Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), (1999) 170 F.T.R. 215 (TD)

• Judge: McKeown, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 170 F.T.R. 215 (TD)

Singh v. Can. (A.G.) (1999), 170 F.T.R. 215 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.139

Jaggi Singh (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(DES-2-99)

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

(T-659-99)

Indexed As: Singh v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

McKeown, J.

June 25, 1999.

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 nondisclosure 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, rejected the constitutional challenge.

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 - Section 38(6) allowed the govern­ment to make ex parte submissions in favour of non­disclosure of information claimed to be injurious to international relations or national defence or security - The ap­plicants submitted that ss. 38(6) and 39 were unconstitutional because the su­premacy of the Constitution displaced the Parliamentary supremacy - The sections were 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 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, 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 - The sections neither contravened judicial inde­pendence nor breached the rule of law.

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 Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 18].

Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 215; 41 N.R. 318, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 21].

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. 21].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 37].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 42].

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. 44].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 49].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 1 F.C. 917 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

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. 50].

Canadian Association of Regulated Importers et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1994), 164 N.R. 342 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Valente (1985), 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Gold v. Canada, [1986] 2 F.C. 129; 64 N.R. 260 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Goguen and Albert v. Gibson, [1983] 1 F.C. 872 (T.D.), affd., [1983] 2 F.C. 463; 50 N.R. 286 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

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. 61].

British Columbia Power Corp. v. Royal Trust Co., [1962] S.C.R. 642, dist. [para. 75].

Amax Potash Ltd. et al. v. Saskatchewan, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 576; 11 N.R. 222, dist. [para. 75].

Air Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 539; 72 N.R. 135, refd to. [para. 75].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Ministry of Justice) (1996), 131 D.L.R.(4th) 286 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 87].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 38(6), sect. 39 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cooper, Crown Privilege (1990), p. 141 [para. 72].

Counsel:

Joseph Arvay, Q.C., for the applicant and plaintiffs;

I.G. Whitehall, Q.C., Ronald M. Snyder and Simon Fothergill, for the respondent and defendants;

Marvin Storrow, Q.C., and Barbara Fisher, for the RCMP Public Complaints Com­missioner, intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Arvay Finlay, Victoria, British Columbia, for the ap­plicant and plaintiffs;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent and defendants.

This application was heard on May 17-19, 1999, at Vancouver, B.C., before McKeown, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judg­ment on June 25, 1999.