Rothmans v. Sask.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Citation: (2005), 331 N.R. 116 (SCC),2005 SCC 13,[2005] 1 SCR 188,257 Sask R 171,JE 2005-572,331 NR 116,137 ACWS (3d) 933,[2005] 9 WWR 403,250 DLR (4th) 411,[2005] SCJ No 1 (QL),342 WAC 171
• Date: 19 January 2005

Rothmans v. Sask. (2005), 331 N.R. 116 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. MR.026

Government of Saskatchewan (appellant) v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Lung Association, Canadian Medical Association, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Western Convenience Stores Association (intervenors)

(29973; 2005 SCC 13; 2005 CSC 13)

Indexed As: Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

January 19, 2005.

Summary:

The applicant applied under Queen's Bench Rule 188 for a declaration that s. 6 of Saskatchewan's Tobacco Control Act was inoperative by virtue of the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy, in light of s. 30 of the federal Tobacco Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 224 Sask.R. 208, held that s. 6 was not inoperative by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramount­cy. The applicant applied for leave to appeal the decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Cameron, J.A., allowed the application (see 227 Sask.R. 121; 287 W.A.C. 121).

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 238 Sask.R. 250; 305 W.A.C. 250, allowed the appeal. Saskatche­wan appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlap­ping legislation - Conflict - What consti­tutes - The applicant alleged that s. 6 of Saskatchewan's Tobacco Control Act was in conflict with s. 30 of the federal Tobacco Act because s. 6 prescribed strict­er standards on advertising than did s. 30 -Therefore, the applicant argued, s. 6 was inoperative by virtue of the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed - What s. 30 of the federal Act authorized, s. 6 of the provincial Act prohibited - The court held that this inconsistency was suf­ficient to engage the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy - The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision - In determining whether s. 6 was sufficient­ly inconsistent with s. 30 so as to be ren­dered inoperative through the paramountcy doctrine, two questions arose - First, could a person simultaneously comply with s. 6 and s. 30? - Second, did s. 6 frustrate Par­liament's purpose in enacting s. 30? - The court held that dual compliance was pos­sible - For an impossibility of dual com­pliance to exist, s. 30 of the federal Act would have to require retailers to do what s. 6 of the provincial Act prohibited (i.e., to display tobacco or tobacco-related prod­ucts to young persons) - Further, s. 6 did not frustrate the purpose of s. 30.

Cases Noticed:

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 11].

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board (N.B.) et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328, refd to. [para. 11].

M & D Farm Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Agri­cultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961; 245 N.R. 165; 138 Man.R.(2d) 161; 202 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 11].

114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 11].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [para. 12].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Man­gat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 12].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, refd to. [para. 19].

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 5; 1 N.R. 9, refd to. [para. 19].

Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Col­umbia (Minis­ter of Small Business, Tourism and Cul­ture) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Tobacco Control Act, S.S. 2001, c. T-14.1, sect. 6 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Thomson Irvine and Richard Hischebett, for the appellant;

Steven Sofer, Neil G. Gabrielson, Q.C., Michelle Ouellette and Marshall Rein­hart, for the respondent;

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and David Schermbrucker, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Robin K. Basu, Mark Crow and Edward Burrow, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Brigitte Bussières and Hugo Jean, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Que­bec;

Edward A. Gores, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Cynthia Devine, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

R. Richard M. Butler, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Colum­bia;

Written submissions only by Ruth M. DeMone, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island;

Written submissions only by Julie Desrosi­ers and Robert Cunningham, for the interveners, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada;

Written submissions only by Ron A. Skol­rood and Clifford G. Proudfoot, for the intervener, the Western Convenience Stores Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;

McKercher McKercher & Whitmore, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respon­dent;

Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island;

Martineau Walker, Montreal, Quebec, for the interveners, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada;

Lawson Lundell, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the intervener, the Western Convenience Stores Association.

This appeal was heard and decided on Jan­uary 19, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Des­champs, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Major, J., delivered the fol­lowing reasons for judgment for the court in both official languages on March 18, 2005.