R. v. Dominion Stores Ltd. and Attorney General of Ontario, (1979) 30 N.R. 399 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 30 N.R. 399 (SCC);1979 CanLII 57 (SCC);30 NR 399;106 DLR (3d) 581;50 CCC (2d) 277;[1980] 1 SCR 844

R. v. Dominion Stores Ltd. (1979), 30 N.R. 399 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Dominion Stores Limited and Attorney General for Ontario

Indexed As: R. v. Dominion Stores Ltd. and Attorney General of Ontario

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.

December 13, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against a food retailer under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-8, s. 3(2)(a) for possessing apples for sale, which did not conform to the grade stated. Under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 161, the Province of Ontario established a grading system for agricultural products. Subsequently, the Federal Government under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-8, Pt. 1, established an identical grading system, which was applicable locally only voluntarily, but compulsorily in interprovincial and international trade. The Federal Government charged a retailer under the Federal Act for possessing apples for sale, which did not conform with the Federal grade stated. It was agreed that the matter was a purely local one. The Ontario Provincial Court allowed the retailer's motion to quash on the ground that the Federal Act was ultra vires. The Ontario High Court allowed the Federal Government's appeal the way of stated case and held that the Federal Act was valid. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the retailer's appeal. The retailer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the Federal Act was inapplicable to local commerce and was ultra vires to that extent. See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Laskin, C.J.C., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and was of the opinion that the Federal Act was valid and that the retailer upon adopting the grades became bound by it. See paragraphs 26 to 38.

Constitutional Law - Topic 405

Powers of Parliament and Legislatures - Transfer of powers - Consent - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent - See paragraph 11.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5673

Federal jurisdiction and enumeration in section 91 of British North America Act - Regulation of trade and commerce - Intra-provincial trade - Federal legislation - Validity of - British North America Act, 1867, s. 91(2) - Under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 161, the Province of Ontario established a grading system for agricultural products - Subsequently, the Federal Government under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-8, Pt. 1, established an identical grading system, which was applicable locally only voluntarily, but compulsorily in interprovincial and international trade - The Federal Government charged a retailer under the Federal Act for possessing apples for sale, which did not conform with the Federal grade stated - It was agreed that the matter was a purely local one - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Act was inapplicable to local transactions within a province and was ultra vires to that extent - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons (1881), 7 App. Cas. 96, appld. [para. 4].

King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co., [1925] S.C.R. 434, appld. [para. 4].

Lawson v. Interior Tree, Fruit and Vegetable Committee, [1931] S.C.R. 357, appld. [para. 4].

Attorney General for British Columbia v. Attorney General for Canada, [1937] A.C. 377, appld. [paras. 4, 9].

Reference respecting The Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1950, c. 131, as amended, [1957] S.C.R. 198, appld. [para. 9].

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31, appld. [para. 11].

Attorney General of Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada, [1937] A.C. 405, dist. [paras. 13, 34].

Reference as to the Applicability of The Minimum Wage Act of Saskatchewan to an Employee of a Revenue Post Office, [1948] S.C.R. 248, appld. [para. 22].

Re The Validity of s. 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 45, [1949] S.C.R. 1, appld. [para. 24].

Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, appld. [para. 24].

Vapor Canada Ltd. v. MacDonald (1976), 7 N.R. 477; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134, consd. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(2) [para. 2]; sect. 91(27) [para. 24]; sect. 95 [para. 24].

Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-8, sect. 3 [paras. 7, 28]; sect. 4 [para. 30].

Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 161.

Textile Labelling Act, R.S.C. 1970, 1st Supp., c. 46 [para. 6].

Counsel:

P.S.A. Lamek, Q.C., and C.H.H. McNairn, for the appellant;

T.B. Smith, Q.C., L.R. Olsson, Q.C., and Graham Reynolds, for the respondent.

This case was heard on March 15, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 13, 1979, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

ESTEY, J. - See paragraphs 1 to 25;

LASKIN, C.J.C., dissenting - See paragraphs 26 to 38.

MARTLAND, PIGEON, BEETZ and PRATTE, JJ., concurred with ESTEY, J.

RITCHIE, DICKSON and McINTYRE, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.