Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)

Last updated
Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: 8 October 2014
Judgment: 27 March 2015
Full case nameAttorney General of Quebec v Attorney General of Canada, Commissioner of Firearms and Registrar of Firearms
Citations 2015 SCC 14
Docket No. 35448
Prior historyAPPEAL from Canada (Procureur général) v Québec (Procureur général), 2013 QCCA 1138
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner, Clément Gascon
Reasons given
MajorityCromwell and Karakatsanis JJ, joined by McLachlin CJ and Rothstein and Moldaver JJ
DissentLeBel, Wagner and Gascon JJ, joined by Abella J

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.

Contents

Background

In 1995, Parliament passed the Firearms Act , which required long gun owners to register their guns. The Supreme Court found that the Act was within the federal criminal law power. [1] In 2012, Parliament repealed the requirement to register long guns through the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act (ELRA) and sought to delete the information in its registry. The province of Quebec, wishing to create and maintain its own long gun registry, requested that the federal government share the data it had collected about Quebec long gun owners. When the federal government declined to share the information, Quebec argued that section 29 of the ELRA, the provision disbanding the long gun registry, was beyond the powers of the federal government. [2]

At trial in the Superior Court of Quebec, the trial judge found that section 29 was unconstitutional as it violated the principle of cooperative federalism given that Quebec had taken part in "gathering, analyzing, organizing, and modifying" the data in question. [3] The trial judge required the federal government to share the information with Quebec. [4]

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, Hesler CJQ, writing for a unanimous court, allowed the appeal, holding that since the federal government had the power to create the firearm registry per the Reference re Firearms Act , they would also have the power to dismantle it. [5]

Reasons of the SCC

The Supreme Court was sharply divided on the matter. A five-justice majority found that section 29 of the ELRA was intra vires the federal government, while the four dissenting judges would have found it unconstitutional.

Majority

The majority, led by Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ, held that cooperative federalism could not prevent the federal government from unilaterally destroying the registry, since cooperative federalism "cannot be seen as imposing limits on the otherwise valid exercise of legislative competence". [6] Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ pointed to the possibility that cooperative federalism might work against parliamentary sovereignty and might unduly complicate situations where one level of government's policy choices affect the other's. [7]

Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ held that Quebec "has not established a legal basis for its claim to the data", [8] finding that Quebec's expectation of continued access to the federal government's database [9] and that Quebec was statutorily limited to licensing data, not registration data. [10]

Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ then considered whether section 29 of the ELRA was ultra vires the federal government's criminal law power. They characterized section 29 as determining "what will happen to the data collected under the now repealed scheme, a scheme that the Court previously characterized as being in relation to public safety". [11] They held that the fact that section 29 might hinder Quebec's efforts to create their own registry was insufficient to make out colourable legislation. [12] They clarified the pith and substance analysis by specifying that a legislative provision repealing a criminal offence would fall within the scope of the criminal law power, even though it is not strictly a law applying a prohibition and penalty for a public purpose. [13] Classifying the provision itself, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ found that it also fell within the federal criminal law power, since "The power to repeal a criminal law provision must logically be wide enough to give Parliament jurisdiction to destroy the data collected for the purpose of a criminal law provision". [14]

Minority

The minority, composed of LeBel, Wagner, Abella, and Gascon JJ, found that section 29 of the ELRA was unconstitutional as it did not give Quebec, which the minority considered to be in a partnership with the federal government, the opportunity to gain access to the registry data. However, the minority did not order the government to transfer the data to Quebec. [15]

The dissenting judges looked to the legislative history of the Firearms Act, including comments made in the House of Commons that noted the high degree of provincial involvement in the scheme. [16] The dissenting judges considered three issues in order to determine whether section 29 of the ELRA was ultra vires the federal government:

  1. the constitutionality of the Firearms Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Reference re Firearms Act since it did not "upset the balance of federalism"; [17]
  2. the data in the registry was interrelated, [18] meaning that the "issuance of registration certificates... depends directly on the work done by Quebec". [19] Thus the dissenting judges found that Quebec and the federal government had formed a partnership with respect to the gun registry due to that interrelation, even though Quebec did not directly enter all the information into the database. [20] Further, Quebec used the registry information for valid provincial legislative purposes; [21]
  3. the pith and substance analysis and the ancillary doctrine allow for overlapping powers which "enable the goal of federalism to be realized", [22] and the ELRA, which ends the registry partnership between Quebec and Canada, must comply with those principles:

[154] In other words, a co-operative scheme from which both the federal and provincial governments benefit cannot be dismantled unilaterally by one of the parties without taking the effect of such a decision on its partner’s heads of power into account. To conclude otherwise would be to accept a one-way form of co-operative federalism. That would upset the balance between, on the one hand, the principle of co-operative federalism—which permits a government at one level to pass laws that affect the powers of the other level—and, on the other hand, the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity—which is inherent in the principle of federalism.

The dissenting judges found that the pith and substance of the impugned provision was to hinder any provincial attempt to use the long-gun registry data, which falls primarily into the provincial property and civil rights power. [23] The dissenting judges undertook an ancillary doctrine analysis, finding that section 29 of the ELRA encroached significantly on provincial powers, since it "compromise[s] the creation and the usefulness of a future Quebec firearms registry", [24] and that such an encroachment was not necessary or integral to the overall legislative scheme. [25] The dissenting judges thus would have found section 29 of the ELRA unconstitutional, since it amounted to unilateral federal destruction of the registry data without first offering it to the provinces, [26] and would have declared it invalid.

However, the dissenting judges noted that "[t]he absence of a legal barrier to the transfer of the data does not necessarily mean that Quebec has proven that it is entitled to obtain them through the courts" [27] and held that Quebec had not proven that it was entitled to the data. The dissenting judges would have allowed the federal and Quebec governments to instead negotiate their own agreement as to data destruction and termination of the partnership. [28]

Impact

Reactions to the Supreme Court's decision in Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG) were mixed. Constitutional law professor Jean Leclair, writing for La Presse, argued that the majority's decision "weakens the principle of cooperative federalism". [29] Sean Fine of The Globe and Mail noted that, out of the four dissenting judges, three: LeBel, Wagner and Gascon JJ, were all from Quebec, pointing to a "divide between the Conservative government and many Quebeckers". [30]

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, Quebec public security minister Lise Thériault announced that Quebec would nonetheless create its own gun registry. [31]

Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of Canada Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Margarine Reference</i>

Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (1949), also known as the Margarine Reference or as Canadian Federation of Agriculture v Quebec (AG), is a leading ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, upheld on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on determining if a law is within the authority of the Parliament of Canada's powers relating to criminal law. In this particular case, the Court found that a regulation made by Parliament was ultra vires. Though the regulation contained sufficient punitive sanctions, the subject matter contained within it was not the kind that served a public purpose.

<i>OGrady v Sparling</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

O'Grady v Sparling was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of overlapping federal and provincial laws. The Court held that there was no conflict between federal dangerous driving offences, which only prohibited "advertent" negligence and provincial careless driving offences, which included "inadvertent" negligence. The analysis used here is also known as the paramountcy doctrine.

<i>Reference re Firearms Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Firearms Act is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers regarding firearms legislation and the Canadian Firearms Registry. A unanimous Court held that the federal Firearms Act was constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power.

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

Michael Moldaver is a Canadian judge. He has been a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada since his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn</i> 2010 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada (2010 SCC 39)

Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn, 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 SCR 536, also referred to as Quebec v. COPA, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on determining the applicability of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law.

<i>Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

<i>R v Fearon</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 is a leading section 8 Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of warrantless law enforcement searches of the contents of a cell phone incident to arrest.

<i>Carter v Canada (AG)</i> Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by several parties, including the family of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"). In a unanimous decision on February 6, 2015, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code, thereby giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor's assistance in dying. This ruling overturned the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), which had denied a right to assisted suicide.

<i>Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 SCR 134 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the application of the criminal law and healthcare heads of power found in section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.

<i>R v Nur</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15, is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences in Canada.

<i>R v Comeau</i> Canadian legal case

R v Comeau, 2018 SCC 15 is a leading and controversial case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the scope of free trade between the provinces of Canada under s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

<i>Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the Canadian doctrine of cooperative federalism and how it intersects with the power of the Parliament of Canada over trade and commerce, as well as discussing the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in Canada.

References

  1. ↑ SCC, par. 5
  2. ↑ SCC, par. 8
  3. ↑ SCC, par. 82
  4. ↑ SCC, par. 9–10
  5. ↑ SCC, par. 11–14
  6. ↑ SCC, par. 19
  7. ↑ SCC, par. 20
  8. ↑ SCC, par. 23
  9. ↑ SCC, par. 25
  10. ↑ SCC, par. 26
  11. ↑ SCC, par. 37
  12. ↑ SCC, par. 40
  13. ↑ SCC, par. 33
  14. ↑ SCC, par. 43
  15. ↑ SCC, par. 50–52
  16. ↑ SCC, par. 56
  17. ↑ SCC, par. 104
  18. ↑ SCC, par. 108–110
  19. ↑ SCC, par. 112
  20. ↑ SCC, par. 121
  21. ↑ SCC, par. 128
  22. ↑ SCC, par. 148
  23. ↑ SCC, par. 167–168, 176
  24. ↑ SCC, par. 181
  25. ↑ SCC, par. 186
  26. ↑ SCC, par. 191
  27. ↑ SCC, par. 198
  28. ↑ SCC, par. 200
  29. ↑ Leclair, Jean (31 March 2015). "Un principe affaibli". La Presse (in French). Retrieved 22 May 2015. En laissant aux électeurs le soin de sanctionner l'absence de loyauté fédérale, ils honorent peut-être le principe démocratique, mais ils affaiblissent très certainement le principe du fédéralisme coopératif qu'ils ont pourtant tant vanté
  30. ↑ Fine, Sean (27 March 2015). "Ottawa can destroy Quebec's gun-registry data, Supreme Court rules". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved 22 May 2015.
  31. ↑ Elliott, Louise; Lindeman, Tracey (27 March 2015). "Quebec vows to create its own long-gun registry despite Supreme Court ruling". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . Retrieved 22 May 2015.
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.