R. v. Campbell (G.R.), (1996) 106 Man.R.(2d) 135 (QB)

• Judge: Wright, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1996), 106 Man.R.(2d) 135 (QB)

R. v. Campbell (G.R.) (1996), 106 Man.R.(2d) 135 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Garry Ronald Campbell (applicant/accused)

(File No. CR 93-04-00153)

Indexed As: R. v. Campbell (G.R.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

The Pas Centre

Wright, J.

January 8, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was charged with being in­toxicated at an Indian reserve, contrary to s. 85.1(4) of the Indian Act. The accused moved to quash the information on the basis that s. 85.1 contravened ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter and s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Civil Rights - Topic 658

Liberty - Limitations on - Liquor control - Section 85.1 of the Indian Act author­ized Indian band councils to pass bylaws prohibiting intoxication on Indian reserves and prescribed sanctions for contraventions of the bylaws - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 85.1 did not contravene the right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed in s. 7 of the Charter - The offence of intoxication, in proper circumstances, could be an offence justifying penal sanctions without violating the right to liberty and security of the person - Also, the deprivation or potential deprivation of liberty was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, either procedurally or substantively - See para­graphs 88 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - Section 85.1 of the Indian Act author­ized Indians band councils to pass bylaws prohibiting intoxication on Indian reserves - An accused asserted that the state of intoxication required by s. 85.1 was im­permissibly vague or overbroad in its scope and, therefore, the section could not stand - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 85.1 was not void for vagueness - See paragraphs 93 to 112.

Civil Rights - Topic 5646

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Indians - Section 85.1 of the Indian Act authorized bands to pass bylaws prohibiting intoxication on Indian reserves - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 85.1 contravened s. 15 of the Charter - It clearly resulted in different treatment between those on re­serves and others; the different treatment was based on a personal characteristic, i.e., race; and it discriminated by placing a burden, obligation or disadvantage on Indians subject to the law that was not placed on others off the reserves - See paragraphs 15 to 50 - However, s. 85.1 was justified under s. 1, where it related to pressing and substantial concerns for a free and democratic society and passed the three-branch proportionality test - See paragraphs 51 to 87.

Civil Rights - Topic 8551

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8551

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - Evidence - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dis­cussed the kinds of documentary material that are admissible to help establish the context and purpose and value of legisla­tion that is sought to be justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 58 to 77.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282; 3 C.C.C.(2d) 355, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hayden (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 315; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Lefthand (1985), 66 A.R. 331; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 534 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349; 23 C.R.N.S. 197, refd to. [para. 23].

Isaac et al. v. Bedard - see Canada (At­torney General) v. Lavell.

R. v. Burnshine, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 693; 2 N.R. 53; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 505, refd to. [para. 23].

Prata v. Minister of Manpower and Immi­gration, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 376; 3 N.R. 484; 52 D.L.R.(3d) 383, refd to. [para. 23].

Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527; 92 D.L.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. MacKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Cornell, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 461; 83 N.R. 384; 27 O.A.C. 360; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 23].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 23].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Col­umbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 306, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 77 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 79, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. S.S. - see R. v. Sheldon S.

Canard Estate et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Rees, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 170; 4 N.R. 91; [1975] 3 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. CLP Canmarket Lifestyle Products Corp. and Thorsten (1987), 50 Man.R.(2d) 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Mahe et al. v. Alberta (1987), 80 A.R. 161; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 514 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

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. 53].

Smith et al. v. Canada Post Corp. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 15; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 454 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 686, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Hayden (1983), 33 C.R.(3d) 363 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 89].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492, refd to. [para. 91].

Kolender v. Lawson (1983), 461 U.S. 352, refd to. [para. 94].

Luscher v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 F.C. 85; 57 N.R. 386 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 95].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Renvoi relatif au Code criminel (Man.) - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 95].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 95].

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, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 91, refd to. [para. 100].

Reference Re Intoxicated Persons Deten­tion Act (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 130 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Blackplume (C.) (1993), 135 A.R. 265; 33 W.A.C. 265; 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Blackplume (C.) (1990), 113 A.R. 199; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 563 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 111].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix III, sect. 1(b), sect. 2 [para. 16].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 51]; sect. 15 [para. 16].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, sect. 2(1) [para. 105]; sect. 85.1 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), pp. 15-14 to 15-15 [para. 64]; ss. 27, 35, 44, 52, 57 [para. 113].

Whitley, Stuart, Criminal Justice and the Constitution (1989), generally [para. 63].

Counsel:

Darrin R. Davis, for the Crown;

Kenneth M. McCaffrey and Richard Poole, for the applicant.

This motion was heard before Wright, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, The Pas Centre, who delivered the following judgment on January 8, 1996.