Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), (1994) 163 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 27, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 163 N.R. 81 (SCC);46 ACWS (3d) 132;163 NR 81;1994 CanLII 115 (SCC);20 Admin LR (2d) 202;AZ-94111019;110 DLR (4th) 1;41 BCAC 81;[1994] SCJ No 15 (QL);[1994] 3 WWR 609;20 MPLR (2d) 1;88 BCLR (2d) 145;66 WAC 81;[1994] 1 SCR 231;JE 94-374;[1994] CarswellBC 115;[1994] ACS no 15

Shell Can. v. Vancouver (1994), 163 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Shell Canada Products Limited (appellant) v. City of Vancouver (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario and The Attorney General of Quebec (intervenors)

(No. 22789)

Indexed As: Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ.

February 24, 1994.

Summary:

The City of Vancouver passed resolutions declaring that it would do no further busi­ness with Shell Canada until its parent cor­poration completely withdrew and disinvested from South Africa. Shell Canada applied to quash the resolutions.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, per Maczko, J., in a decision reported (1990), 46 B.C.L.R.(2d) 346; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 374, quashed the resolutions. The City appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 310; 7 W.A.C. 310; 57 B.C.L.R.(2d) 345; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 353, with supplementary rea­sons, 3 B.C.A.C. 314; 7 W.A.C. 314; 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 285; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 157, allowed the appeal. Shell Canada appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the trial judgment. McLachlin, J., dissenting (Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, and Gonthier, concurring) would have dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 412

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Discrimination - [See Munici­pal Law - Topic 1505 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 413

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Purpose of resolution not auth­orized by empowering statute - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1505 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1505

Powers of municipalities - Power to restrict who city does business with - The City of Vancouver passed resolutions declaring that it would do no further busi­ness with Shell Canada until its parent corporation completely withdrew and disinvested from South Africa - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of the resolutions was to affect matters beyond the boundaries of the City without any identifiable benefit to its inhabitants - This purpose was neither expressly or impliedly authorized by the Vancouver City Charter and was unrelated to the carrying into effect of the intent and purpose of the Charter - Further, the resolutions constituted unauthorized dis­crimination - The court quashed the resol­utions - See paragraphs 27 to 42.

Municipal Law - Topic 1682

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of powers - Scope of powers of judicial review - The City of Vancouver passed resolutions declaring that it would do no further business with Shell Canada until its parent corporation completely withdrew and disinvested from South Africa - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the resolutions were subject to judicial review - The court discussed gen­erally judicial review of municipal resol­utions - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Lewisham Borough Council, ex parte Shell UK Ltd., [1988] 1 All E.R. 938 (Q.B.), folld. [paras. 10, 75].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 19].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Winnipeg (Municipality), [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 22].

Wiswell v. Greater Winnipeg (Municipal­ity), [1965] S.C.R. 512, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 22, 59].

Rogers v. Toronto (City) (1915), 33 O.L.R. 89 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 24, 50].

Toronto (City) v. Miller Paving Ltd. (1964), 49 D.L.R.(2d) 214 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1965] S.C.R. ix, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sharma (D.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650; 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 27, 101].

Gershman v. Manitoba Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 406; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 114 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Taylor v. Winnipeg (City) (1896), 11 Man. R. 420, refd to. [para. 28].

Hignell v. Winnipeg (City), [1933] 3 W.W.R. 193 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [paras. 37, 106].

Gulf Canada Ltd. v. Vancouver (City) (1981), 130 D.L.R.(3d) 146 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Haggerty v. Victoria (City) (1895), 4 B.C.R. 163 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Midnorthern Appliances Industrial Corp. v. Ontario Housing Corp. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 290 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

Transhelter Group Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) Committee on Works and Operations and Mediacom Inc. (1984), 28 Man.R.(2d) 137; 27 M.P.L.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Webb v. Ontario Housing Corp. (1978), 93 D.L.R.(3d) 187 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Prysiazniuk v. Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) (1985), 10 O.A.C. 208 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Ainsworth Electric Co. v. Exhibition Place (Board of Governors) (1987), 19 O.A.C. 216; 58 O.R.(2d) 432 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Associated Respiratory Services Inc. v. British Columbia (Purchasing Commisssion) (1992), 70 B.C.L.R.(2d) 57 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Peter Kiewit Sons Co. v. Richmond (City) (1992), 11 M.P.L.R.(2d) 110 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Merritt v. Toronto (City) (1895), 22 O.A.R. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Distillery Co. (1907), 38 S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 57].

Howard v. Toronto (City) (1928), 61 O.L.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Associated Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Kuchma v. Tache (Rural Municipality), [1945] S.C.R. 234, refd to. [para. 59].

Payne v. Prince George (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 458; 15 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 60].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [para. 65].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 65].

National Corn Growers Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 65].

Domtar Inc. c. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 65].

Teamsters Union, Local 938 of the Inter­national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouseman and Helpers of America et al. v. Massicotte and Canada Labour Relations Board, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 710; 44 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 65].

Galloway v. Mayor and Commonalty of London (1866), L.R. 1 H.L. 34 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 74].

Lamb v. Estevan (Town) (1922), 16 Sask. L.R. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Burns v. Haldimand (Township) (1965), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 101 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. The Queen - see Irving Oil Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board.

Irving Oil Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 76].

Mounterbrooke Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1963] R.L. 28 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Foster v. Raleigh (Municipality) (1910), 22 O.L.R. 26, refd to. [para. 78].

Smith v. White City (Village) and Woloshyn (1989), 81 Sask.R. 79 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 79].

Baird v. Oak Bay (District) (1982), 143 D.L.R.(3d) 756; 21 M.P.L.R. 278 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

Wheeler v. Leicester City Council, [1985] A.C. 1054 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 95].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2 [para. 19]; sect. 2(b) [paras. 16, 108, 110]; sect. 15 [paras. 19, 105, 110].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 19].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(2) [paras. 16, 109].

Local Government Act (U.K.), 1972, c. 70, sect. 135 [para. 93].

Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, sect. 223 [para. 26].

Race Relations Act (U.K.), 1976, c. 74, sect. 71 [paras. 32, 94].

Vancouver (City) Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, sect. 137(1), sect. 148, sect. 151, sect. 153 [para. 6]; sect. 188 [para. 30]; sect. 189, sect. 190, sect. 199, sect. 203, sect. 272(1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arrowsmith, Sue, Government Procure­ment and Judicial Review (1988), pp. 10 to 13 [para. 50]; 14 [paras. 50, 53]; 15 to 21 [para. 50]; 219 [para. 60].

Makuch, Stanley M., Canadian Municipal and Planning Law (1983), pp. 5, 6 [para. 60]; 115 [para. 27].

McDonald, Ann, In the Public Interest: Judicial Review of Local Government (1983), 9 Queen's L.J. 62, pp. 64 [para. 56]; 79 [para. 60]; 100, 101 [para. 64]; 108 [para. 66].

Rogers, Ian MacFee, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 1971), pp. 357 [para. 86]; 364, 366 [para. 89]; 387 [paras. 28, 69]; 406.8, 406.9 [para. 26].

Counsel:

David W. Donohoe and John G. Mendes, for the appellant;

Terrance R. Bland, for the respondent;

Yvonne E. Milosevic, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

M. David Lepofsky, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Françoise Saint-Martin, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec.

Solicitors of Record:

Clark, Wilson, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for the appellant;

City of Vancouver Law Department, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

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

M. David Lepofsky, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Françoise Saint-Martin, Sainte-Foy, Que­bec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec.

This appeal was heard on April 27, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 24, 1994, including the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (La Forest, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 42;

McLachlin, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 43 to 112.