Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Re, (1990) 123 N.R. 120 (FCA)

• Judge: Urie, MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 18, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 123 N.R. 120 (FCA)

RCMP Act, Re (1990), 123 N.R. 120 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Paragraph 17(3)(b) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7;

In The Matter Of Parts VI and VII of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, as amended by S.C. 1986, c. 11;

In The Matter Of Certain Com­plaints received by or referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Com­mission;

And In The Matter Of an application by way of special case stated for opinion of the Federal Court, Trial Division pursuant to paragraph 17(3)(b) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.

Between:

Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Com­mission (respondent)

(A-336-90)

Indexed As: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Re

Federal Court of Appeal

Urie, MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A.

December 18, 1990.

Summary:

This stated case raised several questions dealing with the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission to consider various complaints under Parts VI and VII of the Royal Cana­dian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, as amended by S.C. 1986, c. 11 (i.e., whether the amendments were retroactive or retrospective).

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 34 F.T.R. 1, answered the questions accordingly. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and answered the questions in the negative (i.e., that the amendments were neither retroactive nor retrospective).

Police - Topic 4283

Internal organization - Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Com­mission - Retrospectivity of legislation re - On March 26, 1986, Parliament assented to additions to the R.C.M.P. Act - Part VI, proclaimed December 18, 1986, established the Commission as a separate body from the R.C.M.P. - Part VII, proclaimed September 30, 1988, set out the statutory procedure for the R.C.M.P. and the Com­mission to deal with public complaints respecting police conduct etc. - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal held that the amend­ments were neither retroactive nor retro­spective.

Statutes - Topic 6703.1

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospectivity and retroactivity distinguished - The Federal Court of Appeal distinguished between the concepts of "retrospectivity" and "retroactivity" - The court discussed how to determine if a statute is retroactive or retrospective and the presumptions involved in such a determination - See paragraphs 19 to 38.

Statutes - Topic 6704

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Presumption against retrospectivity and retroactivity - [See Statutes - Topic 6703.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 458, consd. [para. 11 et seq.].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

Québec (Attorney General) v. Ex­propriation Tribunal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 732; 66 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

Upper Canada College v. Smith (1920), 61 S.C.R. 413, refd to. [para. 26].

Acme Village School District v. Steele-Smith, [1933] S.C.R. 47, refd to. [para. 26].

Snider v. Edmonton Sun et al., [1989] 4 W.W.R. 167; 93 A.R. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 3].

R. v. Vine (1875), 10 L.R. Q.B. 195, refd to. [para. 29].

A Solicitor's Clerk, Re, [1957] 3 All E.R. 617, refd to. [paras. 29, 30].

Barry, Re (1986), 67 A.R. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

In re Athlumney; ex parte Wilson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 547, refd to. [para. 36].

Nova, An Alberta Corporation v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 437; 38 N.R. 381; 32 A.R. 163; 128 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Québec (Attorney General) v. Healey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 158; 73 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 37].

Martineau and Butters v. Matsqui Institu­tion Inmate Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Angus v. Hart and Angus and Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; 87 N.R. 200; 30 O.A.C. 210; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 56, 57, 59].

Latif v. Canadian Human Rights Commis­sion and Fairweather, [1980] 1 F.C. 687; 28 N.R. 494, refd to. [para. 58].

Royal Insurance Co. of Canada, Re (1985), 51 O.R.(2d) 797 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, [1989] 1 All E.R. 647, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Wildman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; 55 N.R. 27; 5 O.A.C. 241; 12 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 17(3)(b) [para. 1].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, Part VI, Part VII [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 2(1), sect. 5(1), sect. 45.29(1), sect. 45.29(6), sect. 45.31(1), sect. 45.34, sect. 45.35 [para. 9]; sect. 45.35(1) [paras. 9, 43, 68]; sect. 45.36 [para. 9]; sect. 45.36(5) [paras. 9, 15]; sect. 45.37 [para. 9]; sect. 45.37(1) [paras. 9, 68]; sect. 45.38, sect. 45.39, sect. 45.40, [para. 9]; sect. 45.41 [paras. 9, 46]; sect. 45.41(1) [paras. 9, 15, 19, 68]; sect. 45.42 [para. 9]; sect. 45.43 [paras. 9, 47]; sect. 45.44, sect. 45.45 [para. 9]; sect. 45.45(10) [paras. 9, 59]; sect. 45.46, sect. 45.46(1), sect. 45.46(2), sect. 45.46(3), sect. 45.47 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), pp. 137, 139 [para. 56].

Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 183-221 [paras. 20, 21]; 185, 189 [para. 25]; 197, 198 [para. 27].

Driedger, Statutes: Retroactive, Retrospec­tive Reflections (1978), 56 Can. Bar Rev. 264, p. 275 [para. 20, footnote 1].

Hansard, Debates of the House of Com­mons, September 11, 1985, pp. 6518 [para. 40]; 6519 [para. 41].

Information Canada, Report of the Com­mission of Inquiry Relating to Public Complaints, Internal Discipline and Grievance Procedure within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1976), gen­erally [para. 39]; p. 97 [para. 40].

Marin Commission Report - see Informa­tion Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry Relating to Public Complaints, Internal Discipline and Grievance Pro­cedure within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 215, 216 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C., for the appel­lant;

Eleanore A. Cronk and Peter Downard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Fasken, Calvin & Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on November 27 and 28, 1990, before MacGuigan, Urie and Linden, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by MacGuigan, J.A., on December 18, 1990.