SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
UL Canada Inc.
Appellant
v.
Attorney General of Quebec and
Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
Respondents
‑ and ‑
Attorney General of Canada and
Attorney General of Ontario
Interveners
Official English Translation
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Reasons for judgment: (para. 1) |
LeBel J. (McLachlin C.J. and Major, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring) |
______________________________
UL Canada Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 143, 2005 SCC 10
UL Canada Inc. Appellant
v.
Attorney General of Quebec and Fédération
des producteurs de lait du Québec Respondents
and
Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario Interveners
Indexed as: UL Canada Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General)
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 10.
File No.: 30065.
2005: March 17.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Constitutional law — Distribution of legislative powers — Colour of margarine — Provincial regulatory provision respecting colour of margarine constitutional — Provision falling within provincial jurisdiction over local trade — Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92 — Regulation respecting dairy products substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, s. 40(1)(c).
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of expression — Regulatory provision respecting colour of margarine not infringing freedom of expression — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b) — Regulation respecting dairy products substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, s. 40(1)(c).
Administrative law — Regulations — Validity — Regulatory provision respecting colour of margarine valid — Provision clearly authorized by enabling legislation — Regulation respecting dairy products substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, s. 40(1)(c).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Mailhot, Brossard and Nuss JJ.A.), [2003] R.J.Q. 2729, 234 D.L.R. (4th) 398, 10 Admin. L.R. (4th) 36, [2003] Q.J. No. 13505 (QL), affirming a decision of Guthrie J., [1999] R.J.Q. 1720, [1999] Q.J. No. 1540 (QL). Appeal dismissed.
Gérald R. Tremblay, Q.C., and Donald Bisson, for the appellant.
Jean‑François Jobin, Éric Théroux and Raymond Tremblay, for the respondent the Attorney General of Quebec.
Claude Savoie and Véronique Brouillette, for the respondent Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec.
Normand Lemyre and Warren J. Newman, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
M. David Lepofsky and S. Zachary Green, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1 LeBel J. — The appellant has not shown that this Court should intervene to reverse the judgments of the courts below. Based on the constitutional principles governing the division of legislative powers, the impugned regulatory provision is within the limits of the provinces’ legislative authority over local trade. Also, the provision respecting the colour of margarine was authorized by the enabling legislation, the words of which are clear. Furthermore, the statutory interpretation arguments drawn by the appellant from provincial and international trade agreements have no effect on the validity of this provision. Finally, the appellant’s freedom of expression is not compromised in light of the scope this Court has previously attributed to that fundamental freedom. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: McCarthy Tétrault, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent the Attorney General of Quebec: Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec: Tremblay, Brosseau, Fleury, Savoie, Montréal.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Email this Content