Majority
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Lamer C.J.
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal must succeed. The existence of a restriction to s. 11(d) is governed by this Court's decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154. The s. 1 analysis in Wholesale is applicable here, as there is no difference of substance between the nature of the legislation in that case and this one.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of the other grounds of appeal raised below and not dealt with by the Court of Appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents: Lerner & Associates, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Gilles Laporte and Monique Rousseau, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta: James C. Robb, Edmonton.
Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Environmental Law Association: Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto; Barbara Rutherford, Toronto.
Cases cited
- R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. 21779, 21786-1991-10-24
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 11(d)
- s. 1