City of Montreal v. Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, [1970] SCR 332

Supreme Court of Canada

City of Montreal v. Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, [1970] S.C.R. 332

Date: 1969-12-22

City of Montreal Appellant;

and

The Attorney General of the Province of Quebec Respondent.

1969: November 26; 1969: December 22.

Present: Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Ritchie, Hall, Spence and Pigeon JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Criminal law—Lottery—Montreal voluntary tax—Prizes determined by lot and answers to questions printed on official receipt—Prizes in silver ingots—Violation of Criminal Code—Court of Queen’s Bench Reference Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 10, ss. 1, 5—Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51, s. 179(1)(d), (e)—Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 259, s. 37.

To a question referred to it by the Lieutenant-Governor in council, the Court of Appeal answered that the carrying out of a scheme adopted by the City of Montreal to obtain additional revenue would contravene the provisions of s. 179 of the Criminal Code. The scheme which was well publicized in the newspapers, consists in inviting the general public to become voluntary taxpayers of the City by making monthly contributions of a fixed amount of $2, or multiples thereof, and in inducing the public to participate by saying that every month there will be drawn, from the names of all those who will have contributed during that month, the names of 151 persons who will then be called, at a later date, to be questioned, in an order determined by lot, on their knowledge of the City of Montreal and win, if they answer correctly, prizes ranging from $100 to $100,000 depending on the order in which they are questioned, the 151st person being the only one in a position to win $100,000. The advertisements published in the newspapers stated that the prizes will be given after the candidates have answered correctly and in public some of the questions which correspond to the answers printed on the reverse side of the official receipt. By resolution of the Executive Committee prizes were to be in the form of silver ingots. The City appealed to this Court.

[Page 333]

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

The majority judgment in the Court of Appeal rightly decided that the advertisements published in the newspapers clearly showed that the intention of the City, as regards the examination, was to make it as easy and as painless as possible, and that in fact, what the City had told the public, by necessary implication if not expressly, was that the statements printed on the reverse of the official receipt were the answers to the questions that will be asked; that the ability to memorize these simple statements and to repeat them in public could at best be considered as a minimal degree of skill incapable of keeping the scheme within the law, as attempted by the introduction of this type of examination as the final step of an operation based essentially on chance; and that the form of the prizes was another device to shield the scheme against the application of the law.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal Side, province of Quebec[1], on a reference concerning the carrying out of a scheme by the City of Montreal to obtain additional revenue. Appeal dismissed.

Michel Côté, Antonio Lamer and Jacques Fortin, for the appellant.

Fred Kaufman, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

FAUTEUX J.—This appeal, submitted to this Court on November 26, 1969, was inscribed under the provisions of s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act and those of the Act Respecting a Reference to the Court of Queen’s Bench, Statutes of Quebec, 17 Eliz. II, c. 83, assented to on May 9, 1968.

The City of Montreal appeals from a majority opinion of the Court of Queen’s Bench (Appeal side) on a Reference ordered by Order-in-council No. 1354, adopted on May 8, 1968, by the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec, to have the Court determine if the carrying out of a scheme adopted by the City of Montreal to obtain additional revenue would contravene any provision of the Criminal Code.

[Page 334]

Described in the Order-in-council and the Appendices thereto, the scheme, which was well publicized in the newspapers, consists, in brief, in inviting the general public, through the appropriate media, to become voluntary taxpayers of the City by making monthly contributions of a fixed amount of $2 (or multiples thereof) and in inducing the public to participate by saying that every month there will be drawn, from the names of all those who will have contributed during that month, the names of 151 persons who will then be called, at a later date, to be questioned, in an order determined by lot, on their knowledge of the City of Montreal and win, if they answer correctly, prizes ranging from $100 to $100,000 depending on the order in which they are questioned, the 151st person being the only one in a position to win $100,000. The description of the examination is found, in different terms, in the text of the resolution passed by the City council when the principle of the scheme was approved, in the text of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee to determine the mechanics thereof, and in the advertisements published by the City of Montreal in various newspapers. This description, which is vague in the text of the resolutions, becomes more precise in the advertisements meant for the general public, in which we find the following:

[TRANSLATION] …prizes will be given after they (the candidates) have answered correctly and in public some of the questions which correspond to the answers printed on the reverse side of the official receipt.

We find, printed on the reverse of that receipt which is given to the taxpayer upon payment of the so-called voluntary tax, twenty answers of which the following four are typical:

1. Montréal was founded in 1642.

3. Montréal is the Metropolis of Canada.

5. The great river linking Montréal to the Atlantic Ocean is the St. Lawrence River.

9. The mountain located within the limits of the City of Montréal is Mount Royal.

In the advertisement, published in the newspaper La Presse, we find the following:

[TRANSLATION] If a child is too young to answer the questions, his father, mother or other person having paid on his behalf may answer in his stead.

[Page 335]

Although the resolution of the Executive Committee provides that:

[TRANSLATION] All the prizes will be physically in the form of silver ingots, worth at least the amount advertised,

the description of the prizes is as follows in the same advertisement:

[TRANSLATION]

After having heard counsel for the Attorney General of the Province and for the City of Montreal, the Court of Appeal (Tremblay C.J., Casey, Rinfret, Taschereau and Owen JJ.) reserved judgment and on a later date, answered the question as follows: of the five members of the Court, three (Casey, Taschereau and Owen JJ.) answered affirmatively on the ground that the execution of the scheme would contravene, in the opinion of the first two, the provisions of s. 179(1)(d) and (1)(e) of the Criminal Code, and in the opinion of the third, the provisions of s. 179(1)(d). The Chief Justice and Rinfret J., dissenting, answered in the negative. However, the Chief Justice indicated that, [TRANSLATION] “if they (the persons called for the examination) were being asked only the questions for which the answers are provided on the reverse of the receipt given by the City” he would have answered in the affirmative.

In his reasons, which are concurred in by Taschereau J., Casey J. states, in brief, that the advertisements published in the newspapers clearly show that the intention of the City, as regards the examination which a certain number of taxpayers of this so-called voluntary tax must undergo, is to make it as easy and as painless as possible, and that in fact, what the City has told the public, by necessary implication if not expressly, is that the statements printed on the reverse of the official receipt are the answers to the questions that will be asked. In the learned Judge’s opinion the ability to memorize these simple

[Page 336]

statements and to repeat them in public can at best be considered as a minimal degree of skill incapable, in the light of jurisprudential criteria, of keeping the scheme within the law, as attempted by the introduction of this type of examination as the final step of an operation based essentially on chance.

Casey J. adds that he is satisfied that the prizes offered to the public in the newspaper advertisements are cash prizes and that the above-mentioned provision of the Executive Committee’s resolution, dealing with the form of the prizes, is another device to shield the scheme against the application of the law.

With all due respect for the contrary opinion, I must say that we are all in agreement with the reasons and findings stated in the opinion of Casey J., which reasons and findings we adopt in their entirety and to which we feel nothing can usefully be added.

With these views, it is unnecessary to pursue any further consideration of the question submitted in the Reference. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors for the appellant: M. Coté & A. Lamer, Montreal.

Solicitors for the respondent: C. Gagnon, Quebec & F. Kaufman, Montreal.