R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al., (1990) 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296 (TD)

• Judge: Roscoe, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296 (TD);1990 CanLII 2604 (NS SC);73 DLR (4th) 500;59 CCC (3d) 30;32 CPR (3d) 259;[1981] CarswellOnt 43;22 ACWS (3d) 779;263 APR 296;98 NSR (2d) 296

R. v. Pharmaceutical Soc. (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296 (TD);

    263 A.P.R. 296

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, Pharmacy Association of Nova Scotia, Lawtons Drug Stores Limited, William H. Richardson, Empire Drug Stores Limited, Woodlawn Pharmacy Limited, Nolan Pharmacy Limited, Christopher D.A. Nolan, Blackburn Holdings Limited, William G. Wilson, Woodside Pharmacy Limited and Frank Forbes

(CR. No. 11486)

Indexed As: R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Trial Division

Roscoe, J.

September 5, 1990.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiring to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the pharmaceutical business in Nova Scotia. After a preliminary hearing they were committed to stand trial, but before trial moved for a declaration that ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1) of the Combines Investigation Act under which they were charged violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were invalid.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the application and held that the sections violated the Charter, because they did not require mens rea for one of the elements of the offence and the use of the word "unduly" rendered the sections vague, depriving the accused of the rights to make full answer and defence and have a fair trial. The court quashed the indictments against the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 681

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - The Combines Investigation Act, ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1), prescribed the offence of "unduly" lessening competition - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the sections were void for vagueness - See paragraphs 43 to 61 - The court held further that the sections' vagueness deprived an accused of the rights to make full answer and defence and to have a fair trial contrary to ss. 11(a), (d), of the Charter - See paragraphs 32 to 72 - The court held that the sections were not saved by s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law - See paragraphs 79 to 83.

Civil Rights - Topic 4949

Presumption of innocence - Evidence - Removal of element of intent - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act violated s. 7 of the Charter, because it did not require for conviction the intent to unduly lessen competition, which was one of the elements of the offence, and could result in conviction of the morally innocent - See paragraphs 25 to 41 - The court held that the section was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law - See paragraphs 79 to 83.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topics 3107 and 4949].

Civil Rights - Topic 8369

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of Rights - Remedies - Dismissal of charge - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1) of the Combines Investigation Act violated the Charter and were invalid and dismissed the charges against the accused under them - See paragraph 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that it was appropriate to apply for a preliminary determination before trial of whether the sections of the Combines Investigation Act under which the accused were charged violated the Charter - See paragraph 4.

Civil Rights - Topic 8590

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Evidence - In response to the accused's submission that certain legislation violated the Charter, the Crown offered material as extrinsic evidence to establish that, if the legislation violated the Charter, it was saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The material included: proceedings of legislative committee on the legislation; briefs submitted to the government on the draft legislation; form statutes on the subject; and reports and studies - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, admitted the evidence - See paragraph 6.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2586

Determination of validity of statutes - Extrinsic aids in determining legislative subject matter - Extrinsic materials - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8590].

Trade Regulation - Topic 601

Competition - Price fixing agreements - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1) of the Combines Investigation Act violated the Charter and were invalid, because they did not require for conviction mens rea respecting one of the elements of the offence and the use of the word "unduly" rendered the sections void for vagueness and deprived an accused of the rights to make full answer and defence and to have a fair trial.

Trade Regulation - Topic 602

Competition - Price fixing agreements - Intention - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that in establishing an offence under s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act the Crown needed to prove only that the accused intended to enter an agreement and that the agreement, if carried out, would unduly lessen competition - The Crown need not prove that the accused intended to unduly lessen competition - See paragraphs 7 to 24 - However, the court held that the lack of a need to prove intent to unduly lessen competition rendered the section invalid under the Charter - See paragraphs 25 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 2 C.R.R. 76, appld. [para. 4].

Reference re Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 6].

Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125, consd. [para. 6].

City National Leasing v. General Motors of Canada Limited, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, consd. [para. 6].

Southam Inc. v. Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines Investigation Branch et al. (1983), 2 C.R.R. 264 (Alta. Q.B.), consd. [para. 6].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 6].

Container Materials Ltd. et al. v. R., [1942] 1 D.L.R. 529 (S.C.C.), appld. [paras. 11, 50].

R. v. Northern Electric Co. Ltd. et al. (1955), 111 C.C.C. 241 (Ont. H.C.), appld. [para. 12].

R. v. Anthes Business Forms Ltd. et al. (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 349 (Ont. C.A.), appld. [para. 13].

R. v. Aetna Insurance Co. et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 731; 15 N.R. 117; 20 N.S.R.(2d) 565; 27 A.P.R. 565; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 332, dist. [paras. 14, 53].

R. v. Atlantic Sugar Refineries Co. Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 644; 32 N.R. 561; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 21, dist. [paras. 14, 54].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, appld. [para. 27].

Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289, appld. [paras. 27, 75].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore (1989), 35 O.A.C. 331 (C.A.), appld. [paras. 38, 76].

R. v. Martineau, [1988] 6 W.W.R. 385; 89 A.R. 162 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Brooks, [1989] 3 W.W.R. 1; 93 A.R. 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Jeffrey and Rubery (1989), 35 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. McLeod (1989), 35 O.A.C. 284 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Giff (1988), 28 O.A.C. 3 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Harris (1989), 32 O.A.C. 131 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson (1988), 30 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Brooks (1988), 41 C.C.C.(3d) 157 (B.C.C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].

R. v. Buttar (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 84 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1429; 102 N.R. 150, dist. [para. 40].

Reference re ss. 193 and 194.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (1990), 109 N.R. 81, appld. [para. 44].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Elliott (1905), 9 O.L.R. 648 (C.A.), consd. [para. 50].

Stinson-Reeb Builders Supply Co. Ltd. et al. v. R., [1929] 3 D.L.R. 331, consd. [para. 50].

Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd. et al. v. R. (1957), 8 D.L.R.(2d) 449 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 51].

R. v. McGavin Bakeries Ltd. et al. (1951), 101 C.C.C. 22 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Northern Electric Company Limited et al., [1955] O.R. 431 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494; 59 N.R. 101; 61 A.R. 35; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 45 C.R.(3d) 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 59].

R. v. Corbett (1984), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Wald, [1989] 3 W.W.R. 324; 94 A.R. 125 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 64, 75].

R. v. Le Gallant (1986), 33 D.L.R. (4th) 444 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Lucas (1983), 57 N.S.R.(2d) 159; 120 A.P.R. 159 (C.A.), consd. [para. 69].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, appld. [para. 74].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 1; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321, appld. [para. 74].

R. v. Seaboyer (1987), 20 O.A.C. 345 (C.A.), appld. [para. 75].

Luscher v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), [1985] 1 F.C. 85; 57 N.R. 386, appld. [para. 80].

Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, Re (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 58, affd. 2 O.A.C. 388; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 766, appld. [para. 81].

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, appld. [para. 84].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 73]; sect. 7 [para. 25]; sect. 11(a) [para. 63]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 26, 63].

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 32(1)(c), sect. 32(1.1) [para. 7]; sect. 32(1.3) [para. 8].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 581 [para. 71].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence (2nd Ed.), p. 6 [para. 68].

Counsel:

A. William Moreira, John Tyhurst and Kelly Greenwood, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Harry Wrathall, Q.C., and Scott Norton, for Pharmacy Association of Nova Scotia and co-counsel for Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society;

Karin McCaskill, Donald Murray and Roderick H. Rogers, for Lawtons Drug Stores Limited, William H. Richardson, Empire Drug Stores Limited and Woodlawn Pharmacy Limited;

Joel Fichaud and Lyle Sutherland, for Nolan Pharmacy Limited, C.D.A. Nolan, Blackburn Holdings Limited, William G. Wilson, Woodside Pharmacy Limited and Frank Forbes;

Catherine Walker, for Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society.

This case was heard on August 21-23, 1990, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Roscoe, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on September 5, 1990: