R. v. Johnson et al., (1994) 174 N.R. 321 (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: December 08, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 174 N.R. 321 (SCC)

R. v. Johnson (1994), 174 N.R. 321 (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. Henry Arthur Johnson, Andrew Isedore Laba, Raymond Lebrun Sr., Lionel Raymond Legendre, Danilor Tichinoff and Jean Paul Timm (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(23217)

Indexed As: R. v. Johnson et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

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

December 8, 1994.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to sell or purchase stolen rock, mineral or other substance that contains precious metal, contrary to s. 394(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused applied before trial claiming the reverse onus provision ("unless he establishes") in s. 394(1)(b) violated s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial judge ruled that s. 394(1)(b) vio­lated s. 11(d) and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The trial judge granted the accused a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed, claiming the trial judge erred in deciding the constitutional issue without hearing the evidence on the charges and that, in any event, s. 394(1)(b) violated s. 11(d) but was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 56 O.A.C. 97, agreed that the words violated s. 11(d), but struck the words "he establishes that" from s. 394(1)(b) rather than striking the whole of s. 394(1)(b). The offending words violated s. 11(d) and were not a reasonable limit prescribed by law. The Crown appealed. An issue arose as to whether the Supreme Court of Canada had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The court affirmed that s. 394(1)(b) violated s. 11(d) and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law. However, the appropriate remedy was to strike the offending words and read in appropriate words to substitute an evi­dentiary burden (replacing reverse onus with "in the absence of evidence which raises a reasonable doubt").

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Section 394(1)(b) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to sell or purchase rocks, minerals, etc., containing precious metals unless the accused "establishes that" the seller was the owner or agent of the owner of the precious metal - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the reverse onus "he establishes that" violated s. 11(d) of the Charter and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - The objec­tive of deterring thefts of precious metals was sufficiently important to override a constitutionally protected right and the reverse onus was a rational means of attaining the objective - However, the means chosen failed the minimal impair­ment test - The objective could have been attained by less intrusive means (i.e., evidentiary burden) - The court affirmed the striking of the words creating the reverse onus, but "read in" the words "in the absence of evidence which raises a reasonable doubt that he is the owner ...", changing the reverse onus to an evidentiary burden - See paragraphs 28 to 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - The Supreme Court of Canada dis­cussed whether to "read in" words in a statute to replace words that were struck - The court stated that "nor do I consider that coupling the remedy of striking down and reading in is an undue intrusion on the legislative domain. Once the criteria to which I have referred above are satisfied, the technique employed to reach the result of the application of those criteria is more in the nature of mechanics than substance." - See paragraphs 62 to 69.

Courts - Topic 3033

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - What constitutes "final judgment ... of the highest court of final resort" - By way of pretrial motion, the trial judge struck s. 394(1)(b) of the Criminal Code as violat­ing s. 11(d) of the Charter and granted a stay - The Ontario Court of Appeal varied the trial judgment by striking the reverse onus provision of s. 394(1)(b) and uphold­ing the rest of the section - The stays were implicitly set aside - The Supreme Court of Canada held that since the Crown's appeal from the trial judgment was allowed (stay set aside), there was no appeal under s. 693(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (limited to dismissal of Crown's appeal) - However, the court had jurisdic­tion to grant leave to appeal under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act against the reading out of the reverse onus clause in s. 394(1)(b) - The adverse constitutional ruling of the Court of Appeal was a judg­ment of the highest court of final resort - Further s. 674 of the Criminal Code did not preclude an appeal - See paragraphs 10 to 25.

Courts - Topic 3115

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Appeals from provincial courts - Criminal cases - Pretrial ruling on constitutionality of legislation - [See Courts - Topic 3033 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1707

Theft - Special types - Precious metals - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4825

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - From an interlocutory decision - [See Courts - Topic 3033 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4828

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - By Crown - [See Courts - Topic 3033 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449; 121 N.R. 267, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. MacKenzie, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 212; 146 N.R. 321; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 327 A.P.R. 290, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Meddoui, [1991] 3 S.C.R. ix; 137 N.R. 389, refd to. [para. 14].

Paper Machinery Ltd. v. Ross (J.O.) En­gineering Corp., [1934] S.C.R. 186, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (1994), 175 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 17].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Downey and Reynolds, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10; 136 N.R. 266; 125 A.R. 342; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 56].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Holmes, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 914; 85 N.R. 21; 27 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 497; 50 D.L.R.(4th) 680; 65 O.R.(2d) 639, refd to. [para. 67].

Knodel v. British Columbia (Medical Service Commission) (1991), 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 356 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 453; 70 C.R.(3d) 383, refd to. [para. 84].

Ste-Marie v. Barreau du Quebec, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 414; 11 N.R. 59, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Morgentaler (1984), 6 O.A.C. 53; 41 C.R.(3d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Cranston (1983), 60 N.S.R.(2d) 269; 128 A.P.R. 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Swietlinski, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 481; 172 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Vaillancourt (1990), 76 C.C.C.(3d) 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Hill (No. 2), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827; 7 N.R. 373; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 99].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 11(d) [para. 32].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 32].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 394(1)(b) [para. 32]; sect. 465(1)(c) [para. 3]; sect. 674, sect. 693(1) [para. 2].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 337 [para. 40].

Larceny Act, S.C. 1869, c. 21, sect. 31 [para. 37].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 59.06(1) [para. 15].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 2(1), sect. 40(1), sect. 40(3) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess., 11th Parliament, Jan. 19, 1910, p. 2166 [para. 67].

Sopinka, John, and Mark A. Gelowitz, The Conduct of an Appeal (1993), pp. 78, 79 [para. 84].

Counsel:

David Butt, for the appellant;

Marc Rosenberg and Allison Wheeler, for the respondents, Laba, Lebrun and Tichinoff;

James Wallbridge, for the respondent, Timm;

Elaine F. Krivel, Q.C., and Robert J. Frater, for the intervenor, Attorney Gen­eral of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

David Butt, Toronto, Ontario, for the ap­pellant;

Greenspan, Rosenberg & Buhr, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Laba, Lebrun and Tichinoff;

Wallbridge, Wallbridge, Timmins, Ontario, for the respondent, Timm;

Robert J. Frater, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on June 15, 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.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on December 8, 1994, when the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka, Cory, Mc­Lachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 26;

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory, Mc­Lachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 27 to 72;

La Forest, J. (Gonthier, J., concurring) - see paragraph 73;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 74 to 102.