Smith v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 902, 2001
SCC 88
Deborah Smith Appellant
v.
The Attorney General of Canada Respondent
and
The Attorney General for Ontario,
the Attorney General of Quebec and
the Attorney General of Manitoba Interveners
Indexed as: Smith v. Canada (Attorney General)
Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 88.
File No.: 27844.
2001: November 7; 2001: December 7.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier,
Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights --
Unreasonable search or seizure -- Claimant receiving unemployment insurance
benefits while holidaying outside Canada -- Claimant filling out Customs
Declaration Form on return to Canada -- Information contained on form disclosed
to Canada Unemployment Insurance Commission -- Commission ordering repayment of
benefits received by claimant while outside Canada -- Provision of information
by Revenue Canada (Customs) to Commission not infringing claimant’s right to be
secure against unreasonable search or seizure -- No reasonable expectation of
privacy in relation to information disclosed to Commission -- Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8 -- Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp .), s.
108(1) (b).
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Mobility
rights -- Unemployment insurance legislation disentitling unemployment
insurance claimants from receiving benefits while outside Canada -- Legislation
not infringing claimants’ mobility rights -- Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, s. 6(1) -- Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U‑1, s.
32(b).
Cases Cited
Referred to: R. v.
Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, ss. 6(1) , 8 .
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal
(2000), 252 N.R. 172, 73 C.R.R. (2d) 196, [2000] F.C.J. No. 174 (QL),
dismissing an application for judicial review from a decision of an Umpire, CUB‑44824,
dismissing a claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Canada Unemployment
Insurance Commission. Appeal dismissed.
Brian A. Crane, Q.C.,
and Ritu Gambhir, for the appellant.
Brian J. Saunders and Anne
M. Turley, for the respondent.
Sean Hanley, for the
intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.
Gilles Laporte and Isabelle
Harnois, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
Eugene B. Szach and Donald
Lofendale, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.
The following is the judgment delivered by
1
The Court -- We agree with
the conclusions set out in the reasons of Rothstein J., the umpire, CUB-44824,
as affirmed by Décary J.A. for the Federal Court of Appeal (2000), 73 C.R.R.
(2d) 196.
2
As in R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, there was no violation of
s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the facts of this
case. We conclude that the appellant cannot be said to have held a reasonable
expectation of privacy in relation to the disclosed portion of the E-311
Customs Information which outweighed the Canada Unemployment Insurance
Commission’s interest in ensuring compliance with self-reporting obligations of
the Unemployment Insurance benefit program.
3
Neither was there a breach of the appellant’s mobility rights under s.
6(1) of the Charter .
4
We would dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of Canada,
Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario: The
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: The
Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte‑Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The
Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Email this Content