R. v. Hauser and Alberta (Attorney General), (1977) 7 A.R. 240 (DC)

• Judge: Stevenson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 21, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 7 A.R. 240 (DC)

R. v. Hauser (1977), 7 A.R. 240 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hauser and Attorney General of Alberta (intervenant)

Indexed As: R. v. Hauser and Alberta (Attorney General)

Alberta District Court

Stevenson, J.

February 21, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. The prosecution was commenced in Alberta by the Attorney General for Canada without the consent of the Attorney General for Alberta. At trial the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the authority to prosecute granted to the Attorney General for Canada under s. 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Attorney General for Alberta intervened and supported the accused's motion for dismissal on the ground that the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions before the criminal courts is the matter of the administration of justice in a province, a provincial power under s. 92(14) of the British North America Act.

Stevenson, J., of the Alberta District Court dismissed the accused's motion in the judgment set out below. The judgment of Stevenson, J., was appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal and the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal is reported at 7 A.R. 89.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Miller (1975), 30 C.R.N.S. 372, folld. [para. 2].

R. v. Pelletier, 28 C.R.N.S. 129, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Miller, 27 C.C.C. 438, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hancock, 32 C.R.N.S. 81; [1976] 5 W.W.R. 609, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Miller and Thomas, [1976] W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Collins, [1973] 1 O.R. 510; [1973] 2 O.R. 301, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Knechtel, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 203, folld. [para. 14].

Reference re Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, [1936] S.C.R. 379, refd to. [paras. 18, 24].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association and Attorney General of Canada, [1931] A.C. 310, folld. [paras. 19, 38].

Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of British Columbia, [1930] A.C. 111, folld. [para. 19].

Attorney General of Quebec and Attorney General of Canada, [1945] S.C.R. 600, folld. [para. 19].

R. v. St. Louis (1897), 1 C.C.C. 141, folld. [para. 20].

R. v. Hodgson (1927), 59 N.S.R. 202, folld. [para. 20].

R. v. Gallant, [1945] 1 D.L.R. 471, folld. [para. 20].

R. v. Carefoot, [1947] O.W.N. 553, folld. [para. 20].

Re Public Inquiries Act, [1919] 3 W.W.R. 115, folld. [para. 20].

Re Adoption Act, [1938] S.C.R. 398, folld. [para. 20].

R. v. Yuhasz, 128 C.C.C. 172, refd to. [para. 28].

Re DiIorio and Fontaine (Quebec Crimes Commission) (1976), 8 N.R. 361, folld. [para. 29].

Kalick v. The King (1920), 61 S.C.R. 186, folld. [para. 30].

Re McNutt (1912), 47 S.C.R. 274, folld. [para. 33].

Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Canada and Nykorak, 33 D.L.R.(2d) 373, refd to. [para. 35].

Zacks and Zacks, [1973] S.C.R. 891, refd to. [para. 37].

Papp and Papp, [1970] 1 O.R. 331, refd to. [para. 37]; folld. [para. 39].

Heikel and Heikel (1970), 73 W.W.R. 84, refd to. [para. 37].

Whyte and Whyte (1969), 69 W.W.R. 536, refd to. [para. 37].

Montreal Street Railway Co. v. City of Montreal, 43 S.C.R. 197, folld. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 2 [para. 4].

British North America Act 1867, sect. 91(27), sect. 92(14).

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 27(2) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clement's Canadian Constitution (3rd Ed.) (1916), p. 591 [para. 24].

Laskin's Canadian Constitutional Law (4th Ed.), p. 22 [para. 35].

Counsel:

[None disclosed].