R. v. Mersey Seafoods Ltd., (2007) 255 N.S.R.(2d) 245 (SC)

• Judge: Warner, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 12, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2007), 255 N.S.R.(2d) 245 (SC);2007 NSSC 155

R. v. Mersey Seafoods Ltd. (2007), 255 N.S.R.(2d) 245 (SC);

    814 A.P.R. 245

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.054

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Mersey Seafoods Limited (respondent)

(SBW 269944; 2007 NSSC 155)

Indexed As: R. v. Mersey Seafoods Ltd.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Warner, J.

May 16, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with violations of provincial occupational health and safety legislation, regarding its fishing vessel, Mersey Venture.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, determined that the provincial legislation should not apply to a vessel regulated under the Canada Shipping Act. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1581

Extent of powers conferred - Double aspect doctrine - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2950 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1701

Extent of powers conferred - Ancillary doctrine - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2950 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1761

Extent of powers conferred - Necessarily incidental doctrine - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2950 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Interjurisdictional immunity - In dismissing a Crown appeal of a trial court's determination that provincial occupational health and safety legislation did not apply to a vessel regulated under the Canada Shipping Act, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court reviewed the law regarding the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine - The principle was a process of narrowing the definition of "classes of subjects" so as to prevent duplication and overlap - Here, the provincial legislation had to be read to exclude application to safety aboard ships - See paragraphs 32 to 48 and 100.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance - General principles - In dismissing a Crown appeal of a trial court's determination that provincial occupational health and safety legislation did not apply to a vessel regulated under the Canada Shipping Act, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court reviewed the law regarding the characterization of the pith and substance of legislation, the need to identify the dominant characterization of the matter and the application of the necessarily incidental or ancillary doctrines and the double aspect doctrines - The court concluded that safety aboard ships was, in pith and substance, an essential part of the management of ships and maritime law and was, therefore, a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction - The necessarily incidental and double aspect doctrines did not apply - See paragraphs 16 to 31 and 99.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3504

Paramountcy of federal statutes - General principles - Requirement of conflict or repugnancy - In dismissing a Crown appeal of a trial court's determination that provincial occupational health and safety legislation did not apply to a vessel regulated under the Canada Shipping Act, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court reviewed the law regarding the paramountcy doctrine - There were two circumstances where paramountcy could be applied to make provincial laws inoperative: (i) where a provincial law contradicted a federal law so that dual compliance was impossible and (ii) where compliance with the provincial law would frustrate the federal law's purpose - Here, paramountcy applied because a two-fold jurisdiction might lead to conflicts and a lack of co-ordination that could threaten occupational health and safety aboard ships - See paragraphs 49 to 58 and 101.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5952 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 5952

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Navigation and shipping - Scope of power - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the Crown's appeal of a trial court's determination that provincial occupational health and safety legislation did not apply to a vessel regulated under the Canada Shipping Act - Safety aboard ships was an essential part of ship management and maritime law and a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction - Under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, the provincial legislation had to be read to exclude application to safety aboard ships - Alternatively, if interjurisdictional immunity did not apply, the provincial legislation had to be read down under the paramountcy doctrine to avoid conflict and repugnancy - The "necessarily incidental" and "double aspect" doctrines did not apply - The provincial legislation's impact was not secondary or incidental to the federal jurisdiction's most important aspect - While the federal and provincial legislation had the same general purpose regarding the same matter, they were complete integrated schemes that, when applied to ship safety, worked at cross-purposes - The contradictions resulting from a two-fold jurisdiction could threaten occupational health and safety - This, together with the policy of a national and international safety standard for ships, fully justified the court's conclusion - See paragraphs 85 to 103.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7296

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Industrial safety - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5952 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 7710

Industrial safety - General - Application of legislation - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5952 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 7715

Industrial safety - General - Workplace safety legislation - Conflict with other legislation - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5952 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Allen (C.R.) et al. (2005), 236 N.S.R.(2d) 258; 749 A.P.R. 258; 2005 NSCA 118, refd to. [para. 3].

Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 283 N.R. 201; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 633 A.P.R. 125; 2002 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 16].

Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2; 77 N.R. 321; 23 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 17].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 17].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 27].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al. (2000), 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207; 2000 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 27].

Hodge v. R., [1883] 9 A.C. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, refd to. [para. 28].

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) and Ontario (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 5; 1 N.R. 9, refd to. [para. 28].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 28].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat (2001), 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 28].

O'Sullivan v. Noarlunga Meat Ltd., [1957] A.C. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 33].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Que.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 34].

John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Great West Saddlery Co. v. R., [1921] 2 A.C. 91 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

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, refd to. [para. 35].

Toronto (City) v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1905] A.C. 52 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Commission du salaire minimum (Que.) v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Courtois and Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 868; 85 N.R. 260; 15 Q.A.C. 181, refd to. [para. 39].

Alltrans Express Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 897; 85 N.R. 241; 15 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [para. 41].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 43].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1028; 183 N.R. 323; 82 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 43].

Air Canada et al. v. Liquor Control Board (Ont.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581; 214 N.R. 1; 102 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Stephens v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 823, refd to. [para. 51].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 51].

M & D Farm Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961; 245 N.R. 165; 138 Man.R.(2d) 161; 202 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 55].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town) (2001), 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. LeBlanc & Royle Telecom Inc., 1994 CarswellOnt 851 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 70].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 71].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 73].

Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683; 101 N.R. 1; 26 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 73].

Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 779; 123 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 95].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Constitutional Law Group, Canadian Constitutional Law (3rd Ed. 2002), generally [para. 54]; c. 8 [para. 10]; p. 197 [para. 12].

Gold, Edgar, Chircop, Aldo, and Kindred, Hugh M., Maritime Law (2003), generally [paras. 72, 81]; c. 1, generally [para. 10]; c. 1, p. 8 [para. 79]; c. 3, generally [para. 10]; c. 3, p. 128 [para. 74]; c. 3, pp. 134 to 139 [para. 76]; c. 5, generally [paras. 10, 80]; c. 5, p. 203 [para. 82].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2006 Looseleaf Update, Release 1), generally [para. 43]; c. 15, c. 16 [para. 10]; c. 15.8(e) [para. 34]; c. 15.9(b) [para. 48]; pp. 15-6 [para. 20]; 15-22 [para. 18]; 15-28 [para. 12].

Keith, Norman A., Canadian Health and Safety Law (2006 Looseleaf Update, Release 11), generally [para. 64]; c. 1 [para. 10]; pp. 1-7 [paras. 59, 61]; 1-11 to 1-14 [para. 66].

Lederman, William Rolf, Continuing Canadian Constitutional Dilemmas (1981), generally [para. 10]; c. 12, pp. 243 to 245 [para. 48]; c. 13, p. 252 [para. 48]; c. 13, p. 253 [paras. 48, 102]; c. 14, pp. 278, 279 [para. 48]; pp. 271, 273 [para. 23].

Simeon, R.E., Article, in Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2006 Looseleaf Update, Release 1), p. 15-22 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Peter J. Craig, for the appellant;

David Farrar, Q.C., and Mark D. Tector, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, on April 12, 2007, by Warner, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on May 16, 2007.