R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Citation: (2001), 279 N.R. 345 (SCC),2001 SCC 81
• Date: 06 December 2001
• Subject Matter: COURTS,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS

R. v. 974649 Ont. Inc. (2001), 279 N.R. 345 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. DE.001

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (appellant) v. 974649 Ontario Inc., c.o.b. as Dunedin Construction (1992) and Bob Hoy (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Attorney General for Alberta and The Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) (intervenors)

(27084; 2001 SCC 81)

Indexed As: R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

December 6, 2001.

Summary:

The accused were charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. A Justice of the Peace sitting as a trial judge under the Provincial Offences Act found that the Crown breached the accused's s. 7 Charter rights by failing to make proper pre-trial disclosure. The judge ordered disclosure and ordered the Crown to pay the accused $2,000 for legal costs incurred in the disclosure motion. The Crown applied for certiorari to quash the costs order, sub­mitting that the judge was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of s. 24(1) of the Charter and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to award costs for a Charter breach. Alternatively, if the judge had jurisdiction, he erred in awarding costs in this instance.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a judgment reported 25 O.R.(3d) 420, allowed the application and quashed the costs award. The court held that the judge lacked juris­diction to award costs against the Crown as a remedy for breach of a Charter right. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 114 O.A.C. 258, allowed the appeal. The judge had juris­diction. The court remitted the matter to the General Division to determine whether this was an appropriate case for an award of costs. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Superior Court for determination of whether the trial judge erred in finding the conduct of the Crown warranted an order for costs.

Administrative Law - Topic 8927

Boards and tribunals - Powers - Statutory powers - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "a statutory body enjoys not only the powers expressly conferred upon it, but also by implication all powers that are reasonably necessary to accomplish its mandate ... In other words, the powers of a statutory court or tribunal extend beyond the express language of its enabling legis­lation to the powers necessary to perform its intended functions ... Consequently, the functions of a statutory body is of princi­pal importance in assessing whether it is vested with an implied power to grant the remedy sought. Such implied powers are found only where they are required as a matter of practical necessity for the court or tribunal to accomplish its purpose ... While these powers need not be absolutely necessary for the court or tribunal to real­ize the objects of its statute, they must be necessary to effectively and efficiently carry out is purpose." - See paragraphs 70 to 71.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - Section 24 of the Charter empowered a "court of competent jurisdiction" to grant remedies for Charter breaches - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a particular court was a "court of competent jurisdiction" only if it possessed jurisdiction over the person and subject matter and had jurisdiction, inde­pendently of the Charter, to grant the remedy sought - The latter issue was resolved applying a "functional and struc­tural approach" by determining whether the court or tribunal, by virtue of its function and structure, was an appropriate forum for the ordering the Charter remedy sought - If so, it could be reasonably inferred that Parliament intended the court or tribunal to have the remedy at its disposal when con­fronted with Charter breaches arising in the course of its proceedings - The court stated that "where a legislature confers on a court or tribunal a function that involves the determination of matters where Charter rights may be affected, and furnishes it with processes and powers capable of fairly and justly resolving those incidental Charter issues, then it must be inferred, in the absence of a contrary intention, that the legislature intended to empower the tribu­nal to apply the Charter. This approach promotes direct and early access to Charter remedies in forums competent to issue such relief." - See para­graphs 15 to 75.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - Section 24 of the Charter empowered a "court of competent jurisdiction" to grant remedies for Charter breaches - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 24(1) ... com­mands a broad and purposive interpreta­tion. ... and must be construed generously, in a manner that best ensures the attain­ment of its objects. ... s. 24 must be inter­preted in a way that achieves its purpose of upholding Charter rights by providing effective remedies for their breach ... s. 24(1) must be interpreted in a manner that provides a full, effective and meaningful remedy for Charter violations ... subs. (1) and (2) must be read together to create a harmonious interpretation. ... s. 24 should not be read so broadly that it endows courts and tribunals with powers that they were never intended to exercise. ... It is Parliament or the legislature that deter­mines if a court or tribunal is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' ... In summary, the task of the court in interpreting s. 24 of the Charter is to achieve a broad, purposive interpretation that facilitates direct access to appropriate and just Charter remedies under ss. 24(1) and (2), while respecting the structure and practice of the existing court system and the exclusive role of Parliament and the legislatures in prescrib­ing the jurisdiction of courts and tribu­nals." - See paragraphs 17 to 24.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Costs - The accused were charged with Occupa­tional Health and Safety Act offences - A Justice of the Peace, sitting as a provincial offen­ces court under the Prov­incial Offences Act, found that the Crown breached the accused's s. 7 Charter rights by failing to make proper pre-trial dis­closure - The judge ordered disclosure and awarded costs of $2,000 against the Crown - At issue was whether the Justice of the Peace was a "court of competent juris­diction" under s. 24 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Justice of the Peace was a "court of com­petent jurisdiction" and had jurisdiction to award costs under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction over the accused and the subject matter and, applying the "functional and struc­tural" approach, had the implied power to grant the remedy sought - The provincial offences court (a quasi-criminal court) was an appropriate forum for the just resolution of this Charter issue, and the legislature, having sufficiently equipped the court to fashion a costs rem­edy in these circum­stances, intended it to exercise this power to address violations of the Charter arising in the course of its proceedings - See paragraphs 76 to 97.

Courts - Topic 2083

Jurisdiction - Extent of - Statutory courts - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8927 ].

Courts - Topic 7625

Provincial courts - Ontario - Provincial offences court - Jurisdiction - Charter remedies - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, appld. [para. 8].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75; 192 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 18].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

British Columbia Development Corp. v. Ombudsman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 447; 55 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 18].

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32; 206 N.R. 321; 97 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 18].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Pang (B.L.) (1994), 162 A.R. 24; 83 W.A.C. 24; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Tataryn et al. v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807; 169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255, refd to. [para. 38].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 38].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 39].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1989] 2 F.C. 245; 88 N.R. 6 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 65].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 65].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 70].

Reference Re National Energy Board Act, [1986] 3 F.C. 275; 69 N.R. 174 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Interprovincial Pipe Line Ltd. v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 F.C. 601; 17 N.R. 56 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 72].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Com­mission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Ouellette, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 568; 32 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Pawlowski (M.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 276; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 45; 553 A.P.R. 45; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Im­migration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Jedynack (1994), 16 O.R.(3d) 612 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Dodson (1999), 70 C.R.R.(2d) 65 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Robinson (C.J.) (1999), 250 A.R. 201; 213 W.A.C. 201; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 96].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 96].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24 [para. 5].

Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-33, sect. 90 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Drinkwalter, W. Douglas, and Ewart, J. Douglas, Ontario Provincial Offences Procedure (1980), pp. 4 to 7 [para. 78].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1990), vol. 44(1), para. 1335 [para. 70].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1997) (2000 updated looseleaf, release 1), vol. 2, p. 37-24 [para. 79].

Macauley, Robert W., and Sprague, James L.H., Practice and Procedure Before Adminis­trative Tribunals (1988) (2001 updated looseleaf, release 1), vol. 3, pp. 23-17 [para. 26]; 29-2 [para. 71].

Counsel:

Hart Schwartz and Line Forestier, for the appellant;

Norman A. Keith and Rebecca K. Saturley, for the respondents;

Nancy L. Irving and Peter De Freitas, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

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

James A. Bowron (written submission only), for the intervenor, Attorney Gen­eral for Alberta;

Kent Roach, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

Solicitors of Record:

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Donahue Ernst & Young LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia;

Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Alberta;

Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

This appeal was heard on December 6, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 6, 2001, McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the court.