Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), (2000) 251 N.R. 318 (FCA)

• Judge: Strayer, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 251 N.R. 318 (FCA)

Singh v. Can. (A.G.) (2000), 251 N.R. 318 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. FE.023

Alissa Westergard-Thorpe, Annette Muttray, Jamie Doucette, Mark Brooks, Denis Porter, Deke Samchok and Craig Elton Jones (appellants) v. The Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (respondents)

Craig Elton Jones, Jonathan Oppenheim, Jamie Doucette, Deke Samchok, Denis Porter and Annette Muttray (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen, The Minister of Justice and The Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(A-426-99)

Indexed As: Singh v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Strayer, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.

January 14, 2000.

Summary:

A number of complaints were made into the conduct of the R.C.M.P. in relation to events occurring during the APEC Con­ference in November 1997. A public inquiry was held to hear the complaints. The Com­mission sought disclosure from the govern­ment of all documents relevant to the hear­ing. The government objected to disclosure of all documents containing Cabinet confi­dences under s. 39(1) of the Canada Evi­dence Act. Section 39 conferred absolute immunity from judicial inspection and court-ordered disclosure for all "confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada". Section 38(6) of the Act permitted the gov­ernment to make ex parte submissions in favour of non-disclosure of information claimed to be injurious to international relations or national defence or security. At issue was whether "ss. 38(6) and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act are ultra vires Parlia­ment on the grounds that they are inconsist­ent with the Constitu­tion of Canada, includ­ing the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and the funda­mental and organizing principles of the Constitution".

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in a judgment reported 170 F.T.R. 215, rejected the constitutional challenge. The complainants appealed, submitting that s. 39 was ultra vires because of the "funda­mental, unwritten principles of the Canadian Constitution", namely the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the separa­tion of powers. Alternatively, it was sub­mitted that s. 39 should be read down as not to apply to prevent the Executive from disclosing evidence of its own unconstitu­tional conduct (i.e., directing the R.C.M.P. to infringe the Charter rights of the com­plainants).

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 114

Definitions - Rule of law - [See Consti­tu­tional Law - Topic 402 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 402

Powers of Parliament and the legislatures -General - Parliamentary supremacy - Sec­tion 39 of the Canada Evidence Act vested in the executive branch of govern­ment an absolute right to determine whether "confi­dences of the Queen's Privy Council" should be excluded from evi­dence in ad­ministrative tribunals or courts, even where the content of such "cabinet documents" was relevant to the proceed­ings - The ap­plicants submitted that s. 39 was uncon­stitutional because the suprema­cy of the Constitution displaced the Parlia­mentary supremacy - Section 39 was al­legedly con­trary to the largely unwritten funda­mental and organizing principles of the Constitu­tion, namely the separation of powers, in­dependence of the judiciary and the rule of law (the sections were other­wise within Parliament's jurisdiction) - The trial judge stated that "these largely unwrit­ten consti­tutional norms are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to invali­date other­wise proper­ly enacted legisla­tion" - The separation of powers doctrine could not strike down intra vires legisla­tion that was not contrary to the Charter - Section 39 neither contra­vened judicial independence nor breached the rule of law - The Federal Court of Ap­peal affirmed the decision.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8655

Judges - Independence - [See Constitu­tional Law - Topic 402 ].

Crown - Topic 2208

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - Cabinet discussions - [See Constitu­tional Law - Topic 402 ].

Crown - Topic 2246

Crown privilege or prerogative - Produc­tion of documents - Absolute privilege - Judicial review - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 402 ].

Crown - Topic 2247

Crown privilege or prerogative - Produc­tion of documents - Objection - Re inter­national relations or national defence or security - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 402 ].

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics -Official secrets (incl. national security), state or public documents - [See Consti­tu­tional Law - Topic 402 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Remuneration of Provincial Court Judges (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 11].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 13].

Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 215; 41 N.R. 318, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 18].

Canada (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) v. Central Cartage Co. et al. (No. 1), [1990] 2 F.C. 641; 109 N.R. 357 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 19].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 20, foot­note 20].

Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] A.C. 910 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 23].

Duncan et al. v. Cammell Laird and Co., [1942] A.C. 624 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 24].

Dixon v. Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces in Somalia et al., [1997] 3 F.C. 169; 218 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 31].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Corp. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 32].

Southam Inc. and Rusnell v. Canada (At­torney General) et al., [1990] 3 F.C. 468; 114 N.R. 255 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 32].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 33].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 33, foot­note 35].

Bacon et al. v. Saskatchewan Crop In­surance Corp. et al. (1999), 180 Sask.R. 20; 205 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 36].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 38].

RJR-Macdonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 39].

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 41].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 42].

Canadian Association of Regulated Importers et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1994), 164 N.R. 342 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 43].

British Columbia Power Corp. v. Royal Trust Co., [1962] S.C.R. 842, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 46].

Amax Potash Ltd. et al. v. Saskatchewan, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 576; 11 N.R. 222, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 47].

Air Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 539; 72 N.R. 135, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 39 [para. 5].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 15].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-9, sect. 45.35(1)(a) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1992 Looseleaf), pp. 7.3(1), 9.4(e) [para. 28, footnote 28].

Moore, 1867 - How the Fathers Made a Deal (1977), pp. 80, 81 [para. 28, foot­note 29].

Counsel:

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., for the appellants;

I.G. Whitehall, Q.C., and Simon Fother­gill, for the defendants;

Barbara L. Fisher, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Arvay Finlay, Victoria, B.C., for the ap­pel­lants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants;

RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on November 22, 1999, at Vancouver, B.C., before Strayer, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A, of the Fed­eral Court of Appeal.

On January 14, 2000, Strayer, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.