News Releases

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ‑‑ JUDGMENT IN APPEAL

OTTAWA, 2005-09-29.  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  CANADA  HAS  TODAY  DEPOSITED  WITH  THE  REGISTRAR  JUDGMENT  IN  THE  FOLLOWING  APPEAL.

FROM:  SUPREME  COURT  OF  CANADA  (613) 995‑4330

                                                                                                 

 

COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA ‑‑ JUGEMENT SUR APPEL

OTTAWA, 2005-09-29  .  LA  COUR  SUPRÊME  DU  CANADA  A  DÉPOSÉ  AUJOURD'HUI  AUPRÈS  DE  LA  REGISTRAIRE  LE  JUGEMENT  DANS  LAPPEL  SUIVANT.

SOURCE:  COUR  SUPRÊME  DU  CANADA  (613) 995‑4330

                                                                                                                       

 

COMMENTS/COMMENTAIRES: comments@scc-csc.gc.ca

 

(Reasons for judgment will be available shortly at: / Motifs des jugement disponibles sous peu à:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc049.wpd.html

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc‑scc/fr/rec/html/2005csc049.wpd.html)

 

 

30411    Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia - and between - Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited v. Attorney General of British Columbia - and between - Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia - and between - Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Attorney General of British Columbia - and between - JTI‑Macdonald Corp. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia - and between - JTI‑Macdonald Corp. v. Attorney General of British Columbia - and between - Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia - and between - British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia - and between - Philip Morris Incorporated and Philip Morris International Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia - and - Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta and Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador (B.C.) (Civil) (By leave) 2005 SCC 49 / 2005 CSC 49

 

Coram:    McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

 

The appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA030975, CA030976, CA030977 and CA030978, dated May 20, 2004, heard on June 8, 2005 are dismissed with costs to the respondents throughout.  The stay of proceedings granted by McLachlin C.J. on January 21, 2005 is vacated.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

 

1.             Is the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30, ultra vires the provincial legislature by reason of extra-territoriality?

 

Answer:  No.

 

2.             Is the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30, constitutionally invalid, in whole or in part, as being inconsistent with judicial independence?

 

 

Answer:  No.

 


3.             Is the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30, constitutionally invalid, in whole or in part, as offending the rule of law?

 

Answer:  No.

 

 

 

Les appels interjetés contre les arrêts de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA030975, CA030976, CA030977 et CA030978, en date du 20 mai 2004, entendus le 8 juin 2005 sont rejetés avec dépens en faveur des intimés dans toutes les cours.  Le sursis d’exécution ordonné par la juge en chef McLachlin le 21 janvier 2005 est annulé.  Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes:

 

1.         La Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, ch. 30, est-elle ultra vires de la législature provinciale pour cause dextraterritorialité?

 

Réponse : Non.

 

2.         La Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, ch. 30, est-elle inconstitutionnelle, en tout ou en partie, en raison de son incompatibilité avec lindépendance judiciaire?

 

Réponse : Non.

 

3.         La Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, ch. 30, est-elle inconstitutionnelle, en tout ou en partie, parce quelle va à lencontre de la primauté du droit?

 

Réponse : Non.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.