, Westray Families' Group;

Skoke & Company, Stellarton, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, Town of Stellarton;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

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

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Saskatchewan.

This appeal was heard on May 31 and June 1, 1994, 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 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on May 4, 1995, and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 15;

Cory, J. (Iacobucci and Major, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 16 to 151;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 152 to 177.