R. v. Koskolos (A.N.) Realty Ltd., (1995) 141 N.S.R.(2d) 309 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Oxner, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 309 (ProvCt)

R. v. Koskolos Realty Ltd. (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 309 (ProvCt);

  403 A.P.R. 309

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (plaintiff) v. A.N. Koskolos Realty Limited (defendant)

(153821/23/24; 162621-23)

Indexed As: R. v. Koskolos (A.N.) Realty Ltd.

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Oxner, P.C.J.

February 2, 1995.

Summary:

The defendant was charged with permitting its premises to be unsightly due to the man­ner in which its buildings had been painted, contrary to s. 363(7) of the Halifax City Charter. The defendant had painted the buildings with multiple colours to attract attention to its dissatisfaction with the City's refusal to amend the municipal development plan to allow it to construct a high density apartment building. The defendant argued that the charges violated its right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court entered an ac­quittal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1801

Freedom of speech or expression - Ex­pression - What constitutes - A defendant was charged with permitting its premises to be unsightly due to the manner in which its buildings were painted, contrary to the Halifax City Charter, s. 363(7) - The defendant had painted the buildings with multiple colours to attract attention to its dissatisfaction with the City's refusal to amend the municipal development plan to allow it to construct a high density apart­ment building - The Nova Scotia Provin­cial Court acquitted the defendant, holding that the manner of painting constituted "expression" and that the charge violated the defendant's right to freedom of expres­sion under s. 2(b) of the Charter - The violation was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter where its impact on the freedom of expression was disproportionate to its objectives - See paragraphs 21 to 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 1845.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Unsightly premises legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1801 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1863

Freedom of speech or expression - Denial of - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1801 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1801 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 5002

Unsightly premises - Interpretation of legislation - A defendant was charged with permitting its premises to be unsight­ly due to the manner in which its buildings were painted, in violation of s. 363(3) of the Halifax City Charter - The defendant had painted the buildings with multiple colours in a haphazard fashion - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court stated that "the meaning of 'unsightly' in subs. 3 must be ascertained by reference to the words associated with it, 'a state of disrepair or the accumulation of physical debris'. In my opinion, this would exclude the manner in which the properties are painted from the operation of the statute" - See paragraph 19.

Land Regulation - Topic 5012

Unsightly premises - Enforcement - Pros­ecution - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1801 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Goulis (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

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, appld. [para. 22].

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, appld. [para. 38].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 40].

Weisfeld v. Canada (1994), 171 N.R. 28 (F.C.A.), appld. [para. 41].

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. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 37]; sect. 2(b) [para. 21].

Halifax City Charter, S.N.S. 1963, c. 52, sect. 363(1), sect. 363(2), sect. 363(3), sect. 363(4), sect. 363(5), sect. 363(6) [para. 11]; sect. 363(7) [para. 1].

Interpretation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 235, sect. 9(5) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, E., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 105 [para. 13].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 17].

Counsel:

Counsel not disclosed.

This case was heard on February 2, 1995, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Oxner, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court. The decision of the court was delivered orally on February 2, 1995, and the follow­ing written reasons were released on May 4, 1995.