Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, (1981) 37 N.R. 158 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday May 28, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1981), 37 N.R. 158 (SCC);JE 81-567;[1981] 1 SCR 714;[1981] CarswellOnt 623;[1981] SCJ No 57 (QL);37 NR 158;123 DLR (3d) 554;1981 CanLII 24 (SCC)

Residential Tenancies Act of Ont., Re (1981), 37 N.R. 158 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario

Indexed As: Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Lamer, JJ.

May 28, 1981.

Summary:

This case arose out of a reference to determine the constitutional validity of the portions of the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 1979, empowering the Residential Tenancies Commission to make eviction orders and orders requiring landlords and tenants to comply with obligations imposed by the Act. The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 26 O.R.(2d) 609; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 193, held that the power to make eviction orders and compliance orders was ultra vires the Ontario legislature.

On appeal the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the invalidity of the power to make eviction and compliance orders. The court held that empowering the Residential Tenancies Commission to make such orders was an invasion of the federal power to appoint judges under s. 96 of the British North America Act, 1867.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2586

Determination of validity of statutes - Extrinsic aids in determining legislation subject matter - Extrinsic materials - The Supreme Court of Canada explained the rationale for considering such extrinsic materials as law reform commission reports, government study papers and legislative history in determining the constitutionality of statutes - See paragraphs 7 to 24.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8601

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - British North America Act, 1867, s. 96 - General - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the three step test to be applied in determining whether powers conferred on a tribunal by provincial legislation constitute an invasion of the federal power to appoint judges - Firstly, the power conferred must be considered in the historical context of s. 96 courts - Secondly, it must be determined whether the power exercised is a judicial function - Thirdly, the function must be appraised in its institutional context to determine whether it is in essence adjudicative in nature - See paragraphs 25 to 78.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8616

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - British North America Act, 1867, s. 96 - Provincial legislation regulating landlord and tenant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the power granted under the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to the Residential Tenancies Commission to make eviction and compliance orders was ultra vires the provincial legislature as an invasion of the federal power to appoint judges under s. 96 of the British North America Act - See paragraphs 25 to 79.

Courts - Topic 352

Judges - Exercise of authority - Actions as judge persona designata - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the functions of a judge as persona designata - See paragraphs 50 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Walker's Case (1587), 76 E.R. 676, refd to. [para. 1].

Attorney General of Manitoba v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association, [1971] S.C.R. 689, refd to. [para. 9].

Attorney General of Canada v. Readers Digest Association (Canada) Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 775, consd. [para. 11].

Home Oil Distributors Ltd. et al. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1940] S.C.R. 444, consd. [para. 12].

Attorney General of British Columbia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1937] A.C. 368, consd. [para. 12].

Ladore et al. v. Bennett, [1939] A.C. 468, consd. [para. 12].

Reference re Eskimos, [1939] S.C.R. 104, consd. [para. 12].

Swait v. Board of Trustees of Maritime Transportation Union (1967), 61 D.L.R.(2d) 317, consd. [para. 12].

Reference re Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, 9 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 13].

Reference Re Validity of Wartime Leasehold Regulations, [1950] S.C.R. 124, not folld. [para. 13].

Attorney General of Alberta v. Attorney General of Canada, [1939] A.C. 117, consd. [para. 14].

Alberta Bank Taxation Case, [1939] A.C. 117, consd. [para. 14].

Letang v. Cooper, [1965] 1 Q.B. 232, consd. [para. 14].

Pillai v. Mundanayake, [1953] A.C. 514, consd. [para. 14].

Edwards v. Attorney General of Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, appld. [para. 15].

Laidlaw v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 736; 20 N.R. 515, consd. [para. 15].

Re Apogee Investments Ltd. and Saber (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 663, consd. [para. 20].

Re Blok Glowczynski et al. and Stanga et al. (1978), 22 O.R.(2d) 376, consd. [para. 20].

Toronto Corporation v. York Corporation et al. [1938] A.C. 415, consd. [para. 27].

Reference re Adoption Act and Other Acts, [1938] S.C.R. 398, consd. [para. 28].

Adoption Reference, [1938] S.C.R. 398, consd. [para. 28].

Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Iron Works Ltd., [1949] A.C. 134, consd. [para. 29].

Tomko v. Labour Relations Board (Nova Scotia) et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 112; 7 N.R. 217; 10 N.R. 35; 14 N.S.R.(2d) 191; 11 A.P.R. 191, consd. [para. 34].

Corporation of the City of Mississauga v. The Regional Municipality of Peel et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 244; 26 N.R. 200, consd. [para. 35].

Farah v. Attorney General of Quebec et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, consd. [para. 36].

Re Pepita and Doukas (1980), 101 D.L.R.(3d) 577, consd. [para. 37].

Dupont et al. v. Inglis et al., [1958] S.C.R. 535, consd. [para. 40].

Pong v. Quong and Chong, [1927] S.C.R. 271, dist. [para. 51].

Herbold v. Pajelle Investments Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 520; 7 N.R. 461, consd. [para. 52].

Herman et al. v. Deputy Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 729; 23 N.R. 235, consd. [para. 52].

Ross v. York, Newcastle & Berwick Ry. Co. (1849), 18 L.J.Q.B. 199, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. McIntosh (1869), 12 N.B.R. 372, refd to. [para. 54].

Reference Re Proposed Legislation Concerning Leased Premises and Tenancy Agreements (1978), 89 D.L.R.(3d) 460; 11 A.R. 451, refd to. [para. 78].

Re Constitutional Questions Act (1978), 11 A.R. 451; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 460, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 96.

Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 79.

Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 1979, c. 78.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Buglass, The Use of Extrinsic Evidence and The Anti-Inflation Act Reference (1977), 9 Ottawa L. Rev. 183 [para. 15].

Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), pp. 82 - 90 [para. 41].

Hogg, Constitutional Law in Canada (1977), p. 129 [para. 25].

Hogg, Proof of Facts in Constitutional Cases (1976), 26 Univ. of Tor. L.J. 386 [para. 15].

Strayer, Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada (1968) [para. 15].

Whyte and Lederman, Constitutional Law, Ch. 4 [para. 9].

Counsel:

D.W. Mundell, Q.C., John Cavarzan, Q.C., and Lorraine E. Weinrib, for the Attorney General of Ontario;

William J. Atkinson, Henri Brun and Jean-Francois Jobin, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Reinhold M. Endres and Linda Garber, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

E. Robert A. Edwards, for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Brian F. Squair, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

D.A. McKillop, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

William Henkel, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Alberta;

John J. Robinette, Q.C., and Peter Atkinson, opposing the legislation;

T.B. Smith, Q.C., and J.M. Mabbutt, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Ian Scott, Q.C., and Mary Hogan, for Federation of Metro Tenants Association et al.;

J.H. Melnitzer, for London Property Management Association et al.;

Lawrence Greenspon, on his own behalf.

This case was heard on November 25 and 26, 1980, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, ESTEY, McINTYRE, and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 28, 1981, DICKSON, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: