Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (1974) 1 N.R. 225 (SCC)
Judge | Laskin and Dickson, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Tuesday January 22, 1974 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1974), 1 N.R. 225 (SCC);[1974] ACS no 45;[1974] SCJ No 45 (QL);1 NR 225;1974 CanLII 6 (SCC);[1975] 1 SCR 138;43 DLR (3d) 1 |
Thorson v. Can. (A.G.) (1974), 1 N.R. 225 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada
Indexed As: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Fauteux, C.J.C., Abbott, Martland,
Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon,
Laskin and Dickson, JJ.
January 22, 1974.
Summary:
This case arose out of a class action by a taxpayer for a declaration that the Canada Official Languages Act and the Appropriation Acts providing money to implement it were unconstitutional. The Attorney General for Canada opposed the plaintiff's action and claimed that the plaintiff had no status or standing to maintain the action because the plaintiff had not suffered any special damage. The trial court found that the plaintiff had no status to maintain the action and accordingly dismissed the action - see [1972] 1 O.R. 86. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the trial court judgment was affirmed - see [1972] 2 O.R. 370.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, the judgments of the Ontario Supreme Court were set aside and the plaintiff was declared to have the status to commence the action and that the action should be determined on its merits. Judson, J., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and would have held that the plaintiff had no status to maintain the action.
The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the status of a taxpayer to maintain a class action to question legislation is a matter for the discretion of the court and relevant to that discretion is the nature of the legislation under attack - see paragraph 6. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the standing of a taxpayer who challenges the constitutionality of Federal legislation is a matter particularly appropriate for the exercise of judicial discretion and central to that discretion is the justiciability of the issues sought to be raised - see paragraph 28.
Practice - Topic 207
Persons who can sue and be sued - Capacity or standing - Class action by an individual respecting the validity of Federal legislation - A taxpayer commenced a class action for a declaration that the Canada Official Languages Act was unconstitutional - The Attorney General for Canada claimed that the plaintiff had no status to maintain the action because the plaintiff had suffered no special damage - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff had the standing and capacity to commence the action and that the action should be determined on its merits.
Cases Noticed:
MacIlreith v. Hart (1907), 39 S.C.R. 657, folld. [paras. 2, 17]; dist. [para. 39].
Smith v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1924] S.C.R. 331, not folld. [para. 2]; folld. [para. 36].
Dyson v. The Attorney General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410, folld. [para. 3]; dist. [para. 38].
Attorney General v. Independent Broadcasting Authority, ex parte McWhirter, [1973] 1 All E.R. 689, refd to. [para. 5].
London County Council v. Attorney General, [1902] A.C. 165, folld. [para. 5].
Wallasey Local Board v. Gracey (1887), 36 Ch.D. 593, folld. [para. 10].
Tottenham Urban District Council v. Williamson & Sons Ltd., [1896] 2 Q.B. 353, folld. [para. 10].
Boyce v. Paddington Borough Council, [1903] 1 Ch. 109, folld. [para. 10].
Electrical Development Co. of Ontario v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1919] A.C. 687, folld. [para. 13].
B.C. Power Corp. Ltd. v. B.C. Electric Co. Ltd., [1962] S.C.R. 642, folld. [para. 13].
Attorney General of Victoria v. The Commonwealth (1946), 71 C.L.R. 237, folld. [para. 15].
Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), 262 U.S. 447, folld. [para. 15].
Reference re Subsections (1), (3) and (4) of s. 11 of the Official Languages Act, s. 23C of the New Brunswick Evidence Act and s. 14 of the New Brunswick Official Languages Act (1972), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 653, refd to. [para. 16].
Paterson v. Bowes (1853), 4 Gr. 170, folld. [para. 18]; dist. [para. 39].
Crampton v. Zabriskie (1897), 101 U.S. 601, folld. [para. 18].
Bromley v. Smith (1826), 1 Sim. 8; 57 E.R. 482, folld. [para. 18].
Prescott v. Birmingham, [1955] Ch. 210, refd to. [para. 18].
Bradbury v. Enfield, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1311, refd to. [para. 18].
Holden v. Bolton (1887), 3 T.L.R. 676, refd to. [para. 18].
Collins v. Lower Hutt City Corporation, [1961] N.Z.L.R. 250, refd to. [para. 18].
Bradford v. Municipality of Brisbane, [1901] Queensland L.J. 44, folld. [para. 22].
Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), 262 U.S. 447, refd to. [para. 25].
Everson v. Board of Education (1947), 330 U.S. 1, folld. [para. 26].
Flast v. Cohen (1968), 392 U.S. 83, folld. [para. 26].
Doremus v. Board of Education (1952), 342 U.S. 429, folld. [para. 26].
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), 405 U.S. 727, refd to. [para. 27].
Anderson v. Commonwealth (1932), 47 C.L.R. 50, folld. [para. 28].
R. v. Barker (1762), 3 Burr. 1295, folld. [para. 29].
Counsel:
J.T. Thorson, Q.C., for the appellant;
J.J. Robinette, Q.C. and T.B. Smith, Q.C., for the respondents.
MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, and DICKSON, JJ. concurred with LASKIN, J.
FAUTEUX, C.J.C., and ABBOTT, J., concurred with JUDSON, J.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
604598 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission (Sask.), (1998) 163 Sask.R. 104 (CA)
...]. Cases Noticed: Smith v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1924] S.C.R. 331 , refd to. [para. 14]. Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225 ; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1 , refd to. [para. 15]. McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265 ; 5 N.R. 43 ; 12 N......
-
Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), (1993) 160 N.R. 161 (SCC)
...of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 ; 132 N.R. 241 , refd to. [paras. 12, 54]. Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225 ; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1 , refd to. [paras. 12, 47]. McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265 ; 5 N.R. 43 ; 1......
-
Grant v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority et al., (2015) 319 Man.R.(2d) 67 (CA)
...1 S.C.R. 623; 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 55]. Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 57]. McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, re......
-
Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86
...v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; Minister of Justice of Canada v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; Finlay v. Canad......
-
604598 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission (Sask.), (1998) 163 Sask.R. 104 (CA)
...]. Cases Noticed: Smith v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1924] S.C.R. 331 , refd to. [para. 14]. Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225 ; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1 , refd to. [para. 15]. McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265 ; 5 N.R. 43 ; 12 N......
-
Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), (1993) 160 N.R. 161 (SCC)
...of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 ; 132 N.R. 241 , refd to. [paras. 12, 54]. Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225 ; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1 , refd to. [paras. 12, 47]. McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265 ; 5 N.R. 43 ; 1......
-
Grant v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority et al., (2015) 319 Man.R.(2d) 67 (CA)
...1 S.C.R. 623; 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 55]. Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 57]. McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, re......
-
Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86
...v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; Minister of Justice of Canada v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; Finlay v. Canad......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 20 ' 24, 2022)
...General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138, Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265, Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575, Ernst v Alberta En......
-
'Stare Decisis' And Constitutional Supremacy: Will Our Charter Past Become An Obstacle To Our Charter Future?
...doctrine which had to be adapted to meet the demands of the Constitution: Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] S.C.J. No. 45, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138 (S.C.C.). Of course, the same-sex marriage litigation is an even more recent and outstanding example of the common law having to be amend......
-
Table of cases
...Costaki, [1956] 1 All ER 652 (CA) ...................................151 Table of Cases 641 Thorson v Canada (Attorney General) (1974), [1975] 1 SCR 138, 43 DLR (3d) 1, 1974 CanLII 6 .................................................................88, 94 Thunder Bay Seaway Non-Profit Apartm......
-
Table of Cases
...[1990] 1 S.C.R. 425, 67 D.L.R. (4th) 161, 1990 CanLII 135 ........................ 166 Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General) (1974), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138, 43 D.L.R. (3d) 1, 1 N.R. 225 ....................................... 238 Titan Sports Inc. v. Mansion House (Toronto) Ltd., [1990] 1 F.C. ......
-
Notes
...had to determine eligibility to benefits under the law as it existed at the time the claim was made. 3 Thorson v. A.G. Canada (no. 2), [1975] 1 SCR 138. 4 Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski (1981), 130 DLR (3d) 588 (SCC). 5 Borowski v. Canada (1989), 57 DLR (4th) 231 at 249 (SCC). 6 T......
-
Table of Cases
...of Investigation & Research), [1990] 1 SCR 425, 54 CCC (3d) 417 .......................................... 296 Thorson v Canada (AG), [1975] 1 SCR 138, 43 DLR (3d) 1 ............................... 119 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Canada, [2010] 1 SCR 721, 2010 SCC 21 ...........................