R. v. Lefthand, (1985) 66 A.R. 331 (CA)

• Judge: Prowse, Harradence and Belzil, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 09, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 66 A.R. 331 (CA)

R. v. Lefthand (1985), 66 A.R. 331 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Lefthand

Indexed As: R. v. Lefthand

Alberta Court of Appeal

Prowse, Harradence and Belzil, JJ.A.

April 9, 1985.

Summary:

The accused Indian was found drunk in a private residence on his reserve and was charged with being intoxicated on a reserve contrary to s. 97(b) of the Indian Act, under which it was an offence for any person to be intoxicated on a reserve. The trial judge acquitted the accused on the ground that s. 97(b) violated the accused's right to equality before the law under s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Harradence, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and convicted the accused. The court held that s. 97(b) did not violate s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, because it was passed for the valid federal objective of protecting Indians from alcohol abuse. The court noted that s. 97(b) applied to all persons, not only Indians, on reserves.

Civil Rights - Topic 5515

Equality and protection of the law - General principles - Valid federal objective test - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed and applied the valid federal objective test in determining that s. 97(b) of the Indian Act, which made an offence of being drunk on an Indian reserve, did not violate the rights of Indians to equality before the law under s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - The court held that s. 97(b) was passed for the valid federal objective of protecting Indians from alcohol abuse - See paragraphs 12 to 20, 54 to 90.

Civil Rights - Topic 5646

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Indians - Section 97(b) of the Indian Act made it an offence for any person to get drunk on an Indian reserve - In holding that an Indian was guilty in being drunk in a private residence on his reserve the Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 97(b) did not violate the Indian's right to equality before the law in s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, because s. 97(b) was passed for the valid federal objective of protecting Indians from alcohol abuse - See paragraphs 1 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Koschewski, [1976] W.W.D. 146 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 26].

R. ex rel. Scullion v. Canadian Breweries Transport, [1957] O.W.N. 37; 117 C.C.C. 37 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Whiteman, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 316; 13 C.R.N.S. 178, consd. [para. 31].

R. v. Burnshine, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 205; 2 N.R. 53; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 505; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 584, consd. [para. 44].

Bliss v. A.G. Can., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527; 92 D.L.R.(3d) 417; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 711, consd. [para. 44].

Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91a; 77 E.R. 194, consd. [para. 67].

Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones, [1968] 1 All E.R. 229, consd. [para. 67].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al. (1983), 42 A.R. 93; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 497; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 420; 24 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307 affd. [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 73].

R. v. Whiteman, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 316; 13 C.R.N.S. 178, folld. [para. 8].

King v. R., [1982] 2 W.W.R. 367, folld. [para. 8].

R. v. Hayden, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 655; 23 Man.R.(2d) 315; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 33; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 361, not folld. [paras. 9, 32].

Prata v. Minister of Manpower & Immigration, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 376; 3 N.R. 484; 52 D.L.R.(3d) 383, appld. [paras. 10, 44].

R. v. MacKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 393, appld. [paras. 10, 44].

St. Ann's Island Shooting & Fishing Club Ltd. v. R., [1950] 2 D.L.R. 225; [1950] S.C.R. 211, consd. [para. 11].

A.G. Can. v. Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349; 38 D.L.R.(3d) 481; 23 C.R.N.S. 197, consd. [paras. 11, 44].

Canard Estate v. Attorney General of Canada, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 170; 4 N.R. 91; [1975] 3 W.W.R. 1; 52 D.L.R.(3d) 548, consd. [paras. 12, 36].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282; [1970] 3 C.C.C. 355; 9 D.L.R.(3d) 473, dist. [para. 12].

R. v. Rocher (1984), 55 A.R. 387; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 89; 14 D.L.R.(4d) 210, dist. [paras. 12, 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 1(b) [paras. 3, 28]; sect. 2 [paras. 28, 74].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(24) [para. 11].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 11]; sect. 52 [paras. 11, 74].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, sect. 95 [para. 29]; sect. 97(b) [paras. 2, 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1977), p. 441 [para. 44].

Counsel:

R.C. Maybank, for appellant Crown;

K.A. St. Louis, for respondent accused.

This case was heard before Prowse, Harradence and Belzil, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 9, 1985, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Belzil, J.A. (Prowse, J.A., concurring) - See paragraphs 1 to 21;

Harradence, J.A., dissenting - See paragraphs 22 to 78.