R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. (1986), 71 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]
…………………….
R. v. Edwards Books and Art Limited
R. v. Nortown Foods Limited
R. v. Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Limited, Thomas Longo and Joseph Longo
R. v. Magder and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Ontario Conference Corporation of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (intervenors)
(19053, 19054, 19046, 19069)
Indexed As: R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
December 18, 1986.
Summary:
Edwards Books and Art Limited, Nortown Foods Limited, Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Limited and Magder were four of eight retailers convicted of selling or offering for sale goods on a Sunday contrary to s. 2 of the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act. The retailers appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (1984), 5 O.A.C. 1; 48 O.R.(2d) 395; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 10; 9 C.R.R. 193; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 353, affirmed the convictions of Edwards, Longo Brothers and Magder, and substituted an acquittal for Nortown. The court held that the Act did not abridge the freedom of religion or conscience of those retailers who did not close their stores for religious reasons on a day other than Sunday, but did abridge the freedom of religion of retailers who did close their business on another day to comply with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The court held that the exemption under s. 3(4) of the Act, which allowed retailers with less than eight employees serving the public and less than 5,000 square feet to open Sunday if closed the previous Saturday, could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The retailers appealed their convictions. The Crown appealed Nortown’s acquittal. The retailers submitted that the Act violated rights under ss. 2(a), 7 and 15 of the Charter and was ultra vires the Ontario legislature under the Constitution Act, 1867. The following constitutional questions were stated by the court in these appeals: “1. Is the Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 453, within the legislative powers of the Province of Ontario pursuant to s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867? “2. Does the Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 453, or any part thereof, infringe or deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7 and/or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, to what extent does it infringe or deny these rights? “3. If the Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 453, or any part thereof, infringes or denies in any way ss. 2(a), 7 and/or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to what extent, if any, can such limits on the rights protected by these sections be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thereby rendered not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?” The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that the Act was within the legislative competence of the Ontario legislature under the property and civil rights powers of s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Dickson C.J.C., (Chouinard and Le Dain, JJ., concurring), and La Forest and Wilson, JJ., in separate reasons, agreed that the Act violated a Saturday-observing retailer’s right to freedom of religion, that s. 7 liberty rights were not violated and that s. 15 equality rights did not apply where s. 15 was not in force at the time of the convictions. Beetz, J. (McIntyre, J., concurring), held that the Act did not violate the freedom of religion, but agreed that s. 7 was not violated and that s. 15 was inapplicable.
Dickson, C.J.C. (Chouinard and Le Dain, JJ., concurring), and La Forest, J., in separate reasons, found the limitations on freedom of religion justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. Wilson, J., held that since the exemption in s. 3(4) of the Act differentiated between retailers on the basis of number of employees and size of the store, it could not be justified under s. 1. Beetz, J. (McIntyre, J., concurring), held that the court need not consider s. 1 where the Act did not violate s. 2(a).
Civil Rights – Topic 304
Freedom of religion defined – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that freedom of religion included not only protection against direct compulsion to conform to majoritarian religious dogma, but also against indirect coercion to forego the practice of religious beliefs – The court stated that it mattered not whether a coercive burden on religious practice was direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, foreseeable or unforeseeable; all coercive burdens on the exercise of religious beliefs were potentially within the ambit of s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – See paragraphs 95 to 96.
Civil Rights – Topic 383
Freedom of religion – Infringement of – Conditions precedent – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the “Constitution shelters individuals and groups only to the extent that religious beliefs or conduct might reasonably or actually be threatened. For a state imposed cost or burden to be proscribed by s. 2(a) it must be capable of interfering with religious belief or practice. In short, legislative or administrative action which increases the cost of practising or otherwise manifesting religious beliefs is not prohibited if the burden is trivial or insubstantial” – See paragraph 97.
Civil Rights – Topic 386
Freedom of religion – Infringement of – Sunday observance legislation – The Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act prohibited retailers from opening for business on holidays, which included Sunday – The Act exempted retailers who were closed on the previous Saturday and who had seven or less employees serving the public and less than 5,000 square feet – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act infringed a Saturday-observer’s right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the Act was a coercive burden on such retailers’ practice of religious beliefs – The court held that the Act did not infringe the rights of Sunday- observers or non-observers of any religion – The court stated that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the Act infringed the religious rights of persons who observed their Sabbath on a day other than Saturday or Sunday – See paragraphs 103 to 116.
Civil Rights – Topic 386
Freedom of religion – Infringement of – Sunday observance legislation – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “legislation with a secular inspiration does not abridge the freedom from conformity to religious dogma merely because statutory provisions coincide with the tenets of a religion. I leave open the possibility, however, that such legislation might limit the freedom of conscience and religion of persons whose conduct is governed by an intention to express or manifest his or her non-conformity with religious doctrine” – See paragraph 101.
Civil Rights – Topic 725
Liberty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Liberty defined – The Supreme Court of Canada held that “liberty” was not synonomous with unconstrained freedom – Whatever its scope, liberty does not extend to an unconstrained right to transact business whenever one wishes – See paragraphs 150 to 152.
Civil Rights – Topic 726
Liberty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of liberty – What constitutes – A retailer submitted that the statutory obligation to close his business on Sundays under the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act deprived him of his right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the submission was without merit, because s. 7 did not prescribe an unconstrained right to transact business whenever one wished – See paragraphs 150 to 152.
Civil Rights – Topic 5502
Equality and protection of the law – Whether equality rights abridged – Retailers were charged and convicted of being open for business on a Sunday contrary to the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act – Subsequently, s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 15 was inapplicable, therefore the court need not consider whether the Act violated retailers’ equality rights under s. 15 – See paragraph 153.
Civil Rights – Topic 8305
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application of – Persons protected – Corporations – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed whether a corporation had a right to freedom of religion – The court stated that a corporation could not possess religious beliefs, but left open the question whether a corporation should be deemed in certain circumstances to possess the religious values of specified natural persons (such as directors, shareholders, employees) – See paragraph 149.
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Reasonable limits prescribed by law, s. 1 – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the onus of proving a limitation was reasonable was on the proponent of the limitation – The court stated that the civil standard of proof applied, i.e. proof on a “preponderance of probabilities” – See paragraph 117.
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Reasonable limits prescribed by law, s. 1 – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 1 applied only where (1) the legislative objective which the limitation was designed to promote was of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutional right (i.e. it must bear on a “pressing and substantial concern”) and (2) the means chosen to attain those objectives must be proportional or appropriate to the ends – The court held that the proportionality test had three aspects: (1) the limiting measures must be carefully designed, or rationally connected, to the objective; (2) they must impair the right as little as possible; and (3) their effects must not so severely trench on individual or group rights that the legislative objective, albeit important, is nevertheless outweighed by the abridgement of rights – See paragraph 118.
Civil Rights – Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Exceptions – Reasonable limits prescribed by law, s. 1 – The Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act made it an offence for retailers to conduct business on a Sunday – A Sabbatarian exemption allowed Saturday-observing retailers to open Sundays if closed the previous Saturday – However, the exemption applied only to retailers who had seven or less employees serving the public and less than 5,000 square feet of retail space – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act violated a Saturday-observing retailer’s right to freedom of religion, but that such limitation was a reasonable limit prescribed by law – Dickson, C.J.C. (Chouinard and Le Dain, JJ., concurring), held that the Act was aimed at a “pressing and substantial concern” and enacted for the secular purpose of establishing a uniform pause day – The Sabbatarian exemption genuinely attempted to minimize the effect on Saturday-observing retailers, while at the same time protecting as many retail employees as possible – La Forrest, J., agreed that the limitation was reasonable, but would reach that conclusion without the necessity of a Sabbatarian exemption at all – Wilson, J., held that unless the Sabbatarian exemption applied to all Saturday-closing retailers, regardless of the number of employees and size, the exemption could not be justified under s. 1 – Beetz, J. (McIntyre, J., concurring), found it unnecessary to comment on s. 1 – See paragraphs 117 to 147, 171, 173 to 198, 200 to 208.
Civil Rights – Topic 8424
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Operation – Purpose test – The Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act provided that Sunday was a uniform day of rest for retailers, subject to certain exemptions – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of the Act was secular, not religious, in that it provided a uniform pause day for retail workers – The court therefore held that the Act did not violate the right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter because of the purpose of the legislation – The court stated that the incidental effect of legislation did not alter its purpose – See paragraphs 62 to 70.
Civil Rights – Topic 8425
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Operation – Effects test – The Supreme Court of Canada held that legislation challenged as violating a Charter right must pass both a purpose test and effects test – If the purpose of the legislation does not infringe Charter rights, the effect of the legislation is then considered – If the effect is an infringement of the Charter right, the legislation falls, subject to s. 1 of the Charter – See paragraphs 62 to 70.
Civil Rights – Topic 8469
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – United States experience – The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining whether the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act violated the right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, referred extensively to United States cases respecting the same issue.
Civil Rights – Topic 8591
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Practice – Onus of proof – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the onus and standard of proof in upholding legislation that violated a Charter right as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 – See paragraph 117.
Constitutional Law – Topic 1044
Interpretation of Constitution Act – Presumptions – Validity – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the presumption of constitutionality applied to Sunday closing legislation – The courts will not readily conclude that such legislation is a colourable attempt to enforce or encourage religious observance – See paragraph 57.
Constitutional Law – Topic 2502
Determination of validity of statutes – Aim or purpose of statute – The Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act was challenged as being contrary to s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as beyond the legislative competence of the Ontario legislature – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of the legislation was not religious, but had the secular goal of enforcing a uniform day of rest from labour for retail employees – See paragraphs 49 to 56.
Constitutional Law – Topic 3611
Paramountcy of federal statutes – Overlapping legislation – General – The Supreme Court of Canada held that a federal statute found to be unconstitutional could not render provincial legislation inoperative under the paramountcy doctrine – See paragraph 41.
Constitutional Law – Topic 6405
Federal jurisdiction – Religion – Exclusive jurisdiction – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “never has a majority of this court held that Parliament (or indeed the provincial legislatures) has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of religion or freedom of religion. The question remains an open one”. – The court also stated that “It would seem … that the Constitution does not contemplate religion as a discrete constitutional ‘matter’ falling exclusively within either a federal or provincial class of subjects. Legislation concerning religion or religious freedom ought to be characterized … according to the particular religious matter upon which the legislation is focussed” – See paragraphs 75 to 79.
Constitutional Law – Topic 6507
Federal jurisdiction – Criminal law – Sunday observance legislation – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act, unlike the previously struck down federal Lord’s Day Act, was not legislation in relation to the federal criminal law power – The court held that the Act, with its secular purpose of enforcing a uniform day of rest from labour, was intra vires the Ontario legislature under the s. 92(13) property and civil rights power – See paragraphs 49 to 56.
Constitutional Law – Topic 7293
Provincial jurisdiction – Property and civil rights – Regulatory statutes – Holiday or closing legislation – [See Constitutional Law – Topic 6507 above].
Statutes – Topic 1644
Interpretation – Extrinsic aids – Legislative history – Legislative debates – The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining whether the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act violated the right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, referred extensively to the legislative debates concerning the Act – See paragraphs 62 to 70.
Statutes – Topic 1650
Interpretation – Extrinsic aids – Legislative history – Reports of commissions – The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining whether the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act violated the right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, referred extensively to the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s Report on Sunday Observance Legislation.
Trade Regulation – Topic 4630
Retailers – Licensing and regulation – Regulation – Holiday or closing legislation – Exemptions – Section 2 of the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act made it an offence for retailers to sell or offer for sale goods on a Sunday – Section 3(4) of the Act allowed Saturday-observing retailers to open Sundays if they closed the previous Saturday, subject to the retailer having seven or less employees serving the public and less than 5,000 square feet of retail space – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act violated Saturday retailers’ right to freedom of religion, but that such limitation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, consd. [paras. 4, 39, 40, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 82, 83, 86, 92, 94-96, 99, 100, 117, 122, 148, 165, 173, 211].
Robertson and Rosetanni v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 651, dist. [paras. 30, 40, 48, 49, 84, 96].
R. v. Top Banana Ltd. (1974), 4 O.R.(2d) 513, refd to. [para. 32].
Lieberman v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 643, refd to. [paras. 32, 55, 57].
Attorney General for Ontario v. Hamilton Street Railway Co. et al., [1903] A.C. 524, refd to. [para. 51].
Ouimet v. Bazin (1912), 46 S.C.R. 502, refd to. [para. 51].
Henry Birks & Sons (Montreal) Ltd. v. City of Montreal, [1955] S.C.R. 799, refd to. [paras. 51, 55].
St. Prosper (La Corporation de la paroisse de) v. Rodrigue (1917), 56 S.C.R. 157, refd to. [para. 51].
Legislation Respecting Abstention from Labour on Sunday, In re (1905), 35 S.C.R. 581, dist. [paras. 53, 63].
Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for Ontario (The Labour Conventions Case), [1937] A.C. 326 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 54, 191].
Reference Re Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, R.S.C. 1927, Chapter 45 (The Margarine Reference), [1949] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 55].
Clarke v. Rural Municipality of Wawken, [1930] 2 D.L.R. 596 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Attorney General for Canada and Dupond v. City of Montreal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770; 19 N.R. 478, refd to. [para. 55].
McGowan v. State of Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, consd. [paras. 59, 72, 85, 90-92, 175, 177, 180, 183, 184, 186, 197].
R. v. Tamarac Foods Ltd. et al. (1978), 96 D.L.R.(3d) 678, agreed with [para. 60].
Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U.S. 599, consd. [paras. 72, 87-89, 131, 132, 184].
Walter v. Attorney General of Alberta, [1969] S.C.R. 383, refd to. [para. 75].
Saumur v. City of Quebec et al., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 75].
Scowby v. Glendinning, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 77].
Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown Inc. v. McGinley et al. (1961), 366 U.S. 582, refd to. [para. 85].
Gallagher et al. v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts Inc. et al. (1961), 366 U.S. 617, refd to. [para. 85].
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [paras. 97, 191].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 117, 143, 144, 146, 175].
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. 117].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 117].
Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 117].
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955), 348 U.S. 483, agreed with [para. 126].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of The Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 151].
Alberta Statutes, Reference re, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 191].
R. v. Curr, [1972] S.C.R. 889, refd to. [para. 191].
Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113, refd. to. [para. 191].
State v. Gates (1965), 141 S.E. 2d 369 (W. Va.), refd to. [para. 193].
Attorney General for Alberta v. Attorney General for Canada (Reference re Alberta Bill of Rights), [1947] A.C. 503, refd to. [para. 207].
Ontario Human Rights Commission and O’Malley v. Simpsons- Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 210, 211].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(a) [para. 80]; sect. 7 [para. 150]; sect. 15(2) [para. 153]; sect. 27 [para. 80].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91, sect. 92.
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52.
Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 1(c) [para. 40].
Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 453, sect. 1(1) [para. 7]; sect. 2 [para. 8]; sect. 3(2), sect. 3(6), sect. 3(7), sect. 3(8) [para. 9]; sect. 3(4) [para. 10]; sect. 4 [para. 9]; sect. 7 [para. 8].
Profanation of the Lord’s Day in Upper Canada, An Act to Prevent, C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 104 [para. 53].
Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, S.C. 1935, c. 14 [para. 54].
Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act, S.M. 1977, c. 26; C.C.S.M., c. R-120 [para. 60].
Days of Rest Act, S.N.B. 1985, c. D-4.2, sect. 7(1)(c) [para. 129].
Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-13, generally.
Holiday Shopping Regulation Act, S.B.C. 1980, c. 17 [para. 176].
Shops Closing Act, S.N. 1977, c. 107 [para. 176].
Retail Business Uniform Closing Day Act, S.N.S. 1985, c. 6 [para. 176].
Commercial Establishments Business Hours, An Act Respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. H-2, sect. 5.3 [para. 176].
Sunday Observance Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. O-1 [para. 176].
Urban Municipality Act, S.S. 198384, c. U-11, sect. 121 [para. 176].
Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Act, 6 Geo. 5; 1 Edw. 8, c. 53 [para. 180].
Day of Rest Act, S.P.E.I. 1985, c. 12, sect. 4(3) [para. 189].
Municipal Government Amendment Act, S.A. 1985, c. 43, sect. 31 [para. 189].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Report on Sunday Observance Legislation (1970), Ontario Law Reform Commission, pp. 98 [paras. 130, 135]; 103-104 [paras. 124, 136, 181]; 265268 [paras. 66, 122, 128]; 268-270 [paras. 67, 112]; 271-272 [para. 125]; 294-295 [para. 69]; 350, 352, 353 [para. 72].
Petter, Not “Never on a Sunday”: R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al. (1984), 49 Sask. L. Rev. 96, p. 99 [paras. 109, 164].
Rozéfort, Wallace, Are Corporations Entitled to Freedom of Religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (1986), 15 Man. L.J. 199 [para. 149].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1985), p. 711 [para. 166].
Lempert and Salzburg, A Modern Approach to Evidence, pp. 920-922 [para. 191].
New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 22, p. 13 [para. 193].
Canada Year Book (1985), p. 60 [para. 194].
Canadian Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 907 [para. 197]; vol. 3, p. 1566 [para. 194].
Cihlar, Cook, Martori, Jr., and Meyer, State Religious Institutions and Values: A Legal Survey – 196466, 41 Notre Dame Lawyer 739 [para. 195].
Spellman, R.A., A New Look at Sunday Closing Legislation (1966), 45 Neb. L. Rev. 775 [para. 195].
Equality Rights, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (1982), p. 437 [para. 202].
Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire (1986), c. 6, p. 178 et seq. [para. 204].
Counsel:
John W. Brown, Q.C., and Calvin S. Goldman, for Edwards Books and Art Limited;
John A. Keefe and Ted Saskin, for Longo Brothers Fruit Markets;
Tim Danson, for Paul Magder;
Bonnie Wein and Elizabeth Goldberg, for the appellant/ respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;
John J. Robinette, Q.C., for the respondent, Nortown Foods Limited;
Graham R. Garton, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Real A. Forest and Pierre Jauvin, for the Attorney General of Quebec;
Reinhold Endres and Alison Scott, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;
Bruce Judah, for the Attorney General of New Brunswick;
Brian F. Squair, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Manitoba;
Joseph J. Arvay, for the Attorney General of British Columbia;
Robert G. Richards, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;
William Henkel, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Alberta;
Leslie R. Thoms, for the Attorney General of Newfoundland;
David B. Thomas, for the Ontario Conference Corporation Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
This appeal was heard on March 4-6, 1986, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On December 18, 1986, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
Dickson, C.J.C. (Chouinard and Le Dain, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1-155;
Beetz, J. (McIntyre, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 156-171;
La Forest, J. – see paragraphs 172-198;
Wilson, J. (dissenting in part) – paragraphs 199-214.
