← Cases

Chiasson v. The Queen

[1984] 1 SCR 266 Court SCC Decision date 1984-05-03 Docket 17085 English

PartiesAndré Chiasson Appellant·Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Counsel (4)
François Angers and Gary McLaughlin, for the appellant.
Keith McCormick, for the respondent.
Solicitors for the appellant: Angers & McLaughlin, Edmundston.
Solicitor for the respondent: Keith McCormick, Fredericton.

Judges Ritchie, Roland Almon; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Wilson, Bertha

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from New Brunswick

Subjects Constitutional law

Contents

The following is the judgment delivered by

THE COURT—The constitutional question to be answered in this appeal is as follows:
Is Section 50(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Act, Statutes of New Brunswick, 1980, Chapter F-14.1 which creates an offence of careless hunting, ultra vires the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick or inoperative to any extent by virtue of Section 84(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, as enacted by the Statutes of Canada 1976-7, Chapter 53, Section 3?
[Page 267]
It is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the constitutional question should be answered in the negative, and that accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons given by the Honourable Mr. Justice LaForest in the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. In so doing, the Court does not reach any conclusion with reference to the constitutional qualities of s. 104(2)(c) or the effect, if any, of that provision upon the constitutional standing of s. 50(1). It was only in oral argument before this Court that reference was made to s. 104(2)(c) of the statute as support for an attack on the constitutionality of s. 50(1).
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Angers & McLaughlin, Edmundston.
Solicitor for the respondent: Keith McCormick, Fredericton.

Statutes and regulations cited