R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., (1998) 225 N.R. 107 (SCC)
Judge | Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | April 30, 1998 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1998), 225 N.R. 107 (SCC);[1998] CarswellAlta 299;175 WAC 1;225 NR 107;158 DLR (4th) 219;[1998] ACS no 33;1998 CanLII 821 (SCC);67 Alta LR (3d) 243;[1999] 4 WWR 509;[1998] 1 SCR 737;7 Admin LR (3d) 1;[1998] SCJ No 33 (QL);216 AR 1;123 CCC (3d) 474;47 MPLR (2d) 1 |
R. v. Klippert Ltd. (1998), 225 N.R. 107 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. AP.021
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Al Klippert Ltd. (respondent)
(25670)
Indexed As: R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd.
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,
Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ.
April 30, 1998.
Summary:
A municipal development officer ordered Al Klippert Ltd., a sand and gravel mining company, to stop developing a certain area and to return the area to its original state. Klippert stopped development but did not return the area to its original state. Klippert was charged under the Planning Act with contravening the development officer's order. In defence, Klippert challenged the validity of the order.
The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 142 A.R. 71, acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 146 A.R. 211, allowed the appeal and convicted the accused. The matter was remitted for sentencing. The Alberta Provincial Court ordered the accused to pay a fine of $1,000. Further, the court ordered the accused to comply with the development officer's order. The accused appealed his conviction.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hetherington, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 187 A.R. 241; 127 W.A.C. 241, allowed the appeal. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that Klippert was not entitled to collaterally attack the development officer's order.
Editor's Note: For a related case see 165 A.R. 84; 89 W.A.C. 84.
Land Regulation - Topic 3252.1
Land use control, building or development permits - Offences - Breach of order - [See Trials - Topic 1112 ].
Land Regulation - Topic 3260
Land use control, building or development permits - Offences - Punishment - A municipal development officer ordered Klippert Ltd. to stop developing a certain area and to return the area to its original state - Klippert stopped development but did not return the area to its original state - It did not appeal the order - Klippert was charged under the Planning Act with contravening the development officer's order - In defence, Klippert challenged the validity of the order - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Klippert could not collaterally attack the development officer's order - However, the court held that the sentencing judge could consider the merits of the order in determining whether to order compliance with the order under s. 155 of the Act - See paragraphs 24 to 26.
Practice - Topic 6270
Judgments and orders - Administrative orders - Collateral attack - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the applicable principles for determining whether a person charged with failing to comply with an administrative order could collaterally attack the order by way of defence - The court stated that it might be helpful to consider the following inexhaustive list of factors: (1) the wording of the statute under the authority of which the order was issued; (2) the purpose of the legislation; (3) the existence of a right of appeal; (4) the kind of collateral attack in light of the expertise or raison d'être of the administrative appeal tribunal; and (5) the penalty on a conviction for failing to comply with the order - See paragraph 13.
Practice - Topic 6270
Judgments and orders - Administrative orders - Collateral attack - [See Land Regulation - Topic 3260 and Trials - Topic 1112 ].
Trials - Topic 1112
Summary convictions - Defences - Invalidity of legislation or order made thereunder - A municipal development officer ordered Klippert Ltd., a sand and gravel mining company, to stop developing a certain area and to return the area to its original state - Klippert stopped development but did not return the area to its original state - It did not appeal the order - Klippert was charged under the Planning Act with contravening the development officer's order - In defence, Klippert challenged the validity of the order - At issue was whether Klippert could challenge the validity of the development officer's order in quasi-criminal proceedings where no appeal had been taken to the Development Appeal Board - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Klippert could not collaterally attack the development officer's order - Klippert could not circumvent the appeal process provided by the Act.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al. (1998), 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), affg. (1996), 89 O.A.C. 199; 28 O.R.(3d)(C.A.), folld. [paras. 1, 10].
R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21].
Khanna v. Québec (Procureur général) (1984), 10 Admin. L.R. 210 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Rice, [1980] C.A. 310, refd to. [para. 21].
Statutes Noticed:
Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-9, sect. 81(1)(c), sect. 81(1)(d), sect. 81(1)(f), sect. 83(3), sect. 83(4), sect. 85(2), sect. 85(3)(b), sect. 152, sect. 154(a), sect. 154(a.1) sect. 154(b), sect. 155 [para. 12].
Counsel:
Brian A. Crane, Q.C., and John H. Gescher, for the appellant;
Gary C. Courtney, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
City of Calgary Solicitor's Office, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;
Courtney Sebree, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 29, 1998, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On April 30, 1998, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...40]. Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860; 262 N.R. 285; 2000 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 40]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [......
-
R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
...97; [1984] 1 W.W.R. 481; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 1983 CarswellMan 189, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 64]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 474; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 219; 47 M.P.L.R.(2d) 1; 7 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 67 Alta. L.R.(3d) 243;......
-
R. v. Trang (D.) et al., 2002 ABQB 1036
...55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 25 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 18]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 474; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 509, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 19]. United Nurses of Albert......
-
Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2009 ABCA 65
...R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 37]. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.......
-
TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...40]. Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860; 262 N.R. 285; 2000 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 40]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [......
-
R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
...97; [1984] 1 W.W.R. 481; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 1983 CarswellMan 189, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 64]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 474; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 219; 47 M.P.L.R.(2d) 1; 7 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 67 Alta. L.R.(3d) 243;......
-
R. v. Trang (D.) et al., 2002 ABQB 1036
...55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 25 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 18]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 474; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 509, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 19]. United Nurses of Albert......
-
Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2009 ABCA 65
...R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 37]. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.......
-
Environmental Assessment
...1 Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (Minister of Transport) , [1992] 1 SCR 3 at 71 [ Oldman River ]. 2 R v Al Klippert Ltd , [1998] 1 SCR 737 at para 16. 257 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 258 environmental assessment as an essential precondition of proceeding with any proposal. Jocelyn Stace......