R. v. Vaillancourt

R. v. Vaillancourt

The Act's pith and substance is provincial regulation of animal welfare and is intra vires under ss.92(13)/(16); s.11(2) is at least strict liability and does not render the Act ultra vires or inoperative with the Criminal Code; however s.12(4)'s unqualified authorization to enter 'with or without a warrant' is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 NSPC 59
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Claude Vaillancourt; Defendant: Angela Mackenzie
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Constitutional Challenge (notice Under Constitutional Questions Act)
Outcome
Challenge partly allowed: s.11(2) upheld as intra vires provincial legislature; s.12(4) declared unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes entry 'with or without a warrant' and those words are severed; warrantless entry permitted only in exigent circumstances.
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Division of Powers, Search and Seizure, Warrantless Entry, Exigent Circumstances, Strict Liability, Mens Rea, Animal Welfare Legislation
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter Rights Administrative/regulatory Law Ultra Vires Division of Powers Search and Seizure Warrantless Entry +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Claude Vaillancourt

Defendant

Angela Mackenzie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Constitutional Challenge (notice Under Constitutional Questions Act)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.11 of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act is ultra vires provincial jurisdiction because it is criminal law reserved to the federal Parliament under s.91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867
  2. 2 Whether s.12(4) of the Act authorizing entry 'with or without a warrant' infringes s.8 (and s.7) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  3. 3 Whether s.11(2) is a strict liability offence and consequences for constitutional analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The Act's pith and substance is provincial regulation of animal welfare and is intra vires under ss.92(13)/(16); s.11(2) is at least strict liability and does not render the Act ultra vires or inoperative with the Criminal Code; however s.12(4)'s unqualified authorization to enter 'with or without a warrant' is overbroad, infringes s.8 and must be read down: the words authorizing entry 'with or without a warrant' are declared inconsistent and removed so that warrantless entry is limited to exigent circumstances where obtaining a warrant is impracticable.

Court Disposition

Challenge partly allowed: s.11(2) upheld as intra vires provincial legislature; s.12(4) declared unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes entry 'with or without a warrant' and those words are severed; warrantless entry permitted only in exigent circumstances.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter the words authorising entry 'with or without a warrant' in s.12(4) of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act are declared inconsistent with s.8 of the Charter and are removed so that s.12(4) requires prior judicial authorization except in exigent circumstances.
  • No declaration made under s.7; s.11(2) retained as intra vires provincial legislation.