R. v. Pharmaceutical Soc. (1992), 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91 (SCC);
313 A.P.R. 91
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, Pharmacy Association of Nova Scotia, Lawtons Drug Stores Limited, William H. Richardson, Empire Drugstores Limited, Woodlawn Pharmacy Limited, Nolan Pharmacy Limited, Christopher D.A. Nolan, Blackburn Holdings Limited, William G. Wilson, Woodside Pharmacy Limited and Frank Forbes (appellants) v. R. (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario and Attorney General of Alberta (intervenors) and Association Québécoise des Pharmaciens Propriétaires, Cumberland Drugs (Merivale) Ltd., Kane’s Super Drugmart Corp. Ltd., Les Enterprises Norpharm Inc., Escompte Chez Lafortune Inc., Famili-Prix Inc., Le Groupe Jean Coutu (P.J.C.) Inc., Groupe Pharmaceutique Focus Inc., Les Magasins Koffler de l’Est Inc., McMahon Essaim Inc., Super Escompte Brouillet Inc., B. Mayrand Inc., Superpharm (Montréal) Ltée, Uniprix Inc., Pierre Bossé, François-Jean Coutu, Claude Gagnon, Guy Lanoue, Michel Lesieur, Guy-Marie Papillon and Jean-Guy Prud’homme (intervenors)
(22473)
Indexed As: R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ.
July 9, 1992.
Summary:
The accused were charged with conspiring to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the retail pharmaceutical business in Nova Scotia. After a preliminary hearing they were committed to stand trial, but before trial moved for a declaration that ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1) of the Combines Investigation Act under which they were charged violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were invalid.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296; 263 A.P.R. 296; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 500; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 30; 32 C.P.R.(3d) 259, allowed the application. The court held that the sections violated the Charter, because they did not require mens rea for one of the elements of the offence and the use of the word “unduly” rendered the sections vague, depriving the accused of the rights to make full answer and defence and have a fair trial. The court quashed the indictments against the accused. The Crown appealed.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, in a judgment reported 102 N.S.R.(2d) 222; 279 A.P.R. 222; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 206; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 173; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 352, allowed the appeal and upheld the validity of ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1) of the Combines Investigation Act. The court held that the sections were not vague and mens rea was required to be proved by the Crown. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – Void for vagueness doctrine – The Combines Investigation Act, ss. 32(1)(c) and 32(1.1), prescribed the offence of “unduly” lessening competition – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the sections were not void for vagueness and did not violate s. 7 of the Charter – The court discussed and explained the notion of vagueness and its relation to the notion of overbreadth and summed up with the proposition that “a law will be found unconstitutionally vague if it so lacks in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate” – See paragraphs 17 to 111.
Civil Rights – Topic 4949
Presumption of innocence – Evidence – Removal of element of intent – The Combines Investigation Act, s. 32(1)(c), provided that “everyone who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person … to prevent, or lessen, unduly, competition” was guilty of an offence – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 32(1)(c) did not violate s. 7 of the Charter by failing to require mens rea – The court held that the Crown was required to establish the subjective fault elements that the accused intended to enter the agreement and was aware of its terms and that the proof, viewed objectively (i.e. by a reasonable business person), establishes that the accused was aware or ought to have been aware that the effect of the agreement would be to prevent or lessen competition unduly – See paragraphs 112 to 122.
Civil Rights – Topic 8318
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – General – Application – Statutory interpretation – Preference to Charter values – The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that “if there are two possible interpretations of a statutory provision, one of which embodies the Charter values and the other does not, that which embodies the Charter values should be adopted” – See paragraph 120.
Civil Rights – Topic 8469
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – United States experience – The Supreme Court of Canada considered U.S. Supreme Court decisions in explaining the notions of vagueness and overbreadth in the context of the constitutionality of statutes – See paragraphs 30 to 54.
Civil Rights – Topic 8470
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – International law – The Supreme Court of Canada considered decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in explaining the notions of vagueness and overbreadth in the context of the constitutionality of statutes – See paragraphs 55 to 69.
Civil Rights – Topic 8626
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Regulation of guaranteed rights – Vagueness rule – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
].
Courts – Topic 103
Stare decisis – Authority of judicial decisions – English and American authorities – American decisions – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 8469
].
Courts – Topic 112
Stare decisis – Authority of judicial decisions – European authorities – European Court of Human Rights – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 8470
].
Practice – Topic 8983
Appeals – When appeal available – From reasons for judgment – The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on only one of two issues decided by the Court of Appeal – The Crown sought a variation of the reasons of the Court of Appeal on the other issue, but not a reversal of the result – The accused objected that the Crown could not raise its issue without leave under rule 29(2) of the Supreme Court Rules – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the seeking of variation of reasons but not result by the Crown was not a cross-appeal, so rule 29(2) was inapplicable – Further, under rule 29(1) the court could treat the whole case as open – See paragraphs 14 to 16.
Practice – Topic 9010
Appeals – Restrictions on argument on appeal – General – [See
Practice – Topic 8983
].
Practice – Topic 9161
Appeals – Cross-appeals – What constitutes cross-appeal – [See
Practice – Topic 8983
].
Statutes – Topic 4552
Operation and effect – Validity – Vagueness – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
].
Trade Regulation – Topic 601
Competition – Price fixing agreements – General – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
].
Trade Regulation – Topic 602
Competition – Price fixing agreements – Intention – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 4949
].
Trade Regulation – Topic 605
Competition – Price fixing agreements – Unduly – Meaning of – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 3107
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118; 60 C.R.(3d) 289, consd. [paras. 4, 115].
Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [paras. 5, 21].
Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd. v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 403, consd. [paras. 5, 78, 88].
Reference re s. 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; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 18 C.R.R. 30; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289, consd. [para. 6].
R. v. Atlantic Sugar Refineries Co., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 644; 32 N.R. 562; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 21, consd. [paras. 7, 78].
Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, consd. [para. 7].
R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 5, consd. [para. 7].
R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 15].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 62 C.R.(3d) 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449, consd. [para. 19].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, consd. [para. 20].
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, consd. [para. 23].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, consd. [para. 23].
Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, consd. [para. 24].
Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, consd. [paras. 25, 34].
Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board et al.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 26].
R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 27].
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates Inc. (1982), 455 U.S. 489, consd. [para. 31].
Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), 413 U.S. 601, consd. [para. 32].
R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 58 C.R.(3d) 193, consd. [para. 34].
R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 34].
R. v. Zundel (1987), 8 O.A.C. 161; 58 O.R.(2d) 129, appld. [para. 36].
Maynard v. Cartwright (1988), 486 U.S. 356, consd. [para. 38].
Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, consd. [para. 43].
R. v. MacDougall, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 605; 44 N.R. 560; 54 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 112 A.P.R. 562, consd. [para. 45].
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972), 405 U.S. 156, consd. [para. 50].
Kolender v. Lawson (1983), 461 U.S. 352, consd. [para. 50].
Smith v. Goguen (1974), 415 U.S. 566, consd. [para. 52].
Sunday Times case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A No. 30, consd. [paras. 56, 62, 68].
Malone case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A No. 82, consd. [paras. 56, 62, 69].
Kruslin case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A No. 176-A, consd. [para. 56].
Huvig case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A No. 176-B, consd. [para. 56].
Silver and others case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A No. 61, consd. [para. 62].
Barthold case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A No. 90, consd. [paras. 68, 110].
Müller et al. case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A No. 133, consd. [para. 68].
Leander case, Eur. Court H.R. judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A No. 116, consd. [para. 69].
R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235, consd. [para. 76].
R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63, consd. [para. 76].
Weidman v. Shragge (1912), 46 S.C.R. 1, consd. [para. 78].
Stinson-Reeb Builders Supply Co. v. R., [1929] S.C.R. 276, consd. [para. 78].
Container Materials Ltd. v. R., [1942] S.C.R. 147, consd. [paras. 78, 85].
R. v. Aetna Insurance Co., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 731; 15 N.R. 117; 20 N.S.R.(2d) 565; 27 A.P.R. 565; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 332, consd. [paras. 78, 107].
R. v. Elliott (1905), 9 C.C.C. 505 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 79].
R. v. J.J. Beamish Construction Co. (1967), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 260 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 79, 95].
City National Leasing v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, consd. [para. 86].
R. v. J.W. Mills & Son Ltd., [1968] 2 Ex. C.R. 275, consd. [paras. 95, 97, 99, 106].
R. v. Canadian Coat and Apron Supply Ltd., [1967] 2 Ex. C.R. 53, consd. para. 95].
R. v. Anthes Business Forms Ltd. (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 349 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 95].
R. v. Canadian General Electric Co. (1976), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 95].
R. v. Metropolitan Toronto Pharmacists’ Association (1984), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 233 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 96].
Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires v. Canada (Procureur général), [1991] R.J.Q. 205 (S.C.), consd. [para. 98].
R. v. Abitibi Power & Paper Co. (1960), 131 C.C.C. 201 (Que. Q.B.), consd. [para. 103].
NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984), 468 U.S. 85, consd. [para. 104].
Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists (1986), 476 U.S. 447, consd. [para. 104].
Völk v. Etablissements J. Vervaecke S.p.r.l., Case 5/69, [1969] E.C.R. 295, consd. [para. 105].
S.A. Cadillon v. Firma Höss Maschinebau K.G., Case 1/71, [1971] E.C.R. 351, consd. [para. 105].
R. v. McGavin Bakeries Ltd. (No. 6) (1951), 3 W.W.R.(N.S.) 289 (Alta. S.C.), consd. [para. 106].
R. v. Northern Electric Co., [1955] 3 D.L.R. 449 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 107].
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 116].
Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, appld. [para. 120].
Statutes Noticed:
Act for the Prevention and Suppression of Combinations formed in restraint of Trade, S.C. 1889, c. 41 [para. 84].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 11(a), sect. 11(d), sect. 11(h).
Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 1053 [para. 91].
Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 32(1)(c), sect. 32(1.1), sect. 32(1.3) [para. 3]; sect. 32.01 [para. 76]; sect. 32(2), sect. 32(3), sect. 32(6) [para. 108]; sect. 51(7), sect. 70 [para. 76].
Commission notice of 3 September 1986 on agreements of minor importance which do not fall under Article 85(1) of the Treaty establishing the Europen Economic Community, O.J.E.C., 12 September 1986, No. C 231/2 [para. 105].
Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1983/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive distribution agreements, O.J.E.C., 30 June 1983, No. L 173/1, art. 1, art. 2 [para. 108].
Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, sect. 45(1)(c), sect. 45(2), sect. 45(2.2) [para. 3]; sect. 45.1, sect. 79(7), sect. 98 [para. 76].
Constitution of the United States, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 19 [para. 45]; sect. 219 [para. 91]; sect. 222 to sect. 240 [para. 47].
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 8(2), art. 9(2), art. 10(2), art. 11(2) [para. 55].
Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto, Europ. T.S. No. 46, Art. 2(3) [para. 55].
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, rule 29(1), rule 29(2) [para. 15].
Sherman Act, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890), sect. 1 (codified as amended 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1982)) [paras. 84, 87].
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, art. 85 [para. 87].
1984 Merger Guidelines, 49 Fed. Reg. 26823 [para. 99].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Amselek, Paul, La teneur indécise du droit (1991), 107 Rev. dr. publ. 1199 [para. 59].
Areeda, Phillip E., Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (1987), vol. 7 [paras. 89, 104].
Areeda, Phillip E., and Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (1990 Supplement) [para. 89].
Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Les obligations (3rd Ed. 1989), p. 122 [para. 45].
Blaau, Loammi C., The Rechtsstaat Idea Compared with the Rule of Law as a Paradigm for Protecting Rights (1990), 107 S. Afr. L.J. 76 [para. 64].
Carré de Malberg, R., Contribution à la théorie générale de l’Etat, t. 1, Paris: Sirey, 1920 [para. 65].
Chevallier, Jacques, L’Etat de droit (1988), 104 Rev. dr. publ. 313 [para. 65].
Chitty on Contracts: General Principles (25th Ed. 1983), paras. 314, 353 [para. 45].
Colvin, Eric, Criminal Law and The Rule of Law, In Patrick Fitzgerald, Ed., Crime, Justice & Codification: Essays in commemoration of Jacques Fortin (1986) p. 125, at 151 [para. 45].
Dunlop, Bruce, David McQueen and Michael Trebilcock, Canadian Competition Policy: A Legal and Economic Analysis (1987), pp. 42 [para. 85]; 114 [para. 100].
Fitzgerald, Patrick (Ed.), Crime, Justice and Codification: Essays in Commemoration of Jacques Fortin, p. 125, at 151 [para. 45].
Henry, Jean-Pierre, Vers la fin de l’Etat de droit? (1977), 93 Rev. dr. publ. 1207 [para. 65].
Jeffries, John Calvin, Jr., Legality, Vagueness and the Construction of Penal Statutes (1985), 71 Va. L. Rev. 189 [para. 45]; 211 [para. 46].
Neumann, Franz, The Rule of Law: Political Theory and the Legal System in Modern Society (Leamington Spa, Warwirckshire: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1986), pp. 238-239 [para. 67].
Rogerson, Carol, The Judicial Search for Appropriate Remedies Under the Charter: The Examples of Overbreadth and Vagueness, In Robert J. Sharpe, Ed., Charter Litigation (1987), pp. 261-262 [para. 32].
Sharpe, Robert J. (Ed.), Charter Litigation (1987), pp. 261-262 [para. 32].
Stanbury, W.T., Legislation to Control Agreements in Restraint of Trade in Canada: Review of the Historical Record and Proposals for Reform, National Conference on the Centenary of Competition Law and Policy in Canada, October 1989 [para. 98].
Stanbury, W.T., and G.B. Reschenthaler, Reforming Canadian Competition Policy: Once More unto the Breach (1981), 5 Can. Bus. L.J. 381 [para. 98].
Tribe, Laurence H., American Constitutional Law (2nd Ed. 1988), p. 1022 [para. 31].
Counsel:
Joel Fichaud, H.E. Wrathall, Q.C., and Catherine Walker, for the appellant accused;
Michael R. Dambrot, Q.C., Calvin S. Goldman, Q.C., and John S. Tyhurst, for the respondent Crown;
M. Philip Tunley and David B. Butt, for the intervenor Attorney General for Ontario;
Bart Rosborough, for the intervenor Attorney General for Alberta;
Yves Bériault and Madeleine Renaud, for the intervenors Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires et al.
Solicitors of Records:
McInnes, Cooper & Robertson, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Patterson Kitz, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellants;
Department of Justice (Legal Branch, Consumer & Corporate Affairs), Hull, Quebec, for the respondent;
Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor the Attorney General for Ontario;
Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor Attorney General for Alberta;
McCarthy Tétrault, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenors Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires et al.
This case was heard on December 4, 1991, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 9, 1992, Gonthier, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages:
