R. v. Hauser, (1979) 26 N.R. 541 (SCC)

JudgeMartland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and Pratte, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateMay 01, 1979
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1979), 26 N.R. 541 (SCC);[1979] 5 WWR 1;98 DLR (3d) 193;8 CR (3d) 89;1979 CanLII 13 (SCC);16 AR 91;26 NR 541;[1979] 1 SCR 984;46 CCC (2d) 481

R. v. Hauser (1979), 26 N.R. 541 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hauser

Indexed As: R. v. Hauser

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and Pratte, JJ.

May 1, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1. The prosecution was commenced in Alberta by the Attorney General of Canada without the consent of the Attorney General of Alberta. At trial the accused challenged the constitutional validity of the authority to prosecute violations of statutes other than the Criminal Code granted to the Attorney General of Canada under s. 2 of the Criminal Code. The Attorney General of Alberta intervened and supported the accused's motion for dismissal on the ground that the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions for the criminal courts was a matter of the administration of justice in a province under s. 92(14) of the British North America Act. The accused's motion was dismissed by the Trial Court. See 7 A.R. 240. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 7 A.R. 89; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 129, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial court, declared s. 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada invalid and granted an order of prohibition which prohibited further proceedings in the case. The Court of Appeal held that the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions before criminal courts was a provincial power. The Court of Appeal stated that the prosecutorial role was a matter of the administration of justice in a province under s. 92(14) of the British North America Act. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada restricted the issue to whether it was within the legislative competence of Parliament to authorize in s. 2 of the Criminal Code the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute violations of federal statutes other than the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that Parliament could authorize the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute violations of federal statutes which did not depend for their constitutional validity on the criminal power in s. 91(27) of the British North America Act. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Narcotic Control Act was not criminal legislation, but was passed to control narcotics pursuant to the general residual federal power. See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Dickson, J., dissenting, Pratte, J, concurring, would have dismissed the appeal. Dickson, J., agreed that the Attorney General of Canada had exclusive authority to prosecute violations of federal statutes, which were not in pith and substance criminal law, but was of the opinion that the Narcotic Control Act was criminal law and subject to the prosecutorial power of the attorney general of any provinces. See paragraphs 143 to 158.

See also R. v. Cordes (1979), 26 N.R. 612; 16 A.R. 162 (S.C.C.).

Constitutional Law - Topic 1010

Interpretation of British North America Act - Requirement that constitutional decisions be restricted to narrow issue - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in considering a constitutional question the court should not make its decision wider than necessary - See paragraphs 4 to 5.

Constitutional Law - Topic 4846

Peace, order and good government - Enforcement of federal statutes - Prosecution under non-criminal statutes - British North America Act, 1867, s. 91 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was within the legislative competence of Parliament to authorize the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute violations of any federal statute which does not depend for its validity upon the federal criminal power under s. 91(27) of the British North America Act, such as the Narcotic Control Act - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6444

Enumeration in s. 91 of British North America Act - Criminal law - Matters not criminal in nature - Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Narcotic Control Act was not criminal legislation within the meaning of s. 91(27) of the British North America Act, but was enacted to control narcotics under the general residual federal power - See paragraphs 15 to 25.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7402

Enumeration in s. 92 of British North America Act - Administration of justice - Extent of subject matter - Conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions - British North America Act, 1867, s. 92(14) - The Supreme Court of Canada in deciding that the Attorney General of Canada could prosecute violations of non-criminal federal statutes expressly refrained from deciding whether the provinces had exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute criminal violations.

Cases Noticed:

Miller v. The Queen, [1975] C.A. 358; 30 C.R.N.S. 372, appld. [para. 3].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General for Canada, [1931] A.C. 310, appld. [paras. 4, 11].

Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1, affd. 5 A.C. 115, appld. [paras. 6, 115].

Reference re Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, [1936] S.C.R. 379, [1937] A.C. 405, consd. [para. 10].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers, [1924] A.C. 328, appld. [para. 14].

Industrial Acceptance Corporation Limited v. The Queen, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, dist. [paras. 15, 27, 115].

Russell v. The Queen (1882), 7 A.C. 829, appld. [para. 16].

A.G. for Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation, [1946] A.C. 193, appld. [paras. 16, 157].

Faber v. The Queen, 6 N.R. 1, 8 N.R. 29, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 9, consd. [para. 23].

Margarine Reference, [1949] S.C.R. 1, consd. [paras. 24, 130].

Re Aeronautics, [1932] A.C. 54, refd to. [para. 25].

Re Radio Communication, [1932] A.C. 304, refd to. [para. 25].

Attorney General for Alberta and G.C. Winstanley and Atlas Lumber Company Limited, [1941] S.C.R. 87, appld. [para. 34].

Re Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, [1936] S.C.R. 379, appld. [paras. 38, 107].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for Canada, [1937] A.C. 405, consd. [paras. 38, 114].

R. v. McLeod (1950), 97 C.C.C. 366, consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Miller (1975), 30 C.R.N.S. 372 (Que. C.A.), appld. [para. 50].

R. v. Beaudry (1966), 50 C.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 54].

Re Bradley and The Queen (1975), 35 C.R.N.S. 192 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 55].

R. v. Pontbriand (1978), 1 C.R.(3d) 97 (Que. S.C.), consd. [para. 65].

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. The Warden of the Common Jail of Montreal and Brunet (1976), 8 N.R. 361; [1979] 1 S.C.R. 152, consd. [para. 67].

R. v. Pelletier (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 516 (Ont. C.A.); [1974] S.C.R. x; consd. [para. 68].

R. v. Dunn, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 454, consd. [para. 71].

Re Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 73].

P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board v. H.B. Wills, Inc., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 393, consd. [para. 75].

Reference re Validity of the Combines Investigation Act, [1929] S.C.R. 409, consd. [paras. 79, 107].

Provincial Secretary of the Province of P.E.I. v. Egan, [1941] S.C.R. 396, consd. [para. 80].

Attorney General for Ontario v. The Hamilton Street Railway Company, [1903] A.C. 524 (J.C.P.C.), consd. [para. 84].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Attorney General of Canada, [1945] S.C.R. 600, consd. [para. 85].

Attorney General v. The Niagara Falls International Bridge Company (1873), 20 Gr.Ch.R. 34, consd. [para. 101].

R. v. Bush (1888), 15 O.R. 398, consd. [para. 101].

R. v. St. Louis (1897), 1 C.C.C. 141, consd. [para. 103].

Re Public Inquiries Act, [1919] 3 W.W.R. 115 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 105].

In re Adoption Act, [1938] S.C.R. 398, consd. [para. 106].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General for Canada, [1931] A.C. 210, consd. [para. 107].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for Canada, [1937] A.C. 405, consd. [para. 107].

Attorney General of Canada v. Flint (1883), 16 S.C.R. 707, consd. [para. 115].

In re Vancini (1904), 34 S.C.R. 621, consd. [para. 115].

Canadian Pacific Wine Co. Ltd. v. Tuley, [1921] 2 A.C. 417 (J.C.P.C.), consd. [para. 119].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] 2 O.R. 209 (Ont. H.C.), affd. [1971] 2 O.R. 234 (Ont. C.A.); [1971] S.C.R. 680, consd. [para. 120].

R. v. Collins (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 52; 11 C.C.C.(2d) 40 (Ont. H.C.); 13 C.C.C.(2d) 172, consd. [para. 124].

Aziz v. R. (1978), 4 C.R.(3d) 299, consd. [para. 126].

Re Miller and Thomas and The Queen (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 257 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 128].

R. v. Hancock and Proulz, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 609 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 128].

R. v. Pfeffer, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 452 (B.C. Co. Ct.), consd. [para. 128].

R. v. Dunn, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 454 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 128].

In re McNutt (1912), 47 S.C.R. 259, consd. [para. 130].

Simcovitch v. R., [1935] S.C.R. 26, consd. [para. 130].

Re Martin and The Queen (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 224, consd. [para. 146].

Beaver v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 531, consd. [para. 147].

Dufresne v. The King (1912), 5 D.L.R. 501 (Que. K.B.), consd. [para. 149].

Ex. p. Wakabayashi, Ex. p. Lore Kip, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 226 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 150].

R. v. Zelensky, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372, consd. [para. 153].

Russell v. The Queen (1882), 7 A.C. 829, consd. [para. 156].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [paras. 7, 64]; sect. 91(29) [para. 14]; sect. 92(9) [para. 16]; sect. 92(14) [paras. 7, 37, 64]; sect. 92(15) [para. 14]; sect. 135 [para. 8].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 2 [paras. 1, 47].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 27(2) [para. 50].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1.

Authors and Works Noticed:

LeDain, Sir Lyman Duff and the Constitution (1974), 12 O.H.L.J. 261 [para. 80].

O'Connor, W.F., The Enactment of the British North America Act, 1867, any lack of consonance between its terms and judicial construction of them and cognate matters (1939), Report to the Speaker of the Senate of Canada [para. 92].

Trasov, History of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Legislation In Canada (1962), 4 Crim. L.Q. 274 [para. 155].

Counsel:

J.J. Robinette, Q.C. and D.H. Christie, Q.C., for the appellant;

A. Milton Harradence, Q.C. and T.C. Semenuk, for the respondent;

Ross Paisley, Q.C. and W. Henkel, Q.C., for the intervenant Attorney General of Alberta;

J.D. Watt and D.W. Mundell, Q.C. and L.E. Weinrib, for the intervenant Attorney General of Ontario;

Michel Pothier, Yves Berthiaume and Jacques Forin, for the intervenant Attorney General of Quebec;

Gordon S. Gale and Martin E. Herschorn, for the intervenant Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Hazen Strange, Q.C., for the intervenant Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Louis Lindholm, for the intervenant Attorney General of British Columbia;

I.W. Bailey, for the intervenant Attorney General of Prince Edward Island;

S. Kujawa, Q.C. and K.W. MacKay, for the intervenant Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

James A. Nesbitt, Q.C., for the intervenant Attorney General of Newfoundland.

This case was heard on Mary 29, 30 and 31, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 1, 1979, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

PIGEON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 29;

SPENCE, J. - see paragraphs 30 to 39;

DICKSON, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 40 to 160.

MARTLAND, RITCHIE and BEETZ, JJ., concurred with PIGEON, J.

PRATTE, J., concurred with DICKSON, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 practice notes
  • PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 281 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • January 15, 2010
    ...of Health) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657; 327 N.R. 1; 206 B.C.A.C. 1; 338 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 59]. R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [para. R. v. Schneider - see Schneider v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. Schneider v. British ......
  • Canada v. Alta Energy Luxembourg S.A.R.L.,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 26, 2021
    ...[1999] 1 C.T.C. 1; SA Andritz, No. 233894, Conseil d’État (Section du Contentieux), December 30, 2003; R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; R. v. McLeod (1950), 97 C.C.C. 366; Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622......
  • R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2003) 191 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 23, 2003
    ...[paras. 39, 189]. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 64, 203]. R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [paras. 67, 205]. Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. R., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, refd to. [para. 67]. Canadian......
  • Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • February 24, 2020
    ...jurisdiction. In R v Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74 at paras 67-72, [2003] 3 SCR 571 [Malmo-Levine], the Supreme Court overruled R v Hauser, [1979] 1 SCR 984 which held that the Narcotic Control Act came within the national concern doctrine of POGG: see Hogg at [19] Attorney General for Canada v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
87 cases
  • PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 281 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • January 15, 2010
    ...of Health) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657; 327 N.R. 1; 206 B.C.A.C. 1; 338 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 59]. R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [para. R. v. Schneider - see Schneider v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. Schneider v. British ......
  • Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • February 24, 2020
    ...jurisdiction. In R v Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74 at paras 67-72, [2003] 3 SCR 571 [Malmo-Levine], the Supreme Court overruled R v Hauser, [1979] 1 SCR 984 which held that the Narcotic Control Act came within the national concern doctrine of POGG: see Hogg at [19] Attorney General for Canada v......
  • Canada v. Alta Energy Luxembourg S.A.R.L.,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 26, 2021
    ...[1999] 1 C.T.C. 1; SA Andritz, No. 233894, Conseil d’État (Section du Contentieux), December 30, 2003; R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; R. v. McLeod (1950), 97 C.C.C. 366; Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99; Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 622......
  • R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2000) 138 B.C.A.C. 218 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • June 2, 2000
    ...(1990), 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81]. R. v. Shand (1976), 13 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81]. R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Adelman (1968), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 294 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90]. R. v. Hartley ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...453–54 R v Hassanzada, 2016 ONCA 284, 336 CCC (3d) 102 ........................................527 R v Hauser, [1979] 1 SCR 984, 46 CCC (2d) 481, [1979] SCJ No 18 ....................31 R v Hawkins, [1993] 2 SCR 157, 79 CCC (3d) 576, [1993] SCJ No 50, rev’g (1992), 102 Nfld & PEIR 91, 14 CR......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Constitutional Law. Fifth Edition Conclusion
    • August 3, 2017
    ...500 R. v. Hape, 2007 SCC 26 ..................................................................................... 312 R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984, 16 A.R. 91, 8 C.R. (3d) 89 ............................ 275 R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 15 ...................................................
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Law. Eighth edition
    • September 1, 2022
    ...CCC (3d) 471, 20 CR (4th) 277 ....................................................................................105, 106 R v Hauser, [1979] 1 SCR 984, 46 CCC (2d) 481, 8 CR (3d) 89 .......................... 29 R v Hébert (1986), 68 NBR (2d) 379, 51 CR (3d) 264, 175 APR 379 (CA) ........ ......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 4, 2018
    ...CCC (3d) 471, 20 CR (4th) 277 ....................................................................................101, 102 R v Hauser, [1979] 1 SCR 984, 46 CCC (2d) 481, 8 CR (3d) 89 .......................... 29 R v Hébert (1986), 68 NBR (2d) 379, 51 CR (3d) 264, 175 APR 379 (CA) ........ ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 (S.C. 2023, c. 26)
    • Canada
    • Canada Gazette October 27, 2023
    • June 22, 2023
    ...or retired and has not, before the termination of the whole of the plan,(i) transferred their pension benefit credit under section 16.4, 16.91 or 26,(ii) used their pension benefit credit to purchase a life annuity under section 16.4, 16.91 or 26, or(iii) had their pension benefits transfer......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT