R. v. Biller (V.K.) et al., (1999) 177 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 31, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 177 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

R. v. Biller (V.K.) (1999), 177 Sask.R. 161 (CA);

    199 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.026

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant/respondent on cross-appeal) v. Verne Kenneth Biller and Cree Lake Lodge Inc. (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal)

(Nos. 7188; 7189)

Indexed As: R. v. Biller (V.K.) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A.

March 31, 1999.

Summary:

An owner of a corporation and the corpo­ration (the accused) were convicted by judge and jury of two counts of operating a com­mercial air service without certain safety documents contrary to s. 7.3(1)(f) of the Aeronautics Act. The owner was acquitted of a charge of operating a domestic air service without a proper licence contrary to s. 71(2) of the National Transporta­tion Act. The accused appealed the convictions. The Crown appealed the acquittal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the accused's appeal, allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial on the National Trans­portation Act charge.

Aeronautics - Topic 3104

Offences - General - Aircraft operation - Operating a commercial air service without safety documents - Guests at the accused's camp could be flown to and from the camp for no additional charge - The accused were convicted of operating a commercial air service without certain safety documents (Aeronautics Act, s. 7.3(1)(f)) -Section 700 of the Air Regu­lations prohibited operating a commercial air service without the appropriate docu­ment certifying that the holder was ade­quately equipped and able to conduct a safe opera­tion as an air carrier - Section 3 of the Act defined "commercial air ser­vice" to mean "any use of an aircraft for hire or reward" - The accused appealed, asserting that s. 7.3(1)(f) and s. 700 infringed s. 7 of the Charter because they were overly broad - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that whether or not overbreadth existed as an independent principle of fundamental justice, the appeal should be dismissed - If not an indepen­dent principle, the sections were not vague and further inquiry was unnecessary - If it was, the breath of the provisions matched the legislation's purpose of regulating all aspects of aeronautics for public safety and economic reasons - See paragraphs 5 to 46.

Aeronautics - Topic 3105

Offences - General - Aircraft operation - Operating a domestic air service without a licence - An accused was acquitted of operating a domestic air service without a proper licence (National Transportation Act, s. 71(2)) - Section 67(1)'s definition of "domestic service" included an air service that was publicly available for transporting passengers - The Crown appealed, asserting that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that "publicly available" meant open to the public gen­erally without qualification - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The presence of a qualification was not a tenable means by which to determine whether a service was publicly available - While the accused's passengers had to be his business's guests before they could use the flight service, such a qualifi­cation did not do more than define a sub­set of the public using the service - A service could be publicly available despite that it was not without qualification - See paragraphs 47 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trial - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See Aeronautics - Topic 3104 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See Aeronautics - Topic 3104 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set out principles applicable to determining whether a statutory provision contravened s. 7 of the Charter for being overly broad -See paragraph 18.

Words and Phrases

Publicly available - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase as used in s. 67(1) of the National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 23 - See paragraphs 47 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

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. [para. 9].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (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; 15 C.R.(4th) 1; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 36; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 34, refd to. [para. 11].

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; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 451; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 36, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Uscan Engineering Corp. (1949), 7 C.R. 417 (N.W.T. Mag. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Mel Air Ltd. (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 170 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Race (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 165 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Laserich and Altair Leasing Ltd., [1977] 4 W.W.R. 703; 4 A.R. 148 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

St. Andrews Airways Ltd. v. Anishenineo Piminagan Inc., [1977] 6 W.W.R. 682 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Alexander (1988), 72 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 133; 223 A.P.R. 133 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. 264544 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1986] 1 W.W.R. 365; 65 A.R. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Manitoba v. National Transportation Agency (1994), 178 N.R. 14 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Chambers v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) (1988), 72 Sask.R. 115; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Rosin v. Canada (1990), 131 N.R. 295 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 57].

Struthers v. Sudbury (Town) (1909), 27 O.A.R. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Applin v. Race Relations Board, [1974] 2 All E.R. 73 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. MacKenzie, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 212; 146 N.R. 321; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 327 A.P.R. 290, refd to. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2, sect. 3 [para. 6]; sect. 7.3(1) [para. 5].

Aeronautics Act Regulations (Can.), Air Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 2, sect. 700 [para. 6].

Air Regulations - see Aeronautics Act Regulations (Can.).

National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 23, sect. 67(1), sect. 71(2) [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety (1981), vol. 1, p. 15, s. 1 [para. 38].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 289, 290 [para. 10].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1992 Looseleaf Ed.) (1997 Update, Release 2), p. 44-42 [para. 32].

Counsel:

D. Curliss and Elizabeth Barker, for the appellant;

S. Halyk, Q.C., for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on May 15, 1998, before Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On March 31, 1999, Jackson, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.