R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.), (1984) 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286 (PC)
| Judge | Harper, P.C.J. |
| Court | Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada) |
| Case Date | September 13, 1984 |
| Jurisdiction | New Brunswick |
| Citations | (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286 (PC) |
R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286 (PC);
57 R.N.-B.(2e) 286; 148 A.P.R. 286
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]
.........................
R. v. Belliveau and Losier
Indexed As: R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.)
Répertorié: R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.)
New Brunswick Provincial Court
Harper, P.C.J.
September 13, 1984.
Summary:
Résumé:
The accused were charged with having possession of cigarettes in a quantity exceeding that prescribed by Regulation 163 under the Tobacco Tax Act (more than ten cartons of cigarettes).
The New Brunswick Provincial Court acquitted both accused.
Evidence - Topic 2288
Judicial notice - Trade and commerce - Manufacturing - The New Brunswick Provincial Court took judicial notice that certain types of nationally-known cigarettes were not manufactured in New Brunswick and were only manufactured and packaged in Quebec and Ontario - See paragraph 11.
Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 3805
Tobacco tax - Validity of taxing statute - The New Brunswick Provincial Court discussed the import of the Tobacco Tax Act and held that s. 2.2 of the Act as amended changed the character of the Act from a taxing Act imposing a liability on a consumer to pay tax to a quasi-criminal Act prohibiting simple possession of more than a prescribed quantity of tobacco except in certain circumstances - The court held that s. 2.2 and s. 18(2) (prescribing the penalty for such possession) were ultra vires the province (or at least unenforceable therein) - See paragraphs 9 to 35; 42 to 68.
Statutes Noticed:
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(2) [para. 10]; sect. 121 [paras. 49, 65].
Tobacco Tax Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. T-7, sect. 3(a) [paras. 15, 18]; sect. 10 [paras. 18, 53-54, 61]; sect. 7 [para. 20]; sect. 2(1), sect. 2(2), sect. 2(3.2) [para. 51].
Tobacco Tax Act Regulations, Reg. 63-163, sect. 4 [para. 21]; sect. 6A(1) [paras. 26, 30, 32]; sect. 6A(2) [paras. 30, 32]; sect. 6B, sect. 6C [para. 33]; Regs. 83-88, 83-207, 84-43, 84-142 [para. 24].
Tobacco Tax Act, an Act to Amend the, S.N.B. 1981, c. 75, sect. 3 [paras. 22, 29-30, 52, 54, 60]; sect. 1 [para. 31].
Tobacco Tax Act, an Act to Amend the, S.N.B. 1983, c. 9, sect. 2.2(1) [paras. 56-57, 59-60]; sect. 2.2(2), sect. 2.2(3), sect. 2.2(4), sect. 2.2(5), sect. 2.2(6), sect. 2.2(7), sect. 2.2(8), sect. 2.2(9), sect. 2.2(10), sect. 2.2(11), sect. 2.2(12), sect. 2.2(13) [para. 68].
Tobacco Tax Act, an Act to Amend the, S.N.B. 1984, c. 66, sect. 18(1) [para. 57]; sect. 18(2) [paras. 57, 66, 68].
Counsel:
[None disclosed.]
This charge was heard before Harper, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, whose decision was delivered at Fredericton, N.B., on September 13, 1984:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.), (1986) 75 N.B.R.(2d) 18 (CA)
...Tax Act, which constituted an offence under s. 2.2(1) of the Act. The New Brunswick Provincial Court, in a judgment reported (1985), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 148 A.P.R. 286, acquitted the accused. The court held that s. 2.2(1) was inoperable because it was vague and that ss. 2.2(2) to 2.2(13) and......
-
R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.), (1985) 61 N.B.R.(2d) 223 (TD)
...Tax Act, which constituted an offence under s. 2.2(1) of the Act. The New Brunswick Provincial Court, in a judgment reported (1985), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 148 A.P.R. 286, acquitted the accused. The court held that s. 2.2(1) was inoperable because it was too vague and that ss. 2.2(2) to 2.2(13)......
-
R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.), (1986) 75 N.B.R.(2d) 18 (CA)
...Tax Act, which constituted an offence under s. 2.2(1) of the Act. The New Brunswick Provincial Court, in a judgment reported (1985), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 148 A.P.R. 286, acquitted the accused. The court held that s. 2.2(1) was inoperable because it was vague and that ss. 2.2(2) to 2.2(13) and......
-
R. v. Belliveau (B.E.) and Losier (C.C.), (1985) 61 N.B.R.(2d) 223 (TD)
...Tax Act, which constituted an offence under s. 2.2(1) of the Act. The New Brunswick Provincial Court, in a judgment reported (1985), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 148 A.P.R. 286, acquitted the accused. The court held that s. 2.2(1) was inoperable because it was too vague and that ss. 2.2(2) to 2.2(13)......