R. v. Heywood (R.L.), (1994) 174 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 174 N.R. 81 (SCC)

R. v. Heywood (R.L.) (1994), 174 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Lorne Heywood (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(23384)

Indexed As: R. v. Heywood (R.L.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

November 24, 1994.

Summary:

Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a person convicted of certain sexual offences who was found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area was guilty of vagrancy. An accused appealed his s. 179(1)(b) conviction on the ground that s. 179(1)(b) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that s. 179(1)(b) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 20 B.C.A.C. 166; 35 W.A.C. 166, allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal. The court, assuming that s. 179(1)(b) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, held that it was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law (s. 1) and was, therefore, of no force and effect. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Gonthier, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. Section 179(1)(b) violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a person convicted of certain sexual offences who was found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area was guilty of vagrancy - An accused claimed that s. 179(1)(b) resulted in arbitrary detention because there was no advance notice of the prohibition, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 179(1)(b) violated s. 7 of the Charter, was not saved by s. 1 and was of no force and effect - Accordingly, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether s. 179(1)(b) violated s. 9 - The minority of the court (Gonthier, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ.), stated that s. 179(1)(b) did not violate s. 9 of the Charter - See paragraph 105.

Civil Rights - Topic 3832

Cruel and unusual punishment - What constitutes - Prohibition order - Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a person convicted of certain sexual offences who was found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area was guilty of vagrancy - An accused claimed that s. 179(1)(b) constituted cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 179(1)(b) violated s. 7 of the Charter, was not saved by s. 1 and was of no force and effect - Accordingly, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether s. 179(1)(b) violated s. 12 - The minority of the court (Gonthier, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ.), stated that s. 179(1)(b) did not violate s. 12 of the Charter - See paragraph 108.

Civil Rights - Topic 4957

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Sexual offenders - Vagrancy - Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a person convicted of certain sexual offences who was found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area was guilty of vagrancy - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 179(1)(b) violated the right to liberty (Charter, s. 7) - The court found it unnecessary to decide whether s. 179(1)(b) violated the right to presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter - The minority of the court (Gonthier, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ.), stated that s. 179(1)(b) did not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter - See paragraph 106.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8547 and Criminal Law - Topic 707 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Criminal Law - Topic 707 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in or reading down - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "reading in or reading down will only be warranted where: (i) the legislative objective is obvious, and reading in or reading down would constitute a lesser intrusion on that objective than striking down the legislation; (ii) the choice of means used by the legislature is not so unequivocal that reading in or reading down would unacceptably intrude into the legislative sphere; and (iii) reading in or reading down would not impact on budgetary decisions to such an extent that it would change the nature of the legislation at issue - Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code violated s. 7 of the Charter - The court stated that reading down (as opposed to striking down the entire s. 179(1)(b)) was not appropriate - "The changes which would be required to make s. 179(1)(b) constitutional would not constitute reading down or reading in; rather, they would amount to judicial rewriting of the legislation" - See paragraphs 71 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Double jeopardy - Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a person convicted of certain sexual offences who was found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area was guilty of vagrancy - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 179(1)(b) violated the right to liberty (Charter, s. 7) - The court found it unnecessary to decide whether s. 179(1)(b) violated the right not to be tried or punished again for an offence for which the accused was previously found guilty (Charter, s. 11(h)) - The minority of the court (Gonthier, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ.), stated that s. 179(1)(b) did not violate s. 11(h) of the Charter - See paragraph 107.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "if the state, in pursuing a legitimate objective, uses means which are broader than is necessary to accomplish that objective, the principles of fundamental justice will be violated because the individual's rights will have been limited for no reason. The effect of overbreadth is that in some applications the law is arbitrary or disproportionate" - See paragraph 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 39

Mens rea or intention - Lack of knowledge or belief - Ignorance of the law - [See Criminal Law - Topic 707 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 707

Sexual offences - Sexual offenders - Vagrancy by loitering - Section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a person convicted of certain sexual offences found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area was guilty of vagrancy - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 179(1)(b) violated the right to liberty (Charter, s. 7) - The word "loiter" was to be given its ordinary meaning, namely "to stand idly around, hang around, linger, tarry, saunter, delay, dawdle, etc.", and did not require a malevolent or ulterior purpose - Section 179(1)(b) was overly broad in geographical scope (all public parks and beaches no matter how remote and devoid of children); overly broad in temporal aspect (applied for life without any review); too broad in the number of persons caught (included persons not a danger to children); and an accused had no notice of the prohibition - Accordingly, s. 179(1)(b) was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 (failed minimal impairment test) - See paragraphs 25 to 73.

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - Ordinary meaning of words - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "when a statutory provision is to be interpreted the word or words in question should be considered in the context in which they are used, and read in a manner which is consistent with the purpose of the provision and the intention of the legislature. ... If the ordinary meaning of the words is consistent with the context in which the words are used and with the object of the Act, then that is the interpretation which should govern." - See paragraph 29.

Statutes - Topic 1644

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative debates - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the admissibility of legislative debates to determine legislative intent in statutory construction is doubtful. ... This court has repeatedly held that legislative history is not admissible as proof of legislative intent in the construction of statutes. ... It is apparent that legislative history may be admissible for the more general purpose of showing the mischief Parliament was attempting to remedy with the legislation. ... Additionally, more flexible rules apply in the admission of legislative history in constitutional cases. In those cases the legislative history will not be used to interpret the enactments themselves, but to appreciate their constitutional validity. ... Legislative history is also admissible in Charter cases to help interpret its provisions." - See paragraphs 39 to 40.

Statutes - Topic 1644

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative debates - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "there are persuasive reasons advanced which support the position that legislative history or debates are inadmissible as proof of legislative intent on statutory construction. Many of these same reasons are also put forward to demonstrate that such materials should be given little weight even in those cases where they are admitted. The main problem with the use of legislative history is its reliability. First, the intent of particular members of Parliament is not the same as the intent of Parliament as a whole. Thus, it may be said that the corporate will of the legislature is only found in the text of provisions which are passed into law. Second, the political nature of Parliamentary debates brings into question the reliability of statements made. Different members of the legislature may have different purposes in putting forward their positions. That is to say the statements of a member made in the heat of debate or in committee hearings may not reflect even that member's position at the time of the final vote on the legislation." - See paragraph 41.

Words and Phrases

Loitering - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word "loitering" in s. 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, was to be given its ordinary meaning, namely "to stand idly around, hang around, linger, tarry, saunter, delay, dawdle, etc." - See paragraph 44.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Munroe (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Ledwith v. Roberts, [1937] 1 K.B. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Gauvin (1984), 2 O.A.C. 309; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Andsten (1960), 33 C.R. 213 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lozowchuk (1984), 32 Sask.R. 51 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Cloutier (M.) (1991), 51 Q.A.C. 143; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 149, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Willis (1987), 37 C.C.C.(3d) 184 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Papachristou v. Jacksonville (City) (1972), 405 U.S. 156 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Gosselin v. R. (1903), 33 S.C.R. 255, refd to. [para. 39].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Reader's Digest Association, [1961] S.C.R. 775, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Popovic and Askov, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 308; 7 N.R. 231, refd to. [para. 39].

Gagne v. Highway Victims Indemnity Fund, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 785; 10 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 39].

Toronto Railway v. R. (1894), 4 Ex. C.R. 262, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6, refd to. [para. 40].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 40].

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158; 123 D.L.R.(3d) 554, refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario - see Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re.

Schneider v. British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 40].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re, Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act - see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re.

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 64 C.R.(3d) 123; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 138; [1988] 5 W.W.R. 26; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 35 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Vasil, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 469; 35 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Paul, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 621; 42 N.R. 1; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 455, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 58 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 50].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Graf (1988), 42 C.R.R. 146 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 62].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Peel (Municipality) v. Ontario (Attorney General) and Viking Houses, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1134; 29 N.R. 244, refd to. [para. 91].

Hong Kong (Attorney General) v. Sham Chuen, [1986] 1 A.C. 887 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 7]; sect. 7 [para. 1]; sect. 9 [para. 104]; sect. 11(d) [para. 1]; sect. 11(h), sect. 12, sect. 15 [para. 7].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 22].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 72].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 207, sect. 208 [para. 25].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1927, c. 36, sect. 238(k) [para. 26].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 162 [para. 33]; sect. 164(1), sect. 164(1)(e) [para. 27].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 171(1)(c) [para. 32]; sect. 246(1) [para. 3]; sect. 687 [para. 10].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 19 [para. 20]; sect. 100 [para. 64]; sect. 161 [para. 63]; sect. 175(1)(c) [para. 32]; sect. 177 [para. 33]; sect. 179(1)(b) [para. 1]; sect. 260 [para. 64]; sect. 271(1) [para. 3]; sect. 749(3) [para. 59]; sect. 810.1 [para. 95].

Criminal Code, An Act Amending, S.C. 1951, c. 47, sect. 13 [para. 26].

Criminal Code and Young Offenders Act, An Act to Amend, S.C. 1993, c. 45, sect. 1 [para. 66]; sect. 11 [para. 95].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 53, sect. 14 [para. 10].

Criminal Records Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47, sect. 4 [para. 59]; sect. 4.1(1), sect. 4.1(2) [para. 60]; sect. 5(b) [para. 59].

Criminal Records Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, An Act to Amend, S.C. 1993, c. 22, sect. 4(1) [para. 60]; sect. 5 [para. 59].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979), generally [para. 30].

Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, Sexual Offences Against Children: Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths (1984), generally [para. 78].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (1951), vol. 5, pp. 4664, 4666 [paras. 43, 77].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (1986), vol. 2, pp. 1:46, 3:24-3:25, 6:18-6:19 [para. 43].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (1987), vol. 3, pp. 8:29-8:30, 9:70-9:75, 10:27-10:31 [para. 43].

Canada, National Parole Board, Pardon Decision Policies, Annex: The Royal Prerogative of Mercy (1993), generally [para. 60].

Canada, Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada: Report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution (1985), generally [para. 78].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 221 [para. 91]; 353 to 367 [para. 39].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 87 [para. 29]; 156 to 158 [para. 39].

Grand Larousse de la langue française (1973), tomes 2 [para. 78]; 3 [para. 30]; 4 [para. 38].

Lagarde, Irénée, Droit pénal canadien (1962), p. 224 [para. 94].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989) [paras. 30, 38, 78].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (3rd Ed. 1987), pp. 108, 109 [para. 59].

Counsel:

Robert A. Mulligan, for the appellant;

B. Rory B. Morahan, for the respondent;

Bernard Laprade, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Morahan & Aujla, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on April 27, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 24, 1994, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 74;

Gonthier, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 75 to 111.