BERNARD RANDOLPH and WORLD
WIDE MAIL SERVICES CORPORA- RESPONDENTS. TION ........
.............
ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA On April 22, 1965, the postal service of the corporate respondent, whose business consisted in sending by mail, on behalf of its customers, merchandise, documents, correspondence and other things that they asked it so to send, was temporarily suspended by the Post Office Department for the purpose of an investigation. Samples of the material which the other respondent offered for sale by means of the facilities of the corporate respondent were submitted to the Department for inspection. On April 28, 1965, the postal service of both respondents was suspended by interim orders signed by the Acting Postmaster General, pursuant to s. 7 of the Post Office Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 212. These orders were made without the respondents having been previously heard and without having had any opportunity to object or present a defence. The Exchequer Court granted the respondents' petition of right and declared that the interim orders were invalid. The Crown appealed to this Court.
Held: The appeal should be allowed.
The two interim prohibitory orders were validly made. Section 7 of the Post Office Act authorizes the making of an interim prohibitory order without prior notice to the party affected. It would be inconsistent with the terms of the section to hold that before making an interim order the Postmaster General must hold a hearing. If such were the case, the hearing prescribed by s. 7(2)
would be an unnecessary repetition. The maxim audi alteram partem has reference to the making of decisions affecting the rights of parties which are final in their nature, and this is true also of s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 (Can.), c. 44. Section 7(1) enables the Postmaster General to act swiftly in performing the duty of protecting the public, while s. 7(2) gives protection to the person affected by conferring the right to a hearing before any order made against him becomes final.
The corporate respondent was not entitled to have the mail detained during the six-day period, before the interim order was made, delivered to it. Once the order was made, to deliver the mail accumulated during that period would have been to disobey the order.
Any claim for damages for the detention of the corporate respondent's mail during that six-day period was precluded by the terms of s. 40 of * Cartwright, Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Spence JJ.
R.C.S.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Canadian Bill of Rights
- s. 2(e)
- Section 7(1)
- s. 7(2)
- s. 40
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 7 of the Post Office Act
- Section 7 of the Post Office Act
- s. 7(2)