Schneider v. British Columbia and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Manitoba and Attorney General of Alberta, (1982) 43 N.R. 91 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 09, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 43 N.R. 91 (SCC);[1982] SCJ No 64 (QL);[1982] 6 WWR 673;43 NR 91;68 CCC (2d) 449;[1982] 2 SCR 112;39 BCLR 273;139 DLR (3d) 417;JE 82-812;1982 CanLII 26 (SCC)

Schneider v. B.C. (1982), 43 N.R. 91 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Schneider v. British Columbia, Province of (defendant) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Manitoba and Attorney General for Alberta (intervenors)

Indexed As: Schneider v. British Columbia and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Manitoba and Attorney General of Alberta

Supreme Court of Canada

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

August 9, 1982.

Summary:

A British Columbia heroin addict brought a class action on behalf of British Columbia addicts challenging the constitutional validity of the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24. The Act provided for the compulsory treatment of heroin addicts by various treatment methods, including detention. The British Columbia Supreme Court in a judgment reported [1980] 2 W.W.R. 27,691, allowed the action and held that the Act was ultra vires. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1981] 1 W.W.R. 511 allowed the Province's appeal and held that the Act was intra vires the provincial legislature. The addict appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the Act was intra vires as legislation respecting health, which was within the provincial jurisdiction over local and private matters under s. 92(16) of the British North America Act, 1867.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2586

Determination of validity of statutes - Extrinsic aids in determining legislative subject matter - Extrinsic materials - The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining the pith and substance of the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, and its constitutional validity, considered a Senate Committee Report on trafficking in narcotics, the Le Dain Commission Report on the non-medical use of drugs and a British Columbia governmental report on a plan for the treatment and rehabilitation of heroin addicts - See paragraphs 8 to 15, 29, 36, 48, 52.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2626

Determination of validity of statutes - Considerations - Governmental positions - A British Columbia heroin addict challenged the validity of the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24 - The Supreme Court of Canada in holding that the Act was intra vires the provincial legislature considered that both the federal and provincial governments supported the legislation - See paragraph 53.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes - Pith and substance - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada in holding that the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, was in pith and substance for the medical treatment of heroin addicts stated that in ascertaining the pith and substance of a law it is necessary to identify the dominant or most important characteristic of it - See paragraphs 46 to 53, 57, 61, 65, 71.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of statutes - Overlapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - The Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, provided for the compulsory treatment of heroin addicts - Part II of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, provided for the preventive detention and custody for treatment of drug users, but was not proclaimed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where Part II of the Narcotic Control Act was not proclaimed, there was no conflict with the B.C. Heroin Treatment Act - See paragraphs 54 to 56, 61.

Constitutional Law - Topic 4606

Federal jurisdiction - Peace, order and good government - General principles - Matters not included - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the federal residual power does not include classes of subjects within provincial jurisdiction under s. 92 of the British North America Act, 1867 - See paragraphs 30, 62.

Constitutional Law - Topic 4663

Federal jurisdiction - Peace, order and good government - National concern power - Scope of power - The Supreme Court of Canada in determining that the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, was intra vires the provincial legislature stated that heroin addiction was not a matter of national interest or concern or a national emergency and did not fall within federal jurisdiction - The court stated the subject of narcotics was not global and indivisible so that the legislative domain could be divided with federal jurisdiction over illegal trade in narcotics and provincial jurisdiction over the treatment of addicts - See paragraphs 35 to 38.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6444

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - Matters not criminal in nature - British North America Act, 1867, s. 91(27) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, which provided for the compulsory treatment of heroin addicts, was intra vires the provincial legislature and was not criminal in nature - See paragraphs 39 to 43, 73.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7506

Provincial jurisdiction - Matters of local or private nature - Health - Drug addiction treatment - The British North America Act, 1867, s. 92(16) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, which provided for the compulsory medical treatment of heroin addicts, was intra vires the provincial legislature as legislation respecting health within the provincial jurisdiction over matters of local or private nature under s. 92(16) of the B.N.A. Act - See paragraphs 46 to 53, 61, 65, 71.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8206

Implementation of treaties - General - Effect of treaty on provincial power - Under a treaty called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, Canada undertook to provide for the treatment of drug addicts - Canada sought to discharge the obligation by Part II of the Narcotic Control Act, but Part II was never proclaimed - British Columbia passed the Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24, providing the compulsory treatment of heroin addicts - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the treaty did not prevent British Columbia from enacting the Heroin Treatment Act, which was within its jurisdiction over health as a local or private matter within s. 92(16) of the British North America Act, 1867 - See paragraphs 44 to 45.

Statutes - Topic 6661

Operation and effect - Commencement - Proclamation - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that unproclaimed legislation has no legal effect - In particular, the court held that Part II of the Narcotic Control Act R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, providing for the treatment of drug addicts, which was unproclaimed, did not occupy the field of addiction treatment - See paragraphs 54 to 56, 61.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 16 A.R. 91; 26 N.R. 541; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 193; [1979] 5 W.W.R. 1; 8 C.R.(3d) 89; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 481, consd. [paras. 24, 35, 62, 68].

Margarine Reference Case, [1949] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Reference re Validity of s. 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Reference), [1949] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario (1981), 37 N.R. 158, appld. [para. 36].

Re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada, [1932] A.C. 54, refd to. [para. 37].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation, [1946] A.C. 193, refd to. [paras. 37, 67].

Johannesson v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 292, refd to. [para. 37].

Munro v. National Capital Commission, [1966] S.C.R. 663, refd to. [para. 37].

Re C.F.R.B. and the Attorney General for Canada, [1973] 3 O.R. 819, refd to. [para. 37].

Johnson v. Attorney General of Alberta, [1954] S.C.R. 127, dist. [paras. 39, 72].

Hodge v. The Queen (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117, refd to. [para. 39].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for the Dominion, [1896] A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 39].

Attorney General of Manitoba v. Manitoba Licenseholders' Association, [1902] A.C. 73, refd to. [para. 39].

Bowack, George, Re (1892), 2 B.C.L.R. 216, consd. [paras. 40, 67].

Fawcett v. Attorney General for Ontario, [1964] S.C.R. 625, consd. [paras. 40, 67].

Green v. Livermore, [1940] O.R. 381, consd. [paras. 40, 67].

Reference re Intoxicated Persons Detention Act, [1981] 1 W.W.R. 333, consd. [paras. 41, 67].

Re Levkoe v. The Queen (1978), 18 O.R.(2d) 265, consd. [para. 43].

Attorney General for Canada v. Dupond, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770; 19 N.R. 478; consd. [para. 43].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, consd. [para. 43].

Smith v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 776, consd. [paras. 43, 72].

Vapour Canada Ltd. v. MacDonald and Railquip Enterprises Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134; 7 N.R. 477, refd to. [para. 44].

Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for Ontario (Labour Conventions Reference), [1937] A.C. 326, consd. [para. 44].

Labour Conventions Reference, [1937] A.C. 326, consd. [para. 44].

Rinfret v. Pope (1886), 12 Q.L.R. 303 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914; 30 N.R. 496, refd to. [paras. 49, 67].

Canadian Indemnity Company v. Attorney General of British Columbia, The, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 504; 11 N.R. 466, appld. [para. 55].

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission, The, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 56].

R. v. Aziz, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 188; 35 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 63].

Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider, [1925] A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 67].

Russell v. The Queen (1882), 7 A.C. 829, refd to. [para. 67].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, refd to. [para. 72].

Mann v. The Queen, [1966] S.C.R. 238, refd to. [para. 72].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 72].

Saumar v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 39]; sect. 92(7) [paras. 47, 66]; sect. 92(16).

Heroin Treatment Act, S.B.C. 1978, c. 24.

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, Pt. II [para. 3].

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 [paras. 7, 44, 51, 69].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, pp. 80 [para. 46]; 292 [para. 42].

Le Dain Commission Report of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1973) [paras. 9, 48 to 52].

Rowell-Sirois Commission Report on Dominion-Provincial Relations (1938) [para. 48].

Counsel:

Morris Manning, Q.C., and Ingrid Myers, for the appellant;

A.B. Ferris, Q.C., and Paul Pearlman, for the respondent;

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

Brian Squair, for the intervenant the Attorney General of Manitoba;

William Henkel, Q.C., and Inge Otto, for the intervenant the Attorney General of Alberta.

This case was heard on December 17, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 9, 1982, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 60;

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 61 to 63;

ESTEY, J. - see paragraphs 64 to 73.

MARTLAND, RITCHIE, BEETZ, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.