Sparling v. Quebec, (1988) 89 N.R. 120 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 89 N.R. 120 (SCC);1988 CanLII 26 (SCC);20 QAC 174;[1988] 2 SCR 1015;[1988] SCJ No 95 (QL);41 BLR 1;55 DLR (4th) 63;89 NR 120

Sparling v. Que. (1988), 89 N.R. 120 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

La Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec v. Frederick H. Sparling and Attorney General of Quebec and Attorney General for Alberta

(No. 19377)

Indexed As: Sparling v. Quebec

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

December 15, 1988.

Summary:

The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec (the Caisse), an agent of the Quebec Crown, owned over 10% of the shares of Domtar, Inc. Caisse was an "insider" for purposes of the Canada Business Corporations Act but refused to file with the Director an insider report. The Caisse relied on Crown immunity and on s. 16 of the federal Interpretation Act. The Director applied for a declaration that the Quebec Crown was bound by the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application. The Director appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the Crown was bound by a law if it accepts the benefits of the law. See [1985] C.A. 164. The Caisse appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 410

Statutes affecting the Crown - Where Crown accepts benefits - An agent of the Quebec Crown owned over 10% of the shares of Domtar, Inc. - The agent was an "insider" under the Canada Business Corporations Act but refused to file an insider report as required by the statute - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec Crown was required to file an "insider" report - The court stated that the Quebec Crown when it purchased the shares accepted the benefits of the statute; and having accepted the benefits it was bound by the statute insofar as it regulated the rights and obligations of shareholders - See paragraphs 24 to 29.

Crown - Topic 2883

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Application by necessary implication - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the necessary implication exception is distinct from the benefit/burden exception - See paragraph 17.

Crown - Topic 2885

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Benefit/burden or waiver exception - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the existence of the exception to Crown immunity that states that the Crown is bound by the burdens of a law if it accepts the benefits of the law - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Pacific Western Airlines Ltd., Re., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 61; 14 N.R. 21, refd to. [para. 7].

Queen, The v. Murray, [1967] S.C.R. 262, refd to. [para. 7].

Crooke's Case (1691), 1 Show. K.B. 208, refd to. [para. 13].

Queen, The v. Board of Transport Commissioners, [1968] S.C.R. 118, refd to. [para. 13].

Toronto Transportation Commission v. The King, [1949] S.C.R. 510, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Ouellette, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 568; 32 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 16].

Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of Bombay, [1947] A.C. 58 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 25].

Bank of Montreal v. Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Ltd. (1971), 24 D.L.R. (3d) 13, affd. 30 D.L.R.(3d) 24 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Business Corporations Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 33, sect. 122 [para. 4].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 16 [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Liability of the Crown in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (1971), p. 183 [para. 18].

McNairn, C.H.H., Governmental and Intergovernmental Immunity in Australia and Canada (1977), p. 10 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Gérald Tremblay, Q.C., and Martin Boodman, for the appellants;

Gaspard Côté, Q.C., and Claude Joyal, for the respondent;

Rene Morin and Denis Lemieux, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

D.W. Kinloch, for the Attorney General of Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Clarkson, Tétrault, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Gaspard Côté, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent;

René Morin and Denis Lemieux, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Department of the Attorney General, Edmonton, Alberta, for the Attorney General for Alberta.

This appeal was heard by Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 4, 1988.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by La Forest, J., on December 15, 1988.

Estey and Le Dain, JJ., took no part in this judgment.