Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., (1990) 106 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 01, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 106 N.R. 161 (SCC);47 CRR 1;54 CCC (3d) 417;72 OR (2d) 415;[1990] ACS no 23;106 NR 161;39 OAC 161;29 CPR (3d) 97;[1990] 1 SCR 425;1990 CanLII 135 (SCC);[1990] SCJ No 23 (QL);67 DLR (4th) 161;10 WCB (2d) 7;JE 90-575;29 CER (3d) 97;76 CR (3d) 129

Thomson Newspapers v. Combines Inv. (1990), 106 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Thomson Newspapers Limited, Brian W. Slaight, Peter T. Bogart and Paul E. Weeks (appellants) v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General for New Brunswick and Attorney General for Alberta (intervenors)

(No. 20228)

Indexed As: Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

March 29, 1990.

Summary:

The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, authorized the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to order witnesses to testify and order persons to produce documents for inspection during a combines investigation. Thomson Newspapers applied for a declaration that ss. 17(1), (2), (4) and (8) were of no force and effect because they were contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario High Court of Justice, per J. Holland, J., dismissed the application insofar as it was based on s. 7 of the Charter, but allowed the application to the extent of declaring that ss. 17(1) and 17(4) authorized unlawful searches and seizures contrary to s. 8. Thomson appealed the decision with respect to s. 7 and the Director of Research and Investigation and the Attorney General of Canada cross-appealed the decision under s. 8. See (1986), 54 O.R.(2d) 143; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 507; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 233; 9 C.P.R.(3d) 72; 21 C.R.R. 1.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 17 O.A.C. 330, dismissed Thomson's appeal with respect to s. 7. The court allowed the cross-appeal with respect to s. 8 and dismissed the application in its entirety. Thomson appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The following constitutional question was set: "Is s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, inconsistent with the provisions of ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore of no force and effect?" The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and answered the constitutional question as follows: La Forest, J., answered the question in the negative, holding that s. 17 was not contrary to ss. 7 or 8 of the Charter.

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., in separate reasons, also answered the question in the negative, holding that s. 17 was not contrary to ss. 7 or 8 of the Charter.

Lamer, J., dissenting in part, held that s. 17 was contrary to s. 8 of the Charter and of no force and effect to the extent that it allowed the production of documents. Lamer, J., did not pronounce on the s. 7 issue.

Sopinka, J., dissenting in part, held that s. 17 was not contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. However he held that s. 17 was invalid to the extent that it permitted compulsory testimony because it was contrary to the right to remain silent as guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter. To the extent s. 17 allowed production of documents it was not contrary to s. 7.

Wilson, J., dissenting, answered the question in the affirmative, declaring s. 17 of no force and effect. She held that s. 17 was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter to the extent it allowed compulsory testimony. Further ss. 17(1) and 17(4) insofar as they allowed production of documents were contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

See also the next case in this volume and 108 N.R. 161.

Civil Rights - Topic 686

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted compulsory testimony to be taken from witnesses and production of documents during a combines investigation - La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that s. 17 constituted a deprivation of liberty such as to make s. 17 subject to s. 7 scrutiny; however, the deprivation was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 59, 126 - Wilson, J., in a dissenting judgment, opined that s. 17 violated a person's right to liberty and security of the person in a manner contrary to s. 7 - See paragraphs 257 to 308.

Civil Rights - Topic 726

Liberty - Charter - Denial of liberty - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686].

Civil Rights - Topic 1205

Security of the person defined - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted the taking of compulsory testimony from witnesses and the production of documents during a combines investigation - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dissenting judgment, opined that s. 17 violated a person's right to liberty and security of the person not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice contrary to s. 7 of the Charter - Further s. 17 could not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 257 to 308.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - General - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that s. 8 of the Charter protects a reasonable expectation of privacy - See paragraph 163 - She thereafter discussed how to determine what was "reasonable" - See paragraphs 164 to 173.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - Business records - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the right to privacy in business records - See paragraphs 29 to 33 - "While such records are not devoid of any privacy interest, it is fair to say that they raise much weaker privacy concerns than personal papers" - See paragraph 30 - Thus those ordered to produce books, papers, records or other documents under s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act can claim only a limited expectation of privacy respecting those documents - See paragraph 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - General - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, distinguished between the reasonableness of a search and seizure in the administrative law or regulatory context as opposed to the criminal law context - There can be only a relatively low expectation of privacy in the regulatory context compared to a very high expectation of privacy in the criminal law context - See paragraphs 10 to 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 1644

Property - Search and seizure - Seizure defined - Production of documents - Subpoenas duces tecum - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted production of documents during a combines investigation - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Wilson and Lamer, JJ., held that a s. 17 order for production of documents constituted a seizure within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter - La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., held that s. 17 did not countenance unreasonable seizures and was therefore not contrary to s. 8 - Lamer and Wilson, JJ., dissenting, opined that s. 17 allowed unreasonable seizures and was contrary to s. 8 - Sopinka, J., opined that a s. 17 order was not a "seizure"; therefore s. 17 was not contrary to s. 8 - See paragraphs 9 to 58, 167, 175, 179, 215 to 228, 313 to 335.

Civil Rights - Topic 1644

Property - Search and seizure - Seizure defined - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted the examination under oath of witnesses during a combines investigation - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that an order to testify could not be considered a "seizure" within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 120, 121.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1644].

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - Compellability - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted compulsory testimony to be taken from witnesses during a combines investigation - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that compelling a witness to testify at such an investigative stage was not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - See paragraphs 130 to 145.

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4462].

Civil Rights - Topic 4301

Protection against self-incrimination - General - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dissenting judgment, examined the history of the rules against compellability and self-incrimination in England, Canada, the United States of America and Australia - See paragraphs 273 to 283.

Civil Rights - Topic 4301

Protection against self-incrimination - General - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., held that the specific enumerations in ss. 11(c) and 13 of the Charter did not prevent residual content being given to s. 7 - See paragraphs 62, 63, 160, 179, 271 - Sopinka, J., opined that the privilege against self-incrimination was specifically dealt with in s. 13 of the Charter and no residue of it was left to s. 7 - He opined further that the testimonial aspect of self-incrimination (the right to remain silent) which was included in s. 11(c) of the Charter was protected by s. 7 - See paragraphs 194, 195.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4301].

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted the taking of compulsory testimony and the production of documents during a combines investigation - Sopinka, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, opined that s. 17 was invalid to the extent it allowed compulsory testimony, because it violated the right to remain silent in s. 7 of the Charter - This violation could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter - He opined further that s. 17 was valid to the extent it permitted the production of documents as such production was not contrary to s. 7 - See paragraphs 188 to 214.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - Sopinka, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the right to remain silent and s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 188 to 206 - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., opined that s. 7 of the Charter does not afford witnesses any constitutional right to remain silent - See paragraph 128.

Civil Rights - Topic 4346

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating documents - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4302].

Civil Rights - Topic 4346

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating documents - Subpoenas duces tecum - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted the production of documents during a combines investigation - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, opined that the protection against self-incrimination afforded witnesses by ss. 7 or 13 of the Charter did not extend to documents or corporate books and records required to be produced under s. 17 of the Act - Sections 7 and 13 are restricted to "testimonial" evidence - See paragraphs 159, 160.

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - Derivative evidence - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted compulsory testimony to be taken from witnesses and the production of documents during a combines investigation - Section 20(2) protected witnesses from subsequent use of testimony (use immunity), but not from subsequent use of evidence derived from their testimony (derivative use immunity) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., held that s. 17 did not contravene s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 59 to 109, 146 to 156 - Sopinka and Wilson, JJ., opined that the compulsory testimony portion of s. 17 was contrary to s. 7 - See paragraphs 207 to 214, 300 to 308 - Lamer, J., expressed no opinion on s. 7 - See paragraph 183.

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - Derivative evidence - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted compulsory testimony to be taken from witnesses during an investigation under the Act - Section 20(2) protected such witnesses from subsequent use of their oral testimony (use immunity), but afforded no protection against the subsequent use of evidence derived from their testimony (derivative use immunity) - La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the admissibility of evidence derived from compulsory testimony in relation to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - See paragraphs 59 to 109, 146 to 156.

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - Derivative evidence - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted compulsory testimony to be taken from witnesses during a combines investigation - Section 20(2) protected witnesses from subsequent use of testimony, but not from the use of evidence derived from the compulsory testimony - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that the use of derivative evidence in subsequent trials for offences under the Act did not automatically affect the fairness of those trials - Complete derivative use immunity was not required by the principles of fundamental justice - The s. 20(2) use immunity, together with the judge's power to exclude derivative evidence where appropriate satisfied the Charter requirements - See paragraphs 76 to 80, 109.

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - Derivative evidence - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted compulsory testimony to be taken from witnesses during a combines investigation - Section 20(2) protected such witnesses from subsequent use of testimony (use immunity) but not from the use of evidence derived from their testimony (derivative use immunity) - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that insofar as s. 17 compelled testimony, given the use immunity provided by s. 20(2), s. 17 did not offend ss. 7 or 8 of the Charter - The s. 7 principles of fundamental justice did not require that the Act provide derivative use immunity - See paragraphs 146 to 156.

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other proceedings - Derivative evidence - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted the taking of compulsory testimony during a combines investigation - Section 20(2) protected witnesses from subsequent use of testimony (use immunity), but not against the use of evidence obtained as a result of their testimony (derivative use immunity) - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dissenting judgment, opined that the use in subsequent criminal proceedings of derivative evidence obtained under s. 17 was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 257 to 299.

Civil Rights - Topic 8301.2

Charter - Categorization of legislation for Charter analysis - Criminal v. administrative law - La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that the Combines Investigation Act was regulatory in nature (as opposed to criminal in nature) for the purposes of Charter analysis - See paragraphs 14 to 28, 168 - Wilson, J., dissenting, stated that the investigatory processes of the Act were criminal or quasi-criminal in nature - See paragraph 316.

Civil Rights - Topic 8301.2

Charter - Categorization of legislation for Charter analysis - Criminal v. administrative law - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that in categorizing the Combines Investigation Act as criminal or administrative law for Charter analysis, what is determinative is "the nature of the conduct addressed by the legislation and the purposes for which it is designed to regulate that conduct" - See paragraph 16 - La Forest, J., held that it was not determinative that the Act and its predecessors were characterized as criminal law for the purposes of a division of powers analysis, nor was it determinative that the Act defined offences and imposed imprisonment - See paragraphs 28, 34 - See also L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - paragraph 168.

Civil Rights - Topic 8304

Charter - Application - General - Section 8 - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the application of s. 8 of the Charter, including its application to corporate bodies - See paragraphs 163 to 165.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Charter - Application - Persons protected - Section 7 - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted examination under oath and the production of business records during a combines investigation - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, held that corporate representatives called upon under s. 17 to testify or produce documents were entitled to protection under s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 73 to 75 - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., opined that such corporate representatives were not entitled to s. 7 protection - See paragraphs 124, 125.

Civil Rights - Topic 8461

Charter - Interpretation - General - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that "... as the Canadian economy becomes increasingly integrated with the American, and indeed the global economy, we should be wary of giving an interpretation to the Constitution that shackles the government's capacity to cope with problems that other countries, with which we share similar human, legal and constitutional values, are quite able to deal with in, to use Eugene Rostow's apt phrase, planning for freedom" - See paragraph 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 8462

Charter - Interpretation - Purposive test - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that in considering s. 7 of the Charter it is necessary to ascertain the values which that provision was designed to protect and the purposive approach best achieves this end - "I also agree that this fundamental requirement of Charter methodology should not be circumvented by the mechanical application of one of the traditional rules of statutory interpretation. However, once the values have been identified these rules might still be available in later stages of the analysis" - See paragraph 123.

Civil Rights - Topic 8465

Charter - Interpretation - Rules of statutory interpretation - Application of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8462].

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Charter - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4301].

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Charter - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the interrelationship between s. 7 and other provisions of the Charter - See paragraphs 60 to 67.

Civil Rights - Topic 8468

Charter - Interpretation - Pre-Charter state of law and society - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that when identifying the principles of fundamental justice, pre-Charter law is relevant to the extent that it sheds light on the principles which have animated legislative and judicial practice in the field - See paragraph 139.

Civil Rights - Topic 8469

Charter - Interpretation - United States experience - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that "I am not convinced that a comparative analysis of different legal systems can provide anything more than a mere background in determining 'fundamental justice' under s. 7 ... fundamental justice may take different forms in different societies, given their own legal traditions" - See paragraph 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 8469

Charter - Interpretation - United States experience - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to American jurisprudence respecting subpoenas duces tecum in determining whether the production of documents provision (s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act), was contrary to the Charter - See paragraphs 43 to 57, 161, 164, 279 to 281, 310, 321.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8468].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8462].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that the principles of fundamental justice vary with the context - Further, s. 7 of the Charter entitles an accused to a fair hearing, but it does not entitle him to the most favorable procedures that could possibly be imagined - See paragraph 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8469].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, discussed the concept of "principles of fundamental justice" as referred to in s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 60 to 67.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - La Forest, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that "while I realize that the longevity of a statute cannot alone render it consistent with the principles of fundamental justice, it is nevertheless a factor that must be weighed very heavily in any attempt to decide what is required by those principles in particular areas of the law" - See paragraph 80 - See also the comments of L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - paragraph 139.

Trade Regulation - Topic 227

Regulatory bodies - Director - Combines investigation - Power to order testimony and production of documents - [See Trade Regulation - Topic 1251].

Trade Regulation - Topic 502

Competition - Purpose of Combines Investigation Act - Section 17 of the Combines Investigation Act permitted the examination under oath of witnesses and the production of business records in the course of a combines investigation - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the purpose of s. 17 - See paragraphs 38 to 57, 112 to 116, 185, 186, 245 to 256.

Trade Regulation - Topic 504

Competition - Nature of proceedings under Combines Investigation Act - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8301.2].

Trade Regulation - Topic 1251

Commissions - Restrictive Trade Practices Commission - Investigations - Procedure - Production of documents and compulsory testimony - The Combines Investigation Act, s. 17, permitted the examination under oath of witnesses and the production of business records during a combines investigation - The Supreme Court of Canada determined the validity of s. 17 vis-à-vis ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249, refd to. [paras. 9, 163].

Alberta Human Rights Commission v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 758; 48 A.R. 192; 28 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 301 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 220].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 46 O.R.(2d) 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Belgoma Transportation Ltd. v. Director of Employment Standards (Ont.) (1985), 10 O.A.C. 11; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Quesnel (1985), 12 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 10].

Bertram S. Miller Ltd. v. Canada, [1986] 3 F.C. 291; 69 N.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Bichel, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 261 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc. (1990), 106 N.R. 385, consd. [paras. 10, 27, 35, 42, 46, 47, 168, 227].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, dist. [paras. 11, 28, 34-37, 38, 47, 48, 168, 169, 171, 225, 227, 238, 239, 244, 297, 310, 315-335].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, consd. [paras. 14, 20, 113, 114, 168, 185].

Canadian National Transportation Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 14, 113, 246].

R. v. Wetmore et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284; 49 N.R. 286, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Chiasson (1982), 39 N.B.R.(2d) 631; 103 A.P.R. 631; 135 D.L.R.(3d) 499 (C.A.), affd. [1984] 1 S.C.R. 266; 56 N.R. 213; 77 N.B.R.(2d) 179; 195 A.P.R. 179, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 16, 297].

Hale v. Henkel (1906), 201 U.S. 43, refd to. [paras. 31, 164].

Wilson v. United States (1911), 221 U.S. 361, consd. [paras. 31, 161].

United States v. Morton Salt Co. (1950), 338 U.S. 632, consd. [paras. 31, 43, 51, 54].

Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling (1946), 327 U.S. 186, consd. [paras. 31, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 321, 322].

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. v. Irvine et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, consd. [paras. 40, 46, 115, 127, 136, 223, 247, 252].

Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco Inc. (1977), 555 F.2d 862, refd to. [paras. 44, 51].

People v. Allen (1952), 103 N.E.2d 92, refd to. [para. 51].

Federal Trade Commission v. Tuttle (1957), 244 F.2d 605, refd to. [para. 51].

Adams v. Federal Trade Commission (1961), 296 F.2d 861, refd to. [para. 51].

People v. Dorr (1971), 265 N.E.2d 601, refd to. [paras. 51, 54].

Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co. (1924), 264 U.S. 298, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161, consd. [paras. 60, 64, 65, 66, 100].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 17 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, consd. [paras. 60, 301-303].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, consd. [paras. 60, 64, 80, 195, 240, 259, 263, 271].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask. R. 1, consd. [paras. 63, 64, 65, 66, 100, 126, 129, 139].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 65, 102, 103, 104, 106].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [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, consd. [paras. 65, 270, 297].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. Elzein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, consd. [para. 65].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, consd. [paras. 73, 123, 258].

Canada v. Amway Corp. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 21; 91 N.R. 18, consd. [paras. 73, 74, 75, 125, 208].

R. v. N.M. Paterson and Sons Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 679; 34 N.R. 597, refd to. [paras. 74, 75, 137, 161].

Kastigar v. United States (1972), 406 U.S. 441, consd. [paras. 77, 98, 146, 150, 281, 292, 294, 305].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258, refd to. [paras. 78, 103].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Wiggins, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 62; 103 N.R. 118, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 56 C.R.(3d) 193, consd. [paras. 90, 94, 149, 209, 294].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281, refd to. [paras. 93, 149].

Haywood Securities Inc. v. Inter-Tech Resource Group Inc. (1985), 24 D.L.R.(4th) 724 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 94, 241, 266, 267, 268].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 95, 108].

Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892), 142 U.S. 547, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [paras. 102, 211].

R. v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Lucier, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 28; 40 N.R. 153, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Williams (1985), 7 O.A.C. 201; 44 C.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 63 C.R.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Nos. 1 and 2) (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 694 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 113, 169].

Weidman v. Shragge (1912), 46 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 114].

Stinson-Reeb Builders Supply Co. v. The King, [1929] S.C.R. 276, refd to. [para. 114].

Container Materials Ltd. v. The King, [1942] S.C.R. 147, refd to. [para. 114].

Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd. v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 403, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Aetna Insurance Co., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 731; 15 N.R. 117, refd to. [para. 114].

Faber v. Sa Majesté la Reine et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 9; 6 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 118, 135, 136].

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361, refd to. [paras. 118, 135, 136, 203].

Keable and Attorney General of the Province of Quebec v. Attorney General of Canada et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 118, 135, 136, 191, 199, 202].

R. v. Stewart, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 963; 85 N.R. 171, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Marcoux, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 763; 4 N.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 130, 158, 193, 210].

R. v. Coote (1873), L.R. 4 P.C. 599, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Sloggett (1856), Dears. 656; 169 E.R. 885, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Scott (1856), Dears. & Bell 47; 169 E.R. 909, refd to. [para. 131].

Tass v. The King, [1947] S.C.R. 103, refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 133].

Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 All E.R. 649; [1966] 2 Q.B. 414 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 133, 274].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [paras. 133, 144].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202, refd to. [paras. 142, 188, 285].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [paras. 147, 195, 198].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 149, 227, 320].

R. v. Woolley (1988), 25 O.A.C. 390; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 531 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 149, 197].

R. v. Altseimer (1982), 38 O.R.(2d) 783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Dreier v. United States (1911), 221 U.S. 394, refd to. [para. 161].

United States v. White (1944), 322 U.S. 694, refd to. [paras. 161, 164].

Bellis v. United States (1974), 417 U.S. 85, refd to. [para. 161].

Braswell v. United States (1988), 108 Sup. Ct. 2284, refd to. [para. 161].

Blunt v. Park Lane Hotel Ltd., [1942] 2 K.B. 253, refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Symonds (1983), 1 O.A.C. 103; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Eden, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Engel (1981), 9 Man. R.(2d) 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Minhas (1986), 16 O.A.C. 42; 53 C.R.(3d) 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Christie, [1914] A.C. 545 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Clarke (1979), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 636; 57 A.P.R. 636 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Hansen (1988), 46 C.C.C.(3d) 504 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, refd to. [para. 195].

United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, refd to. [para. 195].

Nelles et al. v. Grange et al. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 40; 46 O.R.(2d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 204].

R. v. Gaich (1956), 24 C.R. 196 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 211].

R. v. Hannam, [1964] 2 C.C.C. 340 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 211].

Descôteaux v. Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 212].

R. v. Container Materials Ltd., [1940] 4 D.L.R. 293 ( Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].

R. v. Hashem (1940), 73 C.C.C. 124 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].

R. v. Famous Players, [1932] O.R. 307 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 213].

Braswell v. United States (1988), 108 S. Ct. 2284, refd to. [para. 213].

Ziegler v. Hunter, [1984] 2 F.C. 608; 51 N.R. 1 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 216, 219, 238, 244, 313, 314].

Belgoma Transportation Ltd. v. Director of Employment Standards (Ont.) (1984), 1 O.A.C. 94; 47 O.R.(2d) 309 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 217].

Tyler v. Minister of National Revenue, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 153; 24 F.T.R. 138 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 218].

Gershman Produce Co. v. Motor Transport Board (Man.) (1985), 36 Man. R.(2d) 81; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 520 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 219].

Reich v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (No. 2) (1984), 53 A.R. 325; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 696 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 220].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc. (1987), 26 O.A.C. 352; 62 O.R.(2d) 757, refd to. [para. 222].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, refd to. [para. 223].

Director of Investigation and Research v. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (1985), 60 N.R. 376; 4 C.P.R.(3d) 59 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 223].

Transpacific Tours Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research (1985), 25 D.L.R.(4th) 202 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 241, 266].

Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889, consd. [paras. 241, 265, 266].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin L.R. 137, refd to. [para. 260].

R. v. Videoflicks, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 261].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks.

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks.

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 40 Sask. R. 122; 59 N.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1984] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [paras. 266, 270].

Haywood Securities Inc. v. Inter-Tech Resource Group Inc. (1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 183, affd. (1985), 24 D.L.R.(4th) 724 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 266, 267, 268].

R.L. Crain Inc. v. Couture (1983), 30 Sask. R. 131; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 478 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 269].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 270].

Lamb v. Munster (1882), 10 Q.B.D. 110, refd to. [para. 275].

Ullmann v. United States (1956), 350 U.S. 422, refd to. [para. 280].

Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1970), 382 U.S. 70, refd to. [para. 281].

Pyneboard Proprietary Ltd. v. Trade Practices Commission (1983), 152 C.L.R. 328 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 282].

Sorby v. Commonwealth of Australia (1983), 152 C.L.R. 281 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 282].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, refd to. [para. 294].

R. v. Brydges (1990), 103 N.R. 282, refd to. [para. 294].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44, sect. 15, sect. 16 [para. 164].

Canada Evidence Act - see Evidence Act.

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 4 [paras. 276, 277, 296]; sect. 5 [paras. 276, 281, 296].

Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1893, c. 31, sect. 5 [para. 132].

Canada Evidence Act, An Act to Amend The, S.C. 1898, c. 53 [para. 132].

Canada Evidence Act, An Act to Amend The, S.C. 1901, c. 36 [para. 132].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 1(a), sect. 2(d) [paras. 241, 265].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 180, 182, 258, 262, 300-308, 330-333]; sect. 7, sect. 8 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 11 [paras. 145, 287]; sect. 11(c) [paras. 61, 62, 63, 65, 125, 146, 159, 160, 195, 240, 241, 264, 265, 271, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 292]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 61, 78, 80, 89, 94, 104, 285, 286]; sect. 13 [paras. 61, 62, 63, 65, 140-142, 145, 146, 159, 160, 174, 179, 180, 194, 240, 241, 264, 265, 271, 285-292]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 61, 79, 89, 90, 94, 95, 105, 107, 148, 195, 196, 270, 294].

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 8 [paras. 248, 250]; sect. 9 [para. 248]; sect. 10 [paras. 34, 35, 36]; sect. 12 [para. 248]; sect. 14(1), sect. 15 [para. 254]; sect. 17 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 17(1) [paras. 179, 309, 313]; sect. 17(3) [paras. 250, 261, 309, 313, 326]; sect. 17(4) [paras. 179, 309]; sect. 18 [para. 255]; sect. 20 [paras. 8, 182, 251]; sect. 20(1) [para. 252]; sect. 20(2) [paras. 8, 76, 78, 80, 109, 127, 128, 182, 183, 253, 299, 305]; sect. 22 [para. 255]; sect. 31.4 [para. 41]; sect. 32 [paras. 22, 41]; sect. 32(1) [para. 114]; sect. 32.2 [paras. 22, 41]; sect. 33, sect. 34 [para. 22]; sect. 34(1)(c) [paras. 4, 233]; sect. 36, sect. 36.1, sect. 36.3, sect. 36.4, sect. 37.1 [para. 22]; sect. 38 [paras. 22, 41]; sect. 38(6) [para. 41]; sect. 40, sect. 41 [para. 250]; sect. 44(2) [para. 213]; sect. 45 [para. 253]; sect. 46.1 [para. 250].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91 [para. 14].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [paras. 179, 182, 258, 296, 308, 333, 336].

Evidence Act - see Canada Evidence Act.

Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-10, sect. 5 [paras. 80, 88, 108, 140, 142, 146, 180, 182, 188, 204]; sect. 5(1) [paras. 180, 182, 194]; sect. 5(2) [paras. 147, 180, 242, 253, 305]; sect. 12 [para. 103].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, generally [paras. 42, 46]; sect. 231(3), sect. 239 [para. 27].

United States Constitution, generally [paras. 79, 100]; Fourth Amendment [paras. 49, 50, 52, 56, 164, 310, 322]; Fifth Amendment [paras. 77, 98, 146, 161, 213, 279, 280, 281, 305].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin, Gérald A., and Ed Ratushny (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 390 [para. 120].

Berger, Mark, Taking the Fifth: The Supreme Court and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (1980), pp. 68, 70 [para. 100]; 72 [para. 99].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report 3, Our Criminal Law (1976), pp. 3, 5, 7 [para. 16].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 17, Administrative Law: Commissions of Inquiry (1977), pp. 36 [para. 152]; 63 [para. 170].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 16, Criminal Responsibility for Group Action (1976), pp. 11, 12 [para. 18].

Canada, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Combines Investigation Act Amendments 1984: Background Information and Explanatory Notes (1984) [para. 45].

Chevrette, François, Protection Upon Arrest or Detention and Against Retroactive Penal Law, in Gérald A. Beaudoin and Ed Ratushny (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 390 [para. 120].

Davis, Kenneth Culp, Administrative Law Text (3rd Ed. 1972), pp. 66, 67 [para. 55].

de Montigny, Yves, La protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions et les saisies abusives: un premier bilan (1989), 49 R. du B. 53, p. 94 [paras. 167, 168].

Delisle, R.J., Evidence -- Judicial Discretion and Rules of Evidence -- Canada Evidence Act, s. 12: Corbett v. The Queen (1988), 67 Can. Bar Rev. 706 [para. 104].

Gorecki, Paul K., and W.T. Stanbury, Canada's Combines Investigation Act: The Record of Public Law Enforcement, 1889 - 1976, in J. Robert S. Prichard, W.T. Stanbury and Thomas A. Wilson (eds.), Canadian Competition Policy: Essays in Law and Economics (1979), p. 173 [para. 24].

Kintner, Earl W. and William P. Kratzke, Federal Antitrust Law (1986), pp. 248-256 [para. 51].

LaFave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, vol. 2 (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 380-381 [para. 55]; 382, note 111 [para. 54].

Ouellette, Yves, La Charte canadienne et les tribunaux administratifs (1984), 18 R.J.T. 295, p. 313 [para. 167].

Paciocco, David M., Charter Principles and Proof in Criminal Cases (1987), pp. 547 [para. 160]; 592, 593 [para. 152].

Prichard, J. Robert S., W.T. Stanbury and Thomas A. Wilson (eds.), Canadian Competition Policy: Essays in Law and Economics (1979), p. 173 [para. 24].

Ratushny, Ed., Self-Incrimination in the Canadian Criminal Process (1979), generally [para. 273]; p. 21 [para. 70].

Reid, Alan D. and Alison Harvison Young, Administrative Search and Seizure Under the Charter (1985), 10 Queen's L.J. 392, p. 399 [para. 12].

Rostow, Eugene, Planning Freedom: The Public Law of American Capitalism (1962), p. 307 [para. 24].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol. 8 (McNaughton, Revision 1961), pp. 284 ff. [para. 273]; 310-318 [para. 284].

Wilson, Stephen V., and A. Howard Matz, Obtaining Evidence for Federal Economic Crime Prosecutions: An Overview and Analysis of Investigative Methods (1977), 14 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 651, p. 651 [para. 40].

Counsel:

H. Lorne Morphy, Q.C., and John B. Laskin, for the appellants;

Bryan Finlay, Q.C., and J. Gregory Richards, for the respondents;

Leah Price and Timothy Macklem, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean Bouchard and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Bruce Judah, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Robert C. Maybank, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Weir & Foulds, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Director of Investigation and Research and the Attorney General of Canada;

Richard F. Chaloner, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean Bouchard and Gilles Laporte, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Department of Justice and Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

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

This appeal was heard on November 1, 1988, before Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on March 29, 1990, including the following opinions:

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 110;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 111 to 178;

Lamer, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 179 to 183;

Sopinka, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 184 to 230;

Wilson, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 231 to 336.