R. v. Morgentaler, (1985) 11 O.A.C. 81 (CA)

• Judge: Howland, C.J.O., MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Brooke, Dubin and Martin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 01, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1985), 11 O.A.C. 81 (CA)

R. v. Morgentaler (1985), 11 O.A.C. 81 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott

Indexed As: R. v. Morgentaler

Ontario Court of Appeal

Howland, C.J.O., MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Brooke, Dubin and Martin, JJ.A.

October 1, 1985.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to procure the miscarriage of female persons. The trial judge, sitting with a jury, acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of acquittal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 - Particular phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that even assuming that "the right to life, liberty and security of the person" is substantive and independent, it is not absolute - It is subject to the rights of others and the state - See paragraph 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 - Particular phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to several fundamental rights which are part of "the right to life, liberty and security of the person" (see paragraph 47) - The court stated that s. 7 is not limited to protection against arbitrary arrest and detention - See paragraph 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 781

Liberty - Particular rights - Abortion - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that a woman does not have a fundamental right to an abortion and that the only right to an abortion at the time the Charter came into force is that given to her under s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraph 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation, particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that in applying "principles of fundamental justice" as found in s. 7 of the Charter a court is not limited to procedural review but may also review the substance of legislation - See paragraphs 49 to 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 781

Liberty - Particular rights - Abortion - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada does not contain any exceptional provisions which would subject it to a substantive review under s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraph 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation, particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the phrase "principles of fundamental justice" in s. 7 of the Charter constitutionally enshrines principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Statutes - Topic 4552

Operation and effect - Validity - Vagueness - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that a person who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others - See paragraph 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 388

Freedom of religion - Infringement - Abortion legislation - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada respecting abortion did not infringe upon the freedom of religion guaranteed under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraph 85.

Civil Rights - Topic 3830

Cruel and unusual punishment - What constitutes - Circumstances not constituting - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the terms of s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada respecting abortion do not result in cruel and unusual punishment - See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5544

Equality and protection of the law - Denial of, what constitutes - Unequal administration of law - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the unequal administration of a statute is for the legislature to correct and not for the courts - See paragraphs 95, 97.

Criminal Law - Topic 1456

Abortion - The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the interests (life and health of a woman v. potential human life) which Parliament attempted to balance in enacting s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraph 103.

Civil Rights - Topic 908

Discrimination - Laws not discriminatory - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada respecting abortion did not contain anything on its face which was discriminatory - See paragraph 99.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6505

Federal jurisdiction, s. 91 of Constitution Act - Criminal Law, respecting health - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada respecting abortion is valid criminal legislation under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act - See paragraphs 106 to 113.

Constitutional Law - Topic 603

Powers of parliament and the legislatures - Delegation of power - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada (respecting powers of therapeutic abortion committees in provincial hospitals) did not constitute a delegation by parliament nor was there any abdication of criminal power by Parliament - See paragraph 116.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8602

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - Constitution Act, s. 96 - Judicial power defined - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that therapeutic abortion committees authorized under s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada do not perform judicial functions - See paragraph 118.

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(h) - Double jeopardy - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 605(1)(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada conferring on the Crown the right of appeal from an acquittal does not contravene the principle of double jeopardy in s. 11(h) of the Charter - See paragraphs 120 to 161.

Criminal Law - Topic 203

Common law defences - Necessity - The accused were charged with conspiracy to procure the miscarriage of female persons - The accused agreed to open a free standing clinic in Ontario for a woman who, inter alia, were refused an abortion by a therapeutic abortion committee established under s. 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in such circumstances the defence of necessity was not available to the accused (see paragraphs 173 to 192) - The court referred to circumstances when the defence of necessity might be available to doctors who have agreed to procure a miscarriage - See paragraph 191.

Criminal Law - Topic 4329

- Procedure - Jury - Verdicts - Duty of jury - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that a jury has the power of finding a verdict against the law but has no right to do so (see paragraph 212) - The court stated that it was wrong for defence counsel to tell the jury that they had the right to decide whether to apply the law as stated to them by the trial judge - See paragraph 211.

Words and Phrases

Finally - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "finally" as found in s. 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 156 to 159.

Cases Noticed:

Morgentaler v. R. (1975), 4 N.R. 277; 20 C.C.C.(2d) 449, refd to. [paras. 1, 16].

R. v. Bourne, [1939] 1 K.B. 687, refd to. [para. 10].

Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113, refd to. [para. 21].

Doe v. Bolton (1973), 410 U.S. 179, refd to. [para. 21].

Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942), 316 U.S. 535, refd to. [para. 23].

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 381 U.S. 479, refd to. [para. 23].

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), 405 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 23].

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), 268 U.S. 510, refd to. [para. 23].

Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc. et al. (1983), 103 S.Ct. 2481, refd to. [para. 29].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 32, 81].

R. v. Operation Dismantle (1983), 49 N.R. 363; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 33].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 176; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Therens (1985), 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 45 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al. (1984), 5 O.A.C. 1; 48 O.R.(2d) 395, refd to. [para. 47].

Duke v. R. (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 474, refd to. [para. 55].

Re Potma and R. (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 383, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Hayden (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 315; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 33, refd to. [para. 57].

Re Jamieson and R. (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 430 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Re Mason (1983), 35 C.R.(3d) 393 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 46 O.R.(2d) 520, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Stevens (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 198 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Roche (1985), 9 O.A.C. 391, refd to. [para. 64].

R.L. Crain Inc. et al. v. Couture et al. (1983), 30 Sask.R. 191; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 119, refd to. [para. 67].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 71].

Martineau and Butters v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285, refd to. [para. 71].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board (No. 2), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Langevin (1984), 3 O.A.C. 110; 45 O.R.(2d) 705, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Robson (1985), 45 C.R.(3d) 68, refd to. [para. 71].

Carruthers et al. v. Therapeutic Abortion Committees of Lions Gate Hospital et al. (1983), 50 N.R. 373; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 57, refd to. [para. 72].

Re Medhurst and Medhurst et al. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 575, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 83].

Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 100].

Maher v. Roe (1977), 432 U.S. 464, refd to. [para. 104].

Reference re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, [1949] S.C.R. 1, affd [1951] A.C. 179, refd to. [para. 107].

Schneider v. R., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 108].

Re Peralta et al. and Ontario et al. (1985), 7 O.A.C. 283; 49 O.R.(2d) 705 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Reference re The Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Burns (No. 1) (1901), 4 C.C.C. 323 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Karn (1903), 6 C.C.C. 479, refd to. [para. 127].

Crane v. D.P.P., [1921] 2 A.C. 299, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Gushue (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 189 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

Kepner v. United States (1904), 195 U.S. 100, refd to. [para. 140].

Palko v. Connecticut (1937), 302 U.S. 319, refd to. [para. 144].

Benton v. Maryland (1969), 395 U.S. 784, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Jordan (1971), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 594; 1 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Charlotte Winsor (1865), 10 Cox C.C. 276, refd to. [para. 154].

Linkletter v. Walker (1965), 381 U.S. 618, refd to. [para. 156].

Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, refd to. [para. 156].

Perka v. R. (1985), 55 N.R. 1; 42 C.R.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 173].

Joshua v. R., [1955] A.C. 121, refd to. [para. 211].

R. v. Shipley (1784), 4 Dougl. 73; 99 E.R. 774, refd to. [para. 212].

United States v. Moylan (1969), 417 F.2d 1002, refd to. [para. 214].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 215].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, sect. 251 [para. 9]; sect. 605(1)(a) [para. 120].

Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, sect. 7 [para. 31]; sect. 11(d), sect. 11(h) [para. 137]; sect. 15, sect. 27, sect. 28 [para. 98].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [para. 40].

Canadian Bill of Rights, sect. 1(a) [para. 50]; sect. 1(b) [para. 92]; sect. 2(e) [para. 55].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 53]; sect. 96 [para. 117].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, page 129 [para. 10].

Nedjati, Human Rights under the European Convention (1978), page 86 [para. 40].

Stephen's History of Criminal Law of England (1883), vol. 1, page 308 [para. 121].

Friedland M., Double Jeopardy (1969), page 287 [para. 121 & 148].

Del Buono, The Right to Appeal in Indictable cases (1978), 16 Alta. L.R. 446 [para. 124].

Friedland M., New Trial after Appeal from Conviction (1965), 84 L.Q.R. 48 [para. 124].

Archibald's Pleadings Evidence & Practice in Criminal Cases (41st Ed. 1982), pages 725, 761, 815 [para. 130].

Garrow & Willis's Criminal Law (5th Ed. 1968), page 357 [para. 132].

Brett & Waller, Criminal Law (4th Ed.), page 55 [para. 136].

Morel, Certain Guarantees of Criminal Procedure, page 383 [para. 138].

Friedland, A Century of Criminal Justice (1984), page 227 [para. 138]; 228 [para. 158].

Mayers & Yarbrough, "Bis Vexari: New Trials & Successive Prosecutions" (1960), 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1 [para. 148].

Miller, Appeals by the State in Criminal Cases (1927), 36 Yall, L.J., 486 [para. 148].

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed.), page 777 [para. 159].

Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), page 811 [para. 186].

Counsel:

W.J. Blacklock and Bonnie J. Wein, for the Attorney General of Ontario, appellant;

Morris Manning, Q.C., for Henry Morgentaler, Leslie Frank Smoling and Robert Scott, respondents;

Arthur Pennington, Q.C., and Marilyn Doering Steffen, for the Intervenant Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard by Howland, C.J.O., MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Brooke, Dubin and Martin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on April 29, 30, May 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7, 1985. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by the court and was released on October 1, 1985.