Rigour Required: Recent Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on Binding and Non-Binding Sources of International Law in Charter Interpretation

Authors

Ravi Amarnath, Constitutional Law Branch, Ministry of the Attorney General
Courtney Harris, Constitutional Law Branch, Ministry of the Attorney General

Abstract

It is not uncommon for parties to plead principles of international law to inform a court’s analysis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). However, commentators have long expressed concern about the Supreme Court of Canada’s lack of clarity on how it uses international human rights law and for what purpose in Charter interpretation. This paper addresses how a divided Supreme Court of Canada in Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc. (“9147-0732 Québec inc.”) attempted to clarify when it is appropriate for a court to use international law to interpret the scope of a Charter protection and how this should be done. The paper is set out as follows: Part II sets out the background of the case, while Part III discusses the judgments of the lower courts. Part IV of the paper explains the disagreement between the majority and concurring justices in the Supreme Court’s judgment on the role of international law in Charter interpretation, while Part V analyzes the disagreement between the majority and concurring justices and the implications of the majority’s holding in 9147 for future cases.

Citation Information

Amarnath, Ravi and Harris, Courtney. "Rigour Required: Recent Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on Binding and Non-Binding Sources of International Law in Charter Interpretation." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 104. (2022).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1429
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol104/iss1/7

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "the Charter"].

2 Anne F. Bayefsky, International Human Rights Law: Use in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Litigation (Toronto: Butterworths, 1992), at 94-95; Jutta Brunnée & Stephen J. Toope, "A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts" (2002) 40 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800007992; William A. Schabas & Stéphane Beaulac, International Human Rights Law and the Canadian Charter, 2d ed. (Scarborough, ON: Carswell, 1996), at 47; Stephen J. Toope, "Keynote Address: Canada and International Law" in The Impact of International Law on the Practice of Law in Canada: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law, Ottawa October 15-17, 1998 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), at 36.

3 Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "9147-0732 Québec inc."].

4 Building Act, CQLR, c. B-1.1, s. 46.

5 Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2016] J.Q. no 7441, at paras. 35-36, 2016 QCCQ 5931 (Que. Ct. (Crim. and Penal Div.)).

6 Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2016] J.Q. no 7441, at paras. 41, 58, 2016 QCCQ 5931 (Que. Ct. (Crim. and Penal Div.)).

7 R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] S.C.J. No. 34, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843, at 852 (S.C.C.).

8 Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2017] J.Q. no 2085, at paras. 40-41, 2017 QCCQ 1632 (Que. Ct. (Crim. and Penal Div.)).

9 R. v. Boudreault, [2016] J.Q. no 16795, at para. 158, 2016 QCCA 1907 (Que. C.A.), revd [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Boudreault"].

10 Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2017] J.Q. no 2085, at para. 20, 2017 QCCQ 1632 (Que. Ct. (Crim. and Penal Div.)), citing R. v. Boudreault, [2016] J.Q. no 16795, at para. 158, 2016 QCCA 1907 (Que. C.A.), revd [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.).

11 See Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2017] J.Q. no 2085, 2017 QCCQ 1632 and 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2017] J.Q. no 16310, 2017 QCCS 5240 (Que. S.C.).

12 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2017] J.Q. no 16310, at para. 35, 2017 QCCS 5240 (Que. S.C.).

13 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2017] J.Q. no 16310, at paras. 56, 62, 2017 QCCS 5240 (Que. S.C.).

14 R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

15 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at paras. 65-79, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 599 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Boudreault"].

16 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2019] J.Q. No. 1443, at paras. 114-118, 124-128, 130-134, 2019 QCCA 373 (Que. C.A.). The Supreme Court has previously held that ss. 8 [Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] S.C.J. No. 36, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 (S.C.C.)] and 11(b) [CIP] apply to corporations.

17 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2019] J.Q. no 1443, at para. 133, 2019 QCCA 373 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).

18 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2019] J.Q. no 1443, at para. 59, 2019 QCCA 373 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).

19 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2019] J.Q. no 1443, at para. 77, 2019 QCCA 373 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.), citing R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] S.C.J. No. 79, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, at 182-183 (S.C.C.).

20 See 9147-0732 Québec inc. c. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, [2019] J.Q. no 1443, at paras. 57-81, 2019 QCCA 373 (Que. C.A.), revd [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). At para. 78 of his dissenting reasons, Chamberland J.A. referenced a decision of the Court of Appeals of Colorado, which had held that the protection against "excessive fines" provided for in the 8th Amendment to the American Constitution applies to legal persons (Dami Hospitality, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2017 COA 21, 2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 207, 2017 WL 710497 (Colo. Ct. App. February 23, 2017). Justice Chamberland noted that the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly refers to fines, and that the U.S. Supreme Court had yet to determine whether the 8th Amendment applies to legal persons (either with respect to protection against excessive fines or with respect to cruel and unusual punishment). On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court held that excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment does apply to corporations even while other clauses of the 8th Amendment, which include protections against cruel and unusual punishment, do not: "The question we face, then, is whether there is justification to conclude that the purpose of the Excessive Fines Clause supports its application to protect corporations even if other clauses in the 8th Amendment do not. We conclude that there is. The bail clause is necessarily limited to natural persons because corporations cannot be jailed and therefore cannot be subject to bail. Similarly, cruel and unusual punishment cannot be imposed on a corporation. In short, these two guarantees are not "appropriate to [a corporate] body" (citations omitted). By contrast, '[t]he payment of monetary penalties . . . is something that a corporation can do as entity (citations omitted).'" (Colo. Dep't of Labour & Emp't, Div. of Workers' Comp. v. Dami Hosp., LLC, 2019 CO 47M, at para. 26). The Supreme Court of the United States denied the state's petition for certiorari on January 13, 2020.

21 Factum of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, at para. 6 (citations omitted). See also paras. 9, 11, 16 and 20, online: (https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocumentsDocumentsWeb/38613/FM040_Intervener_British-Columbia-Civil-Liberties-Association. pdf).

22 B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 47, 2015 SCC 58 (S.C.C.); R. v. Hape, [2007] S.C.J. No. 26, at para. 53, 2007 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Hape"].

23 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. TS 1976 No. 47 ("ICCPR"), Article 7 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Can. TS 1987 36 ("CAT"), Article 16(1).

24 Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, [2007] S.C.J. No. 27, at para. 70, 2007 SCC 27 (S.C.C.); India v. Badesha, [2017] S.C.J. No. 44, at para. 38, 2017 SCC 44 (S.C.C.); Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] S.C.J. No. 47, at paras. 22-23, 2013 SCC 47 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter Divito]; Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alberta), [1987] S.C.J. No. 10, at para. 59, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313 (S.C.C.), per Dickson C.J.C., dissenting) [hereinafter "PSERA"].

25 PSERA, at paras. 57-60 (S.C.C.), per Dickson C.J.C. dissenting; Divito, at para. 22; Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, vol. 2. 5th ed. Supp. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters) (loose-leaf updated 2019), at 36-42; William A. Schabas, "Twenty-Five Years of Public International Law at the Supreme Court of Canada" (2000) 79 Can. Bar Rev. 174, at 186 [hereinafter "Schabas"].

26 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, (1950) 213 UNTS 222 ("ECHR"); American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 UNTS 123 ("ACHR").

27 Constitutional Law of South Africa, Part II - The Bill of Rights; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Public Act, 1990, No. 109; Human Rights Act 2004 Australian Capital Territory; See also Factum of Procureure Generale du Quebec Directeur des poursuites criminelles et penales, at para. 20, online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/ 38613/FM080_Intervenante_Directrice-des-poursuites-p%C3%A9nales.pdf [hereinafter "Director's Factum"].

28 PSERA, at 337, per Dickson C.J.C. dissenting). But see: Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] S.C.J. No. 455, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, at 1056 (S.C.C.), per Dickson C.J.C., writing for the majority [hereinafter "Slaight"] and Hape, at para. 55.

29 Gib Van Ert, Using International Law in Canadian Courts, 2d ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2008), at 336. See also Jutta Brunnée & Stephen J. Toop, "A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts" (2002) 40 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 3, at 335 [hereinafter "Van Ert"]. See also Schabas, at 51-52.

30 Director's Factum, at paras. 39-41.

31 Director's Factum, at paras. 42-45.

32 Director's Factum, at para. 31.

33 Colo. Dep't of Labour & Emp't, Div. of Workers' Comp. v. Dami Hosp., LLC, 2019 CO 47M, at para. 26.

34 9147-0732 Québec inc., at paras. 2 (majority reasons of Brown & Rowe JJ.); 136 (concurring reasons of Abella J.); and 140 (concurring reasons of Kasirer J.).

35 This is consistent with the Supreme Court's reasons from R. v. Poulin, [2019] S.C.J. No. 47, at para. 32, 2019 SCC 47 (S.C.C.).

36 Big M Drug Mart, at para. 117.

37 9147-0732 Québec inc., at paras. 14, 86.

38 9147-0732 Québec inc., at paras. 8-9.

39 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 75.

40 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 70.

41 9147-0732 Québec inc., at paras. 110-123.

42 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 102 43 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 102.

44 "Canadian courts are not obliged to consider the views of the international supervisory bodies responsible for monitoring Canadian treaty performance, unlike in Britain and Ireland, where the courts 'must take into account' the decisions of the European supervisory bodies, whether judicial or recommendatory. In South Africa, a court 'must' consider international law and 'may' consider foreign law": Joanna Harrington, "Interpreting the Charter" in Peter Oliver, Patrick Macklem & Nathalie Des Rosiers, ed, The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 621 at 635 [hereinafter "Harrington"].

45 See 9147, at para. 142: Justice Kasirer was of the view that the dissenting reasons of Chamberland J.A. were adequate to dispose of the case, and as such would have left any further analysis on the appropriate role of international law for another day: "In my view, Chamberland J.A.'s reasons permit us to conclude, without saying more, that the appeal must be allowed."

46 9147-0732 Québec inc., at paras. 39-40.

47 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 27.

48 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 32.

49 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 35.

50 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 35.

51 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 43.

52 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 104.

53 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 47.

54 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 28.

55 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 32, citing Dickson C.J.C. in PSERA.

56 Hape, at para. 53; Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, [2014] S.C.J. No. 62, at para. 150, 2014 SCC 62 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Kazemi Estate"].

57 Jutta Brunée & Stephen J. Toope, "A Hesitant Entrance: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts" (2002) 40 Can Y.B. Int'l L. 3, at 5 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800007992; William A. Schabas & Stéphane Beaulac, International Human Rights and Canadian Law, Legal Commitment, Implementation and the Charter, 3d ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2007), at 51 wrote: "Canadian judges do not consider international human rights law to be incorporated in any sense that might be binding upon them."

58 Harrington, at 634.

59 William A Schabas & Stéphane Beaulac, International Human Rights and Canadian Law: Legal Commitment, Implementation and the Charter, 2d ed. (Scarborough, ON: Carswell, 1996), at 47. See also: The Honourable Justice Louis LeBel & Gloria Chao, "The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion?: Recent Developments and Challenges in Internalizing International Law" (2002) 16 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. (2d) 23, at 57.

60 PSERA, at 348.

61 PSERA, at 348. Chief Justice Dickson also stated that the Charter is "presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified", signally a presumption of conformity, but his reasons are not clear on this point.

62 William A. Schabas and Stéphane Beaulac, International Human Rights and Canadian Law: Legal Commitment, Implementation and the Charter, 3d ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2007), at 51-52. See also the discussion of Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 39, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.) in Justice Louis LeBel & Gloria Chao, "The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion?" (2002) 16 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. (2d) 23, at 48-50.

63 Van Ert, at 8.

64 Bissonnette c. R., [2020] J.Q. no 11243, 2020 QCCA 1585 (Que. C.A.) [hereinafter "Bissonnette"]. On May 27, 2021, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec, [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 26 (S.C.C.).

65 Bissonnette, at para. 105.

66 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, [2021] F.C.J. No. 67, at para. 36, 2021 FCA 13 (F.C.A.) [hereinafter "Canadian Council"].

67 Canadian Council, at para. 36.

68 Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), [2017] S.C.J. No. 54, at paras. 64-67, 2017 SCC 54 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Ktunaxa Nation"]. In Ktunaxa Nation, the majority noted how the two aspects of the right to freedom of religion in s. 2(a) of the Charter - the freedom to hold a religious belief and the freedom to manifest it - are reflected in international human rights law. In addition to citing binding international instruments, the majority referenced how two, non-binding international instruments (which do not carry the presumption of conformity), Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, and article 12(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, provided "important illustrations of how freedom of religion is conceived around the world".

69 Dwight Newman, "Arguing Indigenous Rights Outside Section 35: Can Religious Freedom Ground Indigenous Land Rights, and What Else Lies Ahead?" Key Developments in Aboriginal Law, ed. Thomas Isaac (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., 2017).

70 Big M Drug Mart, at 344.

71 9147-0732 Québec inc., at paras. 22-23 [emphasis added].

72 S. Beaulac & F. Bérard, Précis d'interprétation legislative, 2d ed. (2014), c. 5, at paras. 5, 36; Brunnée & S.J. Toope, "A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts" (2002) 40 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 3 at 41 [emphasis added] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800007992; J.H. Currie, Public International Law, 2d ed. (2008), at 260, 262.

73 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 28 [emphasis added].

74 Kazemi Estate, at para. 150.

75 PSERA, at 189.

76 Slaight, at 1056.

77 Van Ert, at 344.

78 9147-0732 Québec inc., at para. 41. For example, at para. 65 of Ktunaxa Nation, the majority describe how the ability to "manifest" one's religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter (protecting freedom of religion) was influenced by consideration of courts of art. 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 47.