Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2002) 283 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 283 N.R. 201 (SCC);2002 SCC 17;283 NR 201;210 DLR (4th) 42;211 Nfld & PEIR 125;[2002] 1 SCR 569

Ward v. Can. (A.G.) (2002), 283 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. FE.015

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ford Ward (respondent) and the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General for Alberta, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and the International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc. (interveners)

(27717; 2002 SCC 17)

Indexed As: Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

February 22, 2002.

Summary:

A sealer challenged s. 27 of the Marine Mammal Regulations, asserting that s. 27 was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, ultra vires s. 43 of the Fisheries Act, void for vagueness in contravention of s. 7 of the Charter and void for vagueness at common law.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 313; 481 A.P.R. 313, dismissed the application. The sealer appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, O'Neill, J.A., dissenting, in a decision re­ported at 183 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 295; 556 A.P.R. 295, allowed the appeal and declared s. 27 to be ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restored the decision of the trial judge and held that s. 27 was a valid exer­cise of Parliament's jurisdiction under seacoast and inland fisheries (Constitution Act, s. 91(12)).

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance - General principles - Section 27 of the federal Marine Mammal Regulations prohibited the sale, trade, or barter of whitecoats and bluebacks - The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining whether s. 27 was ultra vires Parliament, stated that "... the federal fisheries power is not confined to measures directed at con­serving the resource, nor limited by the distinction between control of the resource in its natural state and at 'point of sale'. While Parliament must respect the provin­cial power over property and civil rights, the approach to be adopted is not simply drawing a line between federal and provin­cial powers on the basis of conservation or sale. The issue is rather whether the matter regulated is essentially connected - related in pith and substance - to the federal fish­eries power, or to the provincial power over property and civil rights." - See para­graph 48.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5991

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Fisheries - Scope of power - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2950 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 5991

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Fisheries - Scope of power - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the [federal] fisheries power includes not only conservation and protection, but also the general 'regulation' of the fisheries, including their manage­ment and control. They recognize that 'fisheries' under s. 91(12) of the Constitu­tion Act, 1867 refers to the fisheries as a resource; 'a source of national or provin­cial wealth' ... 'a common property re­source' to be managed for the good of all Canadians ... The fisheries resource includes the animals that inhabit the seas. But it also embraces commercial and eco­nomic interests, aboriginal rights and inter­ests, and the public interest in sport and recreation. ... Although broad, the fisheries power is not unlimited. The same cases that establish its broad parameters also hold that the fisheries power must be construed to respect the provinces' power over property and civil rights under s. 92(13) ..." - See paragraphs 41 and 42.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5991

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Fisheries - Scope of power - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that case law suggested that "... measures essentially directed to regu­lating fish processing and labour relations fall under the provincial power over prop­erty and civil rights, and outside the feder­al fisheries power. If the activity is in pith and substance a matter of trade and indus­try within the province, it will not fall under the federal fisheries power merely because some aspects of the activity touch upon the fishery. Conversely, measures that are in pith and substance directed to the fishery fall within the federal fisheries power even though they possess aspects relating to property and civil rights." - See paragraph 47.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5991

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Fisheries - Scope of power - Section 27 of the federal Marine Mammal Regulations prohibited the sale, trade, or barter of whitecoats and bluebacks - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the essential characteristic of the s. 27 prohibition was not directed toward regulating business or property within the province - The prohibition was essentially concerned with curtailing the commercial hunting of whitecoats and bluebacks for the economic protection of the fisheries resource - As such, it was in pith and substance concerned with the management of the Canadian fishery - This was a valid exercise of the federal jurisdiction over seacoast and inland fisheries (Constitution Act, s. 91(12)) - See paragraphs 16 to 49.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6444

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law -General - Matters not criminal - Section 27 of the federal Marine Mammal Regula­tions prohibited the sale, trade, or barter of whitecoats and bluebacks - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 27 was not within the federal jurisdiction over criminal law (Constitution Act, s. 91(27)) where no criminal law purpose was established - See paragraphs 50 to 56.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7204

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Extent of power or sub­ject matter - [See third Constitutional Law - Topic 5991 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7289

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Labour relations - [See third Constitu­tional Law - Topic 5991 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7513

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Matters of local or private nature - Food processing - [See third Constitutional Law - Topic 5991 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 16].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Colum­bia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Whitbread v. Walley, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 25, refd to. [para. 16].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 18].

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, refd to. [para. 30].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 30].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 30].

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Bound­aries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 30].

Ellett Estate v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 466; 32 N.R. 326, refd to. [para. 30].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada Trust Co. et al. - see Ellett Estate v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. et al. v. Communication Workers of Canada et al. and Canada Labour Relations Board et al. (No. 2), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733; 48 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Reference Re Waters and Water-Powers, [1929] S.C.R. 200, refd to. [para. 30].

Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. Par­sons (1881), 7 App. Cas. 96, refd to. [para. 30].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Canada (Attorney General), [1931] A.C. 310, refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Federation of Agriculture v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1951] A.C. 179, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Robertson (1882), 6 S.C.R. 52, refd to. [para. 34].

Reference Re Certain Sections of the Fish­eries Act, 1914, [1928] S.C.R. 457, affd. [1930] A.C. 111 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Mark Fishing Co. v. United Fishermen & Allied Workers' Union (1972), 24 D.L.R.(3d) 585 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc., Best and Davies v. Canada (Minis­ter of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1987] 1 F.C. 244 (T.D.), affd. [1989] 1 F.C. 335; 83 N.R. 303 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Interprovincial Co-operatives and Dryden Chemicals Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 477; 4 N.R. 231, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Northwest Falling Contractors Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 292; 32 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 37].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12; 206 N.R. 363; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 38].

Gulf Trollers Association v. Canada (Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1987] 2 F.C. 93; 72 N.R. 31 (F.C.A.), reving. [1984] 2 F.C. 398 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

British Columbia Packers Ltd. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board), [1976] 1 F.C. 375; 64 D.L.R.(3d) 522 (F.C.A.), affd. [1978] 2 S.C.R. 97; 19 N.R. 320, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 542; 29 B.C.A.C. 273; 48 W.A.C. 273; 80 B.C.L.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Saul (1984), 10 D.L.R.(4th) 736 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Crane (1985), 65 A.R. 341; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Twin - see R. v. Crane.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1916] 1 A.C. 588; 26 D.L.R. 288 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Barry's Ltd. v. Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers' Union (1993), 104 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 277; 329 A.P.R. 277; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 84 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Fisheries Act Regulations (Can.), Marine Mammal Regulations, SOR 93-56, sect. 27 [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada (Malouf Commission Report) (1986), vol. 1, p. 40 [para. 8].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 15-12 [para. 18]; 15-45, 18-4 [para. 30].

Lederman, William Ralf, Continuing Cana­dian Constitutional Dilemmas (1981), p. 274 [para. 30].

Malouf Commission Report - see Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada (Malouf Commission Report).

Patterson, Fishery Laws (1863), p. 1 [para. 35].

Counsel:

David Meadows and Paul Adams, for the appellant;

V. Randell J. Earle, Q.C., and Stephen Willar, for the respondent;

Alain Gingras, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

S. H. Rutwind, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Written submission only by Harold J. Porter, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland;

Clayton C. Ruby, for the intervener, the International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

The Attorney General of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellant;

O'Dea, Earle, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respondent;

The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Alberta Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

The Attorney General of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland;

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc.

This appeal was heard on October 31, 2001, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages on Feb­ruary 22, 2002.