Supreme Court of Canada
Chiasson v. The Queen, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 266
Date: 1984-05-03
André Chiasson Appellant;
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.
File No.: 17085.
1984: March 13; 1984: May 3.
Present: Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR NEW BRUNSWICK
Constitutional law—Validity of legislation—Paramountcy—Provincial legislation creating offence of careless hunting—Discharge of a firearm without due care—Whether provincial legislation ultra vires or inoperative—Fish and Wildlife Act, 1980 (N.B.), c. F-14.1, s. 50—Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 (as amended by 1976-77 (Can.), c. 53, s. 3), s. 84(2).
APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1982), 39 N.B.R. (2d) 631, 103 A.P.R. 631, 135 D.L.R. (3d) 499, 66 C.C.C. (2d) 195, 27 C.R. (3d) 361, allowing the Crown’s appeal from a judgment of Stevenson J. of the Court of Queen’s Bench (1981), 36 N.B.R. (2d) 361, 94 A.P.R. 361, 128 D.L.R. (3d) 74, 62 C.C.C. (2d) 504, upholding a decision of Perusse Prov. Ct. J. finding that s. 50 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of New Brunswick was ultra vires the Province. Appeal dismissed.
François Angers and Gary McLaughlin, for the appellant.
Keith McCormick, for the respondent.
The following is the judgment delivered by
THE COURT—The constitutional question to be answered in this appeal is as follows:
Is Section 50(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Act, Statutes of New Brunswick, 1980, Chapter F-14.1 which creates an offence of careless hunting, ultra vires the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick or inoperative to any extent by virtue of Section 84(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, as enacted by the Statutes of Canada 1976-7, Chapter 53, Section 3?
[Page 267]
It is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the constitutional question should be answered in the negative, and that accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons given by the Honourable Mr. Justice LaForest in the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. In so doing, the Court does not reach any conclusion with reference to the constitutional qualities of s. 104(2)(c) or the effect, if any, of that provision upon the constitutional standing of s. 50(1). It was only in oral argument before this Court that reference was made to s. 104(2)(c) of the statute as support for an attack on the constitutionality of s. 50(1).
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Angers & McLaughlin, Edmundston.
Solicitor for the respondent: Keith McCormick, Fredericton.
Email this Content