R. v. Vincent (E.), (1993) 61 O.A.C. 371 (CA)

• Judge: Lacourcière, Galligan and Labrosse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 22, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1993), 61 O.A.C. 371 (CA)

R. v. Vincent (E.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 371 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Sa Majesté la Reine (intimée) v. Elizabeth Vincent (appelante)

(C8006)

Indexed As: R. v. Vincent (E.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Galligan and Labrosse, JJ.A.

January 22, 1993.

Summary:

Vincent, a Huron Indian, was charged with illegally importing goods into Canada, con­trary to the Customs Act (Can.). The Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Division (Masse, J.), found her guilty. She appealed. She argued that she had historical and treaty rights allowing her to import goods into Canada without paying duty or any other tax.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4402

Treaties and proclamations - General - What constitutes a treaty - Vincent, a Huron Indian, was charged with illegally importing goods into Canada, contrary to the Customs Act (Can.) - In defence, Vincent pleaded, among others, that alleged promises made to the Indians when the Jay Treaty of 1794 was concluded between the British Crown and the United States constituted a treaty that 1) exempted the Indians from paying customs duties and 2) was guaranteed by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the alleged promises invoked by Vincent did not constitute a treaty for purposes of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - See para­graphs 51 to 57.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4409

Treaties and proclamations - General - Extinguishment - Vincent, a Huron Indian, was charged with illegally importing goods into Canada, contrary to the Customs Act (Can.) - In defence, Vincent pleaded, among others, that the Jay Treaty of 1794 between the British Crown and the United States exempted the Indians from paying customs duties and was guaranteed by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - The Ontario Court of Appeal held: 1) the Jay Treaty was not a treaty for purposes of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, 2) even if were, it did not exempt the Indians from paying customs duties as claimed here and 3) any rights the Jay Treaty gave the Indians were extinguished by the time the Constitution Act, 1982, came into force - See paragraphs 1 to 37, 48 to 50.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4417

Treaties and proclamations - General - Existing aboriginal and treaty rights - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4409 ].

International Law - Topic 5

General - Incorporation into domestic law - Vincent, a Huron Indian, was charged with illegally importing goods into Canada, contrary to the Customs Act (Can.) - In defence, Vincent pleaded, among others, that the Jay Treaty of 1794 between the British Crown and the United States exempted the Indians from paying customs duties - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an international treaty such as the Jay Treaty did not confer rights justiciable before domestic courts unless the domestic legislator made these rights a part of its law - The Canadian legislator has not given the Indians the customs duty ex-emp­tion claimed here by Vincent - The Jay Treaty did not support the existence of such exemption - Vincent's defence was dismissed - See paragraphs 38 to 47.

Treaties - Topic 1606

Operation and effect - Domestic or inter­nal consequences - [See International Law - Topic 5 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lang, [1989] 1 W.W.R. 570; 72 Sask.R. 86 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ireco Canada II Inc. and Biamonte (1988), 29 O.A.C. 161; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81; 3 C.N.L.R. 46, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Francis, [1956] S.C.R. 618, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, consd. [para. 28].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41; 83 D.T.C. 5041, consd. [para. 32].

Arrow River v. Pigeon Timber Co., [1932] S.C.R. 495, refd to. [para. 38].

Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1937] A.C. 326, refd to. [para. 38].

Vincent v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1983), 48 N.R. 214 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Rayner (J.H.) (Mincing Lane) v. United Kingdom (Department of Trade and Industry) (1989), 129 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 38].

Zones Franches de la Haute-Savoie et du Pays de Gex (1932), C.P.J.I., série A/B, Fasc. No 46, pp. 147-148, refd to. [para. 42].

Rustomjee v. The Queen, [1876] L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 69 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Civilian War Claimants Association Ltd. v. The King, [1932] A.C. 14 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 R.C.S. 1075; 111 N.R. 24l, consd. [para. 45].

Guérin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 48].

Karnuth et al. v. United States et al. (1929), 23 Am. J. Intl. L. 645 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

United States v. Garrow (1937), 88 F.2d 318 (C.C.P.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Taylor & Williams (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 227 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(d) [para. 7].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 1]; sect. 35(1) [para. 9].

Constitution of the United States, art. 6, para. 2 [para. 39].

Customs Act, S.C. 1986, c. 1, generally [para. 2]; sect. 155, sect. 160 [para. 2].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, sect. 87 [para. 24].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 88 [para. 3].

Jay Treaty, 1794, 12 Bevans 13, generally [para. 1]; art. III [para. 11].

Murray Treaty, 1760, generally [para. 9].

Ordinance of 7 July 1796, generally [para. 14].

Treaty of Gand, 1814, 12 Bevans 41, generally [para. 9]; art. IX [para. 12].

Treaty of Paris, 1763, generally [para. 52].

Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, generally [para. 52].

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 22 May 1969, R.T. Can. 1980, No. 37, art. 33(2) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brownlee, Principles of Public Interna­tional Law (4th Ed. 1990), pp. 554-555 [para. 39].

Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 565 [para. 25].

Lysyk, Les droits et libertés des peuples autochtones du Canada, in Beaudoin et Tarnopolsky, Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, 1982, pp. 611-612 [para. 25].

McNeil, The Constitution Act, 1982, Sec­tions 25 and 35, [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 1, p. 5 [para. 25].

Reuter, Introduction au droit des traités, 1989, pp. 78-79 [para. 39].

Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties, transl. by Mico and Haggenma­cher - see Reuter, Introduction au droit des traités.

Slattery, The Constitutional Guarantees of Aboriginal and Treaty rights (1983), 8 Queen's L.J. 232, p. 243 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Jacques Larochelle, for the accused;

Dogan D. Akman, for the Crown;

Peter W. Hutchins and Anjali Choksi, for the intervenors, the Chiefs of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on September 15, 16 and 17, 1992, by Lacourcière, Galligan and Labrosse, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on January 22, 1993, by Lacour­cière, J.A.