R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., (1998) 108 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 30, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 108 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines (1998), 108 O.A.C. 161 (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: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.037

Consolidated Maybrun Mines Limited and J. Patrick Sheridan (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(25326)

Indexed As: R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ.

April 30, 1998.

Summary:

The Director of the Ministry of the En­vironment ordered a mining company and Sheridan (chief executive officer) to take steps to prevent the spread of PCBs at an abandoned mine site, pursuant to the En­vironmental Protection Act. The company and Sheridan neither appealed nor sought judicial review of the order. They failed to comply with it. The company and Sheridan were charged under the Act with four counts of failing to comply with the order. The trial judge, in convicting the company and Sheridan only on one count, allowed them to directly challenge the validity of the ad­ministrative order. The Crown appealed the acquittals. The company and Sheridan appealed the conviction. Both appealed the fines imposed.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a judgment reported 12 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 171, allowed the Crown's appeal in part, sub­stituting convictions for three counts, and varied the fines. The court held that the validity of the orders could not be chal­lenged. The company and Sheridan appealed the convictions on the three counts. They submitted that (1) the validity of the orders could be considered on the conviction appeal; (2) that they exercised due diligence in failing to comply with the order; and (3) if they could not attack the validity of the order or argue due diligence, then s. 146(1a) of the Act violated s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 89 O.A.C. 199, dismissed the appeal. The validity of the administrative order, challenged solely on the ground that it was unreasonable, could not be collaterally challenged in enforcement proceedings. The company and Sheridan did not exercise due diligence. Section 146(1a) of the Act did not violate s. 7 of the Charter. The company and Sheridan appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court stated, inter alia, that "considering the purpose of the Environ­mental Protection Act and the procedural mechanisms established to guarantee that a person to whom an order is directed can assert his or her rights, I conclude that per­sons charged with failing to comply with an order issued under the Act cannot attack the validity of the order by way of defence after failing to avail themselves of the appeal mechanisms available under the Act".

Pollution Control - Topic 9310

Enforcement - Control or stop orders - [See Practice - Topic 6270 ].

Practice - Topic 6270

Judgments and orders - Administrative orders - Collateral attack - At issue was whether persons charged with failing to comply with an order issued under the Environmental Protection Act could collaterally attack the order's validity by way of defence after failing to invoke the Act's appeal mechanisms (i.e., de novo appeal to Environmental Appeal Board, further appeal to Divisional Court on question of law and appeal to Minister on any question) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether an administra­tive order may be collaterally attacked depended on the Act in issue and the legislature's intention as to the appropriate forum - Five important factors to deter­mine the legislature's intention were (1) the wording of the statute from which the power to issue the order derived; (2) the purpose of the legislation; (3) the avail­ability of an appeal; (4) the nature of the collateral attack in light of the appeal tribunal's expertise and raison d'être; and (5) the penalty upon conviction for failing to comply with the order - Applying these factors, an order under the Environmental Protection Act could not be collaterally attacked - The legislature intended a com­plete procedure to ensure rapid and ef­fective resolution of complex and technical disputes by a specialized tribunal - To permit a collateral attack would encourage conduct contrary to the Act's objectives and would undermine the Act's effective­ness.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Domm (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 262; 31 O.R.(3d) 540 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1997] 2 S.C.R. viii; 215 N.R. 320; 102 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 3].

Everywoman's Health Center Society (1988) v. Bridges (1990), 54 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

McGee v. United States (1971), 402 U.S. 479 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 22].

Valade v. Quebec Workmen's Compen­sation Commission, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1103; 44 N.R. 75, refd to. [para. 22].

Abel Skiver Farm Corp. v. Sainte-Foy (Town), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 403; 54 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

Khanna v. Québec (Procureur général) (1984), 10 Admin. L.R. 210 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Rice, [1980] C.A. 310, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Campbell Chevrolet Ltd. (1984), 14 C.E.L.R. 25 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Canchem Inc. (1989), 4 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 237 (N.S. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Mac's Convenience Store Inc. v. Ontario; Suncor Inc. and Sunoco Inc. v. Ontario (1984), 5 O.A.C. 362; 48 O.R.(2d) 9 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 30].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd. (1996), 187 A.R. 241; 127 W.A.C. 241; 43 Alta. L.R.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Yakus v. United States (1944), 321 U.S. 414 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

McKart v. United States (1969), 395 U.S. 185 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

United States v. Mendoza-Lopez (1987), 481 U.S. 828 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Wicks, [1997] 2 W.L.R. 876; 216 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 38].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Head, [1959] A.C. 83 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39].

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire regionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des em­ployés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 47].

U.E.S., Local 298 (FTQ) v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire regionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des em­ployés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des em­ployés de la commission scolaire regionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, sect. 1(1)(c), sect. 16, sect. 17(1), sect. 17(2), sect. 122(1), sect. 123, sect. 146(1a), sect. 146(3), sect. 146(4) [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mullan, David, Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 490 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., Marie Henein, for the appellants;

Lori Sterling and Jerry Herlihy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Greenspan & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 29, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 30, 1998, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.