RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Can. (P.g.) (1994), 164 N.R. 1 (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.J.R. – Macdonald Inc. (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and The Attorney General of Quebec (mis-en-cause) and The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (interveners on the application for interlocutory relief).
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and The Attorney General of Quebec (mis-en-cause) and The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (interveners on the application for interlocutory relief).
(23460, 23490)
Indexed As: RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci
and Major, JJ.
March 3, 1994.
Summary:
RJR-MacDonald Inc. sought a declaratory judgment declaring the Tobacco Products Control Act, S.C. 1988, c. 20, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. joined in the demand but limited itself to requesting the unconstitutionality of ss. 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. The Quebec Superior Court (Chabot, J.), in a judgment reported [1991] R.J.Q. 2260; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 449, granted the demand. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, Brossard, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judgment dated January 15, 1993 and reported [1993] R.J.Q. 375; 53 Q.A.C. 79; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 289, allowed the appeal. The plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 11, 1993, the Canadian Government adopted the Tobacco Products Control Regulations, amendment, SOR/93-389. The amendments stipulated that larger, more prominent health warning had to be placed on all tobacco packets, and that these warnings could no longer be attributed to Health and Welfare Canada. The packaging changes had to be in effect within one year. The plaintiffs brought motions to the Supreme Court of Canada for a stay of the implementation of the new regulations pending final decision on the appeal on the merits and for a delay in the implementation if the appeal were dismissed. These motions were heard on October 4, 1993.
On October 14, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal on the merits.
On March 3, 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motions.
Civil Rights – Topic 8587
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Practice – Stay of proceedings or injunction pending litigation of Charter issue – Two tobacco products companies brought a Charter challenge against the Tobacco Products Control Act (Can.) – The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge – The companies appealed – In the meantime, the Canadian Government adopted new regulations under the Act – The amendments called for substantial modifications of the health warnings on all tobacco products packets – The companies brought motions for a stay of implementation of the new regulations pending the outcome of the appeal and for a delay in implementation if the appeal were unsuccessful – The Supreme Court of Canada followed its decision in Metropolitan Stores, held that the American Cyanamid test applied, discussed its application and dismissed the motions – See paragraphs 35 to 94.
Droits et libertés – Cote 8587
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés – Procédure – Suspension des procédures ou injonction en attendant de trancher sur la Charte – [Voir
Civil Rights – Topic 8587
].
Courts – Topic 3028
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction, general – Interlocutory relief – Two tobacco products companies brought a constitutional and Charter challenge against the Tobacco Products Control Act (Can.) – The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge – The companies appealed – In the meantime, the Canadian Government adopted new regulations under the Act – The amendments called for substantial modifications of the health warnings on all tobacco products packets – The companies brought motions for a stay of implementation of the new regulations pending the outcome of the appeal and for a delay in implementation if the appeal were unsuccessful – Did the Supreme Court of Canada have jurisdiction to grant the interlocutory relief sought? – The court answered yes – See paragraphs 24 to 34.
Tribunaux – Cote 3028
Cour suprême du Canada – Compétence, généralités – Redressement de nature interlocutoire – [Voir
Courts – Topic 3028
].
Cases Noticed:
Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, appld. [para. 33].
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 594; 27 N.R. 542, consd. [para. 31].
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504; [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] R.P.C. 513 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].
Keable v. Canada (Procureur général) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 135; 20 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 28].
Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Co. v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Co. (1923), 55 O.L.R. 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Laboratoire Pentagone Ltée v. Parke, Davis & Co., [1968] S.C.R. 269, consd. [para. 46].
Adrian Messenger Services v. Jockey Club Ltd. (No. 2), [1972] 2 O.R. 619; 26 D.L.R.(3d) 287 (C.A.), consd. [para. 46].
Bear Island Foundation v. Ontario (1989), 70 O.R.(2d) 574 (H.C.), consd. [para. 46].
N.W.L. Ltd. v. Woods; N.W.L. v. Nelson, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1294; [1979] 3 All E.R. 614 (H.L.), consd. [para. 51].
Trieger v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1988), 54 D.L.R.(4th) 143; 66 O.R.(2d) 273 (H.C.), consd. [para. 52].
Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 53].
Dialadex Communications Inc. v. Crammond (1987), 34 D.L.R.(4th) 392; 57 O.R.(2d) 746 (H.C.), consd. [para. 56].
Crain (R.L.) Inc. v. Hendry (1988), 67 Sask.R. 123; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 228 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Mullin, [1985] 3 W.W.R. 577; 61 B.C.L.R. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].
Hubbard v. Pitt, [1976] Q.B. 142; [1975] 3 All E.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 161; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 61].
Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 61].
Ainsley Financial Corp. v. Ontario Securities Commission (1993), 14 O.R.(3d) 280 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 64].
Morgentaler v. Ackroyd (1983), 150 D.L.R.(3d) 59; 42 O.R.(3d) 659 (H.C.), consd. [para. 67].
Canada v. Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association of B.C., [1985] 1 F.C. 791; 61 N.R. 128 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 69].
Esquimalt Anglers’ Association et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (1988), 21 F.T.R. 304 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 69].
Island Telephone Co., Re (1987), 67 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 158; 206 A.P.R. 158 (P.E.I.C.A.), consd. [para. 70].
Black & Co. v. Law Society of Alberta (1983), 42 A.R. 118; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 439 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].
Vancouver General Hospital v. Stoffman (1985), 23 D.L.R.(4th) 146 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
Rio Hotel v. Commission des licences et permis d’alcool (N.-B.), [1986] 2 S.C.R. ix, refd to. [para. 73].
Ontario Jockey Club v. Smith (1922), 22 O.W.N. 373 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 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, refd to. [para. 82].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982/Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 8]; sect. 2(b) [para. 5]; sect. 24(1) [para. 34].
Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)/Code de procédure civile (Qué.), art. 523 [para. 18].
Constitution Act, 1867/Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, sect. 91 [para. 25].
Fisheries Act/Pêcheries, Loi sur les, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, generally [para. 69].
Produits du tabac, Règlements sur les, modification – voir Produits du tabac, Loi réglementant les.
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1888, General Order No. 85(17)/Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, Ordonnance générale n
o
85(17), generally [para. 28].
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/83-74/Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, DORS/83-74, rule 27 [para. 11].
Supreme Court Act/Cour suprême, Loi sur la, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 65 [para. 28]; sect. 65.1 [para. 11]; sect. 97(1)(a) [para. 28].
Tobacco Products Control Act/Produits du tabac, Loi réglementant les, S.C. 1988, c. 20, generally [para. 2]; ss. 3 [heading II]; 4-8, 9 [para. 3]; 11-16, 17, 17(f), 18(1)(b) [para. 4].
Tobacco Products Control Act Regulations (Can.), Tobacco Products Control Regulations, Amendment, SOR/93-389/Produits du tabac, Loi réglementant les, Règlements (Can.), Règlement sur les produits du tabac, modification, DORS/93-389, generally [para. 9]; ss. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 [para. 11].
Tobacco Products Control Regulations – see Tobacco Products Control Act Regulations (Can.).
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Minister of National Health and Welfare, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (Statement following Tobacco Products Control Regulations, amendment, SOR/93-389), in Canada Gazette, Part II, vol. 127, No. 16, p. 3284, at p. 3285 [para. 90].
Cassels, Jamie, An Inconvenient Balance: The Injunction as a Charter Remedy, in Jeffrey Berryman, ed. Remedies: Issues and Perspectives (1989), pp. 301 to 305 [para. 65].
Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 2-13 to 2-20 [para. 44].
Counsel:
Colin K. Irving, for the applicant, R.J.R.-MacDonald Inc.;
Simon V. Potter, for the applicant, Imperial Tobacco Inc.;
Claude Joyal and Yves Leboeuf, for the respondent;
W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., and Colin Baxter, for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
Solicitors of Record:
Mackenzie, Gervais & Assoc., Montreal, Que., for the applicant, RJR-MacDonald Inc.;
Ogilvy, Renault & Assoc., Montreal, Que., for the applicant, Imperial Tobacco Inc.;
Côté & Ouellet, Montreal, Que., for the respondent;
McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto, Ont., for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
These applications were heard on October 4, 1993, by Lamer, C.J.C, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on March 3, 1994, by Sopinka and Cory, JJ.
