Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson

Last updated
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: March 19, 1998
Judgment: November 5, 1998
Full case nameCanadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry
Citations [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157
Docket No. 25192
Prior history Judgment against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories.
Ruling Appeal allowed
Holding
  1. Corporations who are defendants in civil litigation instigated by the state have the right to raise an argument under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
  2. In regards to section 6 of the Charter, sections 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) should be read together as forming one right.
  3. The purpose of the mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter is to protect against human rights discrimination, not economic discrimination.
  4. The mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter include the ability to create wealth in another province, not just the ability to physically move to another province.
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
Majority Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ., joined by Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, and Binnie JJ.
Dissent McLachlin J., joined by Major J.

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on standing to challenge a law as a violation of the Constitution of Canada. The Court expanded the exception first established in R. v. Big M Drug Mart to allow corporations to invoke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in civil litigation. The corporation had claimed rights to freedom of association and freedom of movement under section 2(d) and section 6 of the Charter.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

  1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
  2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
  3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law in Canada; the country's constitution is an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional democracies in the world. The constitution outlines Canada's system of government, as well as the civil rights of all Canadian citizens and those in Canada.

See also

<i>Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association</i>

Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association [1971] S.C.R. 689 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The decision was the result of a growing political debate known as the "chicken and egg war" where Quebec and Ontario enacted protectionist legislation for the egg and poultry industry preventing Manitoba from selling their eggs and poultry products in those provinces. To much of the public's surprise the Court struck down a provincial statute regulating the marketing of eggs. The case somewhat contradicted the precedent case of Carnation Co. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, [1968] S.C.R. 238 which held that provincial law that has an incidental effect on other provinces is still valid.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Related Research Articles

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

Brian Dickson 15th Chief Justice of Canada

Robert George Brian Dickson,, commonly known as Brian Dickson, was a Canadian lawyer, military officer and judge. He was appointed a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada on March 26, 1973, and subsequently appointed the 15th Chief Justice of Canada on April 18, 1984. He retired on June 30, 1990.

<i>R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd</i>

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights: Namely, Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.

Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first of several sections of the Constitution dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Section 16 declares that English and French are the official languages of Canada and of the province of New Brunswick.

Freedom of religion in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.

<i>Bliss v Canada (AG)</i>

Bliss v Canada (AG) [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights for women under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Court held that women were not entitled to benefits denied to them by the Unemployment Insurance Act during a certain period of pregnancy. This case has since become the prime example demonstrating the inadequacies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in protecting individuals' rights. This ruling was eventually overturned in Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1219.

<i>New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)</i> Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten constitution

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.

<i>Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada</i>

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.

<i>R v Zundel</i>

R v Zundel [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false information or news on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the introductory sentence to the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights and Constitution Act, 1982. In full, it reads,

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

<i>Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College</i>

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.

Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution of Canada that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 19 allows anyone to speak English or French in federal courts. However, only section 133 extends these rights to Quebec courts, while section 19 extends these rights to courts in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

Pearlman v Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Beaulac</i>

R v Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on language rights. Notably, the majority adopted a liberal and purposive interpretation of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, overturning conservative case law such as Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents (1986). As the majority wrote, "To the extent that Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick... stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected."

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.