Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles and Attorney General of Ontario, (1973) 1 N.R. 9 (SCC)

• Judge: Spence, Pigeon and Dickson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 05, 1973
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1973), 1 N.R. 9 (SCC);[1975] 1 SCR 5;1973 CanLII 176 (SCC);1 NR 9;14 CCC (2d) 322;42 DLR (3d) 68

Ross v. Reg. of Motor Vehicles (1973), 1 N.R. 9 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General for Ontario

Indexed As: Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles and Attorney General of Ontario

Supreme Court of Canada

Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie,

Spence, Pigeon and Dickson, JJ.

December 5, 1973.

Summary:

This case arose out of a sentence imposed upon a driver convicted of impaired driving contrary to s. 234 of the Criminal Code. Sentence was imposed by an Ontario Provincial Court judge who made an order prohibiting the accused from driving which order was made pursuant to s. 238(1) of the Criminal Code. On appeal to the County Court the sentence was varied and provided that the accused was prohibited from driving for a period of six months except during the course of his work and going to and from work. In addition, the County Court judge provided that the operator's license of the accused was not to be suspended by the Ontario Registrar of Motor Vehicles. S. 21 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act provided that the license of a person convicted of impaired driving is thereupon suspended for a period of three months for the first offence - see paragraph 22. The driver commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario for a declaration that s. 21 of the Highway Traffic Act was inoperative with respect to the suspension of his driver's license. On a joint application by the parties, the action was removed to the Supreme Court of Canada for the determination of three questions with respect to the validity of s. 21 of the Highway Traffic Act and s. 238(1) of the Criminal Code - see paragraph 19.

The Supreme Court of Canada held:

1. That s. 21 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act was valid provincial legislation with respect to the regulation of driving privileges and was not repugnant to s. 238 of the Criminal Code.

2. That s. 238 of the Criminal Code was valid Federal legislation with respect to criminal law and did not "deal generally with the right to drive a motor vehicle" - see paragraph 14.

3. That s. 21 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is not rendered inoperative by s. 238(1) of the Criminal Code and that both statutes "can fully operate simultaneously" - see paragraph 9.

Judson and Spence, JJ., dissenting in part, would have declared inoperative the suspension of the driving privileges of the driver pursuant to the provincial statute because such suspension was in direct conflict with the order made pursuant to the federal legislation which must prevail - see paragraph 27.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6495

Criminal law - Validity of a federal statute (Criminal Code) which provided for court orders to prohibit convicted drivers from driving a motor vehicle - Whether the federal statute was repugnant to provincial legislation which provided for driver license suspensions on the convictions of drivers of criminal offences - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the federal statute was valid as it did not "deal generally with the right to drive a motor vehicle," a provincial legislative subject matter - See paragraph 14.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6455

Criminal law - Elements of classification of legislation as a criminal law statute - Punishment - A provincial statute provided for driver license suspensions on the convictions of drivers of criminal offences - The Supreme Court of Canada defined the word "punishment" so as to exclude the civil consequences of a criminal act - See paragraph 11.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7450

Provincial offences - Validity of a provincial statute which provided for driver license suspensions on the convictions of drivers of criminal offences - Whether the provincial statute was repugnant to the federal Criminal Code which provided for court orders to prohibit a convicted driver from driving a motor vehicle - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial statute was valid and stated that both statutes "can fully operate simultaneously" - See paragraph 9.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2650

Validity of statutes - Tests - Repugnancy - Whether a provincial statute which authorized driver license suspensions was repugnant to a federal statute which authorized court orders to prohibit convicted drivers from driving a motor vehicle - The Supreme Court of Canada held both statutes valid - See paragraph 9.

Words and Phrases

Punishment - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "punishment" as found in s. 5(1) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 10 and 11.

Cases Noticed:

Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [1941] 3 D.L.R. 305; [1941] S.C.R. 396, folld. [paras. 5, 26, 30, 32].

R. v. Adamowiez, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 59 (Alta), refd to. [paras. 8, 24].

R. v. Lloyd, [1969] 4 C.C.C. 109 (N.B.), refd to. [paras. 8, 24].

R. v. Herbert, [1970] 1 O.R. 782 (Ont.), refd to. [paras. 8, 24].

R. v. Kazakoff, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 378, refd to. [paras. 8, 24].

Lymburn v. Mayland, [1932] A.C. 318, folld. [para. 11].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, folld. [para. 13].

Ex parte McLean (1930), 43 C.L.R. 472, folld. [para. 16].

O'Sullivan v. Noarlunga Ltd., [1957] A.C. 1, folld. [para. 16].

Johnson v. Attorney General of Alberta, [1954] S.C.R. 127, folld. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, sect. 91(27), sect. 92(15).

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, C-34, sect. 5(1) [para. 10]; sect. 238(1) [para. 7].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202, sect. 21 [para. 22].

Counsel:

John Laskin, Saul Nosanchuk and H.T. Strosberg, for the appellant;

Morris Manning, for the respondents;

Ross Goodwin, for the Attorney General for Quebec;

Gordon Gale, for the Attorney General for Nova Scotia;

Hazen H. Strange, for the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Bertrand R. Plamondon, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island;

W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

K.M. Lysyk and D.G. Bogdasavich, for the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

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

Abbott, Martland, Ritchie and Dickson, JJ., concurred with Pigeon, J.