R. v. Hayden, (1983) 23 Man.R.(2d) 315 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, C.J.M., Hall and Philp, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 14, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 315 (CA);1983 CanLII 2970 (MB CA);3 DLR (4th) 361;[1983] 6 WWR 655;36 CR (3d) 187;8 CCC (3d) 33;23 Man R (2d) 315;7 CRR 325

R. v. Hayden (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 315 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hayden

(Suit No. 136/83)

Indexed As: R. v. Hayden

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, C.J.M., Hall and Philp, JJ.A.

October 5, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was charged with being intoxicated on a reserve contrary to s. 97(b) of the Indian Act.

The Manitoba Provincial Court, in a decision reported in (1983), 33 C.R.(3d) 363, dismissed the charge on the ground that s. 97(b) violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Attorney General of Canada appealed by way of stated case.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in holding that s. 97(b) of the Indian Act violated s. 7 of the Charter. The court, however, dismissed the appeal because s. 97(b) was contrary to s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights (dealing with equality before the law).

Civil Rights - Topic 5502

Equality and protection of the law - Whether right to equality before the law was abridged - S. 97(b) of the Indian Act created an offence for persons found intoxicated on a reserve - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that s. 97(b) violated s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights (the right to equality before the law), because it treated an individual unequally with others, because of his race - See paragraphs 9 to 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - S. 97(b) of the Indian Act created an offence for persons found intoxicated on a reserve - S. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed the right to life, liberty and security of the person, except according to the principles of fundamental justice - The trial judge held that the offence wrongly deprived persons of their liberty, which offended the principles of fundamental justice and therefore s. 97(b) was ultra vires - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the judge erred - The court held that "principles of fundamental justice" meant only the requirement of fair procedure and did not relate to the substance of the offence - See paragraphs 4 to 7.

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Section 94(2) of The Motor Vehicle Act, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 756 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 355, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Whiteman (No. 1), [1971] 2 W.W.R. 316, not folld. [para. 10].

King v. R., [1982] 2 W.W.R. 367 (Sask. Q.B.), not folld. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, sect. 97(b) [para. 1].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 5].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 1(b) [paras. 8 to 9, 14 to 15].

Counsel:

P.M. Kremer, for the appellant;

C.G. Birks, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Monnin, C.J.M., Hall and Philp, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, on September 14, 1983. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Hall, J.A., on October 5, 1983.