R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.
• Citation: (1983), 50 N.R. 120 (SCC),1 OAC 243,7 Admin LR 195,[1983] 2 SCR 551,50 NR 120,[1983] SCJ No 87 (QL),11 WCB 179,[1983] ACS no 87,77 CPR (2d) 1,8 CCC (3d) 449,4 DLR (4th) 193,1983 CanLII 34 (SCC)
• Date: 15 December 1983
• Subject Matter: CROWN,CRIMINAL LAW

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. (1983), 50 N.R. 120 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Limited; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd.

Indexed As: R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.

December 15, 1983.

Summary:

Uranium Canada Limited and Eldorado Nuclear Limited, both controlled by the Federal Crown, were charged with conspiracy together and with another to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, sale or supply in Canada of uranium contrary to s. 32 (1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23. After the companies appeared before the Ontario Provincial Court, they applied for an order prohibiting the Provincial Court from proceeding on the charges on the ground that the Combines Investigation Act did not apply to them as agents of the Crown. The Ontario High Court, in a judgment reported 38 O.R.(2d) 130; 17 B.L.R. 275, allowed the application. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Attorney General of Canada in a judgment reported 39 O.R.(2d) 474. The Attorney General appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada per Dickson, J., with Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Beetz and Chouinard, JJ., concurring, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Combines Investigation Act was not binding upon the Crown and that, where the companies both acted within the scope of their agency, they were entitled to the benefit of Crown immunity. See paragraphs 1 to 50.

Wilson, J., dissenting in part, was of the opinion that Uranium Canada was entitled to Crown immunity, but Eldorado nuclear was not, because it lacked the crucial element of de jure control by the Crown - See paragraphs 51 to 85.

Criminal Law - Topic 9

Every one - Defined - In section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, "everyone" includes "Her Majesty and public bodies" - The Supreme Court of Canada without deciding doubted that the definition of "everyone" in the Criminal Code had the effect of making the Code and any statute incorporating that definition binding on the Crown - See paragraphs 11 to 17.

Crown - Topic 8221

Prosecutions against the Crown - Capacity of Crown agencies to be prosecuted - General - The Supreme Court of Canada generally discussed the issue of whether an agent of the Crown may claim Crown immunity from criminal prosecution, holding that a Crown agent is entitled to the benefit of immunity only if it acts within the terms of its agency - See paragraphs 18 to 25.

Crown - Topic 8226

Prosecutions against Crown - Capacity of Crown agencies to be prosecuted - Letters patent companies controlled by Crown - Eldorado Nuclear was a letters patent company wholly owned and controlled by the Federal Crown; although its letters patent left it free to operate without Government direction in the production and sale of uranium - However, it was statutorily designated an agent of the Crown for all its purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Eldorado Nuclear was by virtue of its Crown agency status entitled to the benefit of the Crown immunity from prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act respecting acts committed within the scope of its agency authority - See paragraphs 39 to 47.

Crown - Topic 8227

Prosecutions against the Crown - Capacity of Crown agencies to be prosecuted - Statutorily incorporated Crown companies - Uranium Canada was a statutorily incorporated company and was statutorily designated as an agent of the Federal Crown for all its purposes - It operated under the aegis of the Federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and all of its directors and officers were senior Federal Government officials - It could only act with the approval of Cabinet - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Eldorado Nuclear was by virtue of its Crown agency status entitled to the benefit of the Crown immunity from prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act respecting acts committed within the scope of its agency authority - See paragraphs 25 to 38.

Crown - Topic 8263

Prosecutions against Crown - When permitted - Application of Criminal Code of Canada - In section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, "everyone" includes "Her Majesty and public bodies" - The Supreme Court of Canada without deciding doubted that the definition "everyone" in the Criminal Code had the effect of making the Code and any statute incorporating that definition binding on the Crown - See paragraphs 11 to 17.

Crown - Topic 8265

Prosecutions against Crown - When permitted - Where statute not made specifically applicable to Crown - The Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I23, s. 17, provided that no statute was binding on the Crown unless specifically stated - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Combines Investigation Act was inapplicable to the Crown, because it was not made specifically applicable to the Crown - See paragraphs 7 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Willion v. Berkley (1561), 1 Plow. 223; 75 E.R. 345, consd. [para. 7].

Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, [1947] A.C. 58, consd. [para. 8].

Re Alberta, Province of, and Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 61; 14 N.R. 21, consd. [para. 8].

Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Company, Limited v. R., [1916] 1 A.C. 566, consd. [para. 10].

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General for Ontario, [1959] S.C.R. 188, appld. [paras. 13, 25, 65].

Le Conseil des Ports Nationaux v. Langelier et al., [1969] S.C.R. 60, consd. [paras. 21, 58].

Feather v. The Queen (1865), 122 E.R. 1191 (C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

Formea Chemicals Limited v. Polymer Corporation Limited, [1968] S.C.R. 754, appld. [paras. 25, 73].

R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, C.B.O.F.T. Television, and Boissay (1983), 47 N.R. 19, consd. [paras. 28, 63, 76].

R. v. Stradiotto, [1973] 2 O.R. 375 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 31, 57].

Bank Voor Handel En Scheepwaart v. Administrator of Hungarian Property, [1954] A.C. 584, appld. [para. 42].

Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v. Sheedy et al., [1927] A.C. 899, consd. [paras. 43, 73].

Tamlin v. Hannaford, [1950] 1 K.B. 18 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 43, 71].

British Columbia Power Corporation Ltd. v. A.G. British Columbia et al. (1962), 34 D.L.R.(2d) 25 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 43, 69].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 61].

Tobin v. The Queen (1864), 33 L.J.C.P. 199, consd. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Atomic Energy Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-19, sect. 10(1) [para. 33]; sect. 10(4) [paras. 26, 54].

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 32(1)(c).

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 2 [para. 12].

Government Companies Operation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. G-7, sect. 2 [para. 40]; sect. 3 [paras. 26, 40, 55]; sect. 6 [para. 40].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 16 [para. 9]; sect. 27(2) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (10th Ed.), p. 193 [para. 61].

Hogg, Liability of the Crown (1971), p. 207 [para. 42].

Street, H., The Effects of Statutes Upon The Rights and Liabilities of The Crown (1948), 7 U. of T.L.J. 357, 361-362 [para. 7].

Counsel:

John W. Brown, Q.C., Calvin S. Goldman and Michael R. Dambrot for the appellant;

Gordon F. Henderson, Q.C., and Emilio Binavince, for the respondent Uranium Canada: P.Y. Atkinson and F.D. Cass, for the respondent Eldorado Nuclear.

This case was heard on January 27, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 15, 1983, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, J. - See paragraphs 1 to 50;

Wilson, J., dissenting in part - See paragraphs 51 to 85.

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Beetz and Chouinard, JJ., concurred with Dickson, J.

McIntyre, J., concurred with Wilson, J.