Cite as: MacLean v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 1986 NSSC 19 1986 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: WILLIAM JOSEPH MACLEAN - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia HEARD: at Halifax, Nova Scotia before the Honourable Chief Justice Constance R. Glube, Trial Divisjon on Monday, December 22nd, 1986 DECISION: January 5, 1987 COUNSEL: J. E. Sexton, Q.C. Douglas A. Caldwell Joel E. Fichaud Reinhold Endres Allison Scott S. H. I\o. 59231 NOVA SCOTIA ,.____ C F H iL t t ; o R ~ - ;; - · . - .. - '. ·· · • ' ~ • & ~ . ' .. and -NOVA SCOTIA DEFENDANT for the plaintiff for the defendant
1986 IN THE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: WILLIAM JOSEPH MACLEAN - and -THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia GLUBE, C.J.T.D.: This is an action commenced ( application inter partes), to strike down an Act Respecting Reasonable Limits for in the House of Assemby, S.N.S., as the "Act") on the grounds 7, 11 and 15 ( 1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights (referred to as the II Charter 11 The plaintiff applies for relief under sections 24(1) of the Charter. The impugned to on October 30th, 1986. S. H. No. 59231 OF NOVA SCOTIA PLAINTIFF NOVA SCOTIA DEFENDANT by an originating notice challenge the validity of and Membership 1986, c. 104 (referred to that it infringes sections 3, and Freedoms ) of the Constitution Act, 19 82. and 52(1) Act was promulgated and assented
- Mr. MacLean was first elected to the of Assemby for the Electoral 1981. He was re-elected in 1984. Prior to the Act being of Minister of Culture, Recreation in Charge of the Administration also a member of the Select Committee of the Offshore. On October 3rd, 1986, four counts of using documents knowing they were forged, contrary to s. 326(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. charges covered varying periods from August 1st, 1982 to February 28th, 19 8 6, and related to some expenses he had claimed in Minister and Member of the Legislative 3rd, 1986, he was sentenced served by his appearance in Court, plus a fifteen hundred dollar ($1,500.00) fine for each of have been paid. On October 30th, 1986, Mr. MacLean from the Assembly: " ... by reason of his conviction using forged documents in by him in his capacity added] The Act is as follows: 2 -Nova Scotia House District of Inverness-South in the Provincial Election held in passed, he held the portfolios and Fitness and Minister of the Lottery Act. He was Mr. MacLean pleaded guilty to 1970, c. 34. These of the travel ling and living conjunction with his duties as Assembly. On October to one day imprisonment deemed the four counts. These fines the House of Assembly expelled on four counts of respect of money received as a member ... " [emphasis
- " WHEREAS electors are entitled to be assured that persons seeking election and members of the House the public trust; AND WHEREAS there is reasonable limits for membership Assembly; AND WHEREAS section 4 5 1982 authorizes the Legislature laws amending the constitution of the Province; AND WHEREAS it is demonstrably free and democratic society limits by law; NOW THEREFORE be it enacted Assembly as follows: l Chapter 128 of the House of Assembly Act, immediately following Section 25 thereof the following Sections: 25A(l) A person who an indictable offence by imprisonment for five years is not eligible (a) to be nominated election as a member of the House; or (b) to be elected House, for a period of five of the conviction and, if the sentence imposed for the of fence or substituted by authority has not been end of that period, remaining to be served in that sentence. (2) Where a conviction by a competent authority, imposed by this Section is removed. 25B Where a person the House is convicted of an indictable offence that is punishable 3 - to the House of Assembly of Assembly are worthy of need to prescribe by law in the House of of the Cons ti tut ion Act, exclusively to make justified in a to prescribe reasonable by the Governor and the Revised Statutes, 1967, is amended by adding stands convicted of that is punishable a maximum of more than as a candidate for as a member of the years from the date a competent fully served at the for the further time is set aside any disability who is a member of by imprisonment for a
- maximum of more than five years, forthwith ceases to seat of that member vacant until an election electoral district according to law. 25C For greater and 25B apply in respect of persons convicted before as well as after the coming into force of those Sections. 2 The House of Assembly, its historic right to expel circumstances, hereby expels member last elected before of this Act for the electoral district of South by reason of his of using forged documents in respect of money received by him in his capacity of that member is and is an election is held in according to law. 3 Nothing in this construed to affect the expel, suspend or discipline the practices, rules and or otherwise." The Act purports to expel prohibits him or any person for a period of at least five conviction, after a person has offence punishable by more automatically expels a member purports to be retroactive. Mr. MacLean participated Act being passed but did not to have passed unanimously (Nova Scotia House of Assembly Debates 4 that member be a member, and the is and is deemed to be is held in that certainty, Sections 25A in the exercise of a member in appropriate from the Assembly the the coming into force Inverness conviction on four counts as a member, and the seat deemed to be vacant until that electoral district Act affects or shall be right of the Assembly to a member according to procedures of the Assembly Mr. MacLean immediately and from being nominated or elected (5) years from the date of been convicted of an indictable than five ( 5 ) years. The Act upon such a conviction and it in the debate prior to the vote against it as it appears
- and Proceedings, Thursday, October 30th, 1986). Proper notice of this action Crown on December 1st, 1986. of Justice, Canada, dated December was advised that the Attorney represented at these proceedings. In his brief to the the first time, the is sue that the purports to deal with a criminal s. 682 of the Criminal Code. the plaintiff should amend his pleadings was to be received at this time, additional time to prepare its response. the Court that they were not pursuing that ground at this time but wished to reserve the right to possibly pursue it in another Court at a later date. The ruled that the defendant now for the purposes of this application in this Court, would not be argued, nor would However, the issue is preserved decision is appealed. A second preliminary plaintiff for a final and Government of Nova Scotia be 5 was given to the Federal By a letter from the Department 12th, 1986, the plaintiff General of Canada would not be Court, the plaintiff raised for Act is ultra vi res as it matter already occupied by The defendant submitted that and if this argument then the defendant required The plaintiff advised Court granted the amendment and had notice of this ground but the ground the Court rule on this issue. for the plaintiff if this issue is the request by the interlocutory order, that the enjoined from preventing the
- plaintiff from running in a ruled that at this time there as no by-election has been called. this decision is rendered, counsel will be given an opportunity to present their arguments to the Court. Before I can deal with plaintiff, it is necessary to position; namely, that the Act the Act is an amendment to the of Nova Scotia made pursuant to s. and as such, it is not reviewable by the Court. Part V of the Constitution Act deals with the procedure for amending the Constitution states: 11 Subject to section 41, province may exclusively constitution of the province." The defendant argues Province of Nova Scotia is a part of the Constitution of Canada and as such, is part of the to ins. 52(1) of the Charter. S. 52(2) of the Charter provides: II ( 2 ) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, including this Act; ( b) the Acts and orders I ; and ( C ) any amendment to 6 provincial election. The Court was no need to deal with this, Should the need arise before the arguments raised by the deal with the Crown's first in its preamble, states that Cons ti tut ion of the Province 45 of the Constitution Act of Canada. S. 45 (in Part V) the legislature of each make laws amending the that the Constitution of the II supreme law of Canada" referred referred to in Schedule any Act or order referred
- to in paragraph (a) or (b)." Schedule I is headed "Modernization of the Constitution". It lists a number of acts which do not include any specifically related to Nova Scotia. The argument is that uses the word "includes", the exclusive. In the case of Reference Re An Act to Amend the Education Act (1986) 25 D.L.R. (4th) 1 at p. 54: " The Canadian Charter made part of 'the Cons ti tut ion of para. (2)(a) of s. 52 1982, as were the pre-existing British North Acts, 1867 to 1975 (renamed 1867 to 1975 by the Schedule) (2)(b) of the said s.52. these Acts, as well as others mentioned in the Schedule and amendments to these, proclaimed to be part of 'the Constitution of Canada' which, in turn, as proclaimed supreme law of Canada' . is made, by virtue of s.52, Each provision which is of Canada, must be read provisions, unless otherwise added] I do not dispute the part, a written Constitution made up of several pieces of of Assembly Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, with statements found in Reference Consitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753 at p. 785: 7 since s. 52(2) list which follows is not (Ont. C.A.), the majority stated of Rights and Freedoms was of Canada' by virtue of the Constitution Act, America as Constitution Acts, by virtue of para. Therefore, it is all of that are, by s-s. 52(2) by s-s. 52 ( 1) 'is the No part of the Constitution paramount over any other. part of the Constitution in light of the other specified." [ emphasis proposition that there is, in of the Province of Nova Scotia legislation, including the House c. 128. Nor can I disagree Re Resolution to Amend the
- " How Houses of Parliament proceed, legislative assembly proceeds matter of self-definition, constitutional or self-imposed prescription. It is unnecessary any historical review of Parliament and the immunity judicial review. Courts legislation is enacted references are made to a bill or a proposed incompatible with the self-regulating is as apt a word - authority of to deny their capacity to pass any kind of resolution. Reference may appropriately the Bill of Rights of as part of the law of Canada, 'Proceedings in Parliament ought or questioned in any Parliament'." and at p. 876: " A substantial part of constitution are written. 1n a single document called a great variety of statutes enacted by the Parliament the British North America c.3, (the B.N.A. Act) or by the Parliament of Canada, such as The Alberta Act, Saskatchewan Act, 1905 (Can.), House of Commons Act, R.S.C. the provincial legislatures, electoral acts. They are also to be in council like the Imperial May 16, 1871 admitting Union, and the Imperial 26, 1873, admitting Prince Union." However, note the further statement at p. " Those parts of the Constitution are composed of statutory rules are generically referred cons ti tut ion. In cases of the function of the courts 8 - how a provincial is in either case a subject to any overriding statutory or indoor here to embark on the 'court' aspect of of its procedures from come into the picture when and not before (unless them for their opinion on enactment.) It would be 'inherent' Houses of Parliament be made to art. 9 of 1689, undoubtedly in force which provides that not to be impeached Court or Place out of the rules of the Canadian They are contained not a constitution but in some of which have been at Westminister, such as Act, 1867, 1867 (U.K. ), 1905 (Can.), c.3, The c.42, the Senate and 1970, c. S-8, or by such as the provincial found in orders Order in Council of British Columbia into the Order in Council of June Edward Island into the 877: of Canada which and common law rules to as the law of the doubt or dispute, it is to declare what the law
- is and since the law is generally the function of whether it has in fact instances and, if so, to are contemplated by the law, sanctions or civil sanctions of nullity. Thus, when statute is found by the the legislative competence has enacted it, it is declared the courts refuse to give sense it can be said that the law of the constitution is administered or enforced by the courts." However, I do not agree that the Constitution of Scotia is part of the Constitution s. 52(2) of the Constitution deals with the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. S. 45 is within Part V. What is its meaning? s. 45 deals with the process constitutions. To say otherwise, the provinces than is given to the s. 4 4 ) • Although amendments not have to proceed under s. in the Charter does it permit legislation which contravenes by a province purporting to amend its constitution, since 1981, must be in agreement Constitution of Canada and in particular, Charter. Thus, in my opinion, there is no amending formula 9 sometimes breached, it is the courts to ascertain been breached in specific apply such sanctions as whether they be punitive such as a declaration a federal or a provincial courts to be in excess of of the legislature which null and void and effect to it. In this Nova of Canada as set out in Act, 1982. Part V of that Act In my opinion, of amending provincial would allow more power to Parliament of Canada ( see to provincial constitutions do 3 8 and other sections, nowhere provinces to individually pass the Charter. Every law passed and passed with, and conform to, the the sections of the s. 45 refers to process, i.e. applicable to the provinces when
- 10 dealing with their own constitutions. not go further than that, and does not permit laws to be passed which violate the Charter ( note since the Charter, any provincial the eligibility of persons to be elected to individual provincial legislative assemblies must comply and the Court has the power if necessary, to test the legislation under s. 1. If it were otherwise, amend its constitution by passing brown-haired persons could qualify legislative assembly, and there that law. Amendments to provincial constitutions must be capable of being tested and the challenge must take place in the courts. Finally, on this point, expressed by McEachern, C.J.S.C., of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Dixon v. The Attorney General (B.C.S.C.) October 28th, 1986, (unreported) at p. 18 and 19: " Thus I conclude that is indeed a narrow one and although it is not necessary to decide the question, I one in spite of the word Great difficulty may be encountered if the Constitution Act of British Columbia is read into the Constitution of Canada for if it becomes part of and thus inviolable even arguably entrenched and the combined efforts of Parliament and the Legislature pursuant to s. 43. This seems to be an unusual result. I respectfully agree with Professor Hogg in his Canada Act 1982 Annotated (1982) at p. 105 where he said: However, s. 45 does s. 3 2 ( 1)). I conclude that laws purporting to deal with with s. 3 of the Charter to review the legislation and, a province could, for example, a law that only blue-eyed, for membership in the would be no way to challenge I agree with the positions of British Columbia the definition in s. 5 2 ( 2) expect it is an exhaustive 'includes' in the section. the supreme law by the Charter then it is could only be altered by
- The definition of "includes" (instead of "means") which in Canadian legislative enactment the definition is considering the specificity Acts and orders, and (entrenchment and supremacy) of the instruments, surely so bold as to make instruments in the schedule. realistic, therefore, to as exhaustive. ' Further, I think technical lightly be permitted to scrutiny of the Charter. the definition of the Constitution given a generous construction. C.J.O. and Robins, J.A. Education Act (supra) at p. ' ... If any doubt exists exception to the guaranteed and freedoms is authorized the doubt must be resolved application of the Charter and not the extension of the exception. Much hearing about the Charter being a whose growth ought not to be stunted by technical interpretations. the consequences that flow from the construction the proponents of Bill place on the words "or to the spirit of that concept. in this post-Charter era development Bill 30 can the Charter on that in our view, is to give backward turn. ' " and at p. 23 and 24: " Applying the foregoing that the authority of the amend the Constitution s. 19 and Schedule 1, sense that no other body jurisdiction and no body without a constitutional 11 -s. 52 ( 2) uses the words usually indicates that not exhaustive. But, of the lists of the grave consequences of the inclusion no court would be additions to the thirty It seems only regard the definition arguments should not authorize escape from the It is the latter and not that should be I agree with Howland, (both dissenting) in Re 40 where they say: as to whether an fundamental rights by the Charter, in favour of the was said during the "living tree" narrow In our opinion, 30 would have the Court under" run contrary To accept that of our constitutional escape scrutiny under narrow technical basis, the clock I s hands a to this case I conclude legislature to enact or Act of B.C., particularly is 'constitutional' in the may interfere with such can change that arrangement amendment. How the
- legislature exercises this authority, and the validity of such provisions in the the Charter, is quite a the Court's reluctant responsibility result of the exercise of that it conforms with the the constitutional tree may scrutiny, the fruit of not. If the fruit of the not conform to the Charter, it must to such extent by struck down." The next matter I propose 2 of the Act, even without any legislation, is a valid exercise of provincial power. The question assembly have the power to expel a that the expulsion of Mr. MacLean which contravenes the Charter defendant submits that insofar as the Act relates to privilege, the expulsion is valid, as it is merely expressing the privilege of the Assembly to discipline affairs. S. 28(1) of the House c. 128, is as follows: " ( 1) In all matters and cases not specially provided for by an enactment of this province, the committees and members hold, enjoy and exercise such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as are enjoyed and exercised by Canada, and by committees respectively." The power to expel a the prerogative of legislatures. 12 sense of conforming to different matter. It is to examine the such authority to ensure Charter. Thus, although be immune from Charter the constitutional tree is constitutional tree does including s. 1, then to deal with is whether s. is, does the legislative member. The plaintiff argues is one section of an act and should not be severed. The its members and regulate its of Assembly Act, R.S.N.S., 1967, the House and thereof respectively shall from time to time held, the House of Commons of and members thereof member has long been a part of In Parliamentary Procedure
- 13 and Practice in the Dominion Bourinot (4th ed.) 1916 at p. 64: " The right of a legislative expel a member for what own judgment is undoubted. necessary to the conservation usefulness of a body." Beauchesne' s Rules and of Canada, (5th ed.) 1978 states at p. 16 s. 37: " There is no question that the House has the right to expel a Member for such reasons as it deems fit." In Erskine May's, Treatise Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 139: " The purpose of explusion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership. It may justly be regarded as an example of the House's power to regulate its own more convenient to treat it punishment at the disposal of the House." Other material was put forward documenting the expulsion of a number of members of the in the 17 and 18 hundreds. by statute. The plaintiff agrees there is expel, but says it is qualified by the Charter. In my opinion, the power to expel a person by resolution of Canada by Sir John George body to suspend or is sufficient cause in its Such a power is absolutely of the dignity and Forms of the House of Commons on The Law, Privileges, (20th ed.) 1983, at p. to punish Members as to constitution. But it is among the methods of Nova Scotia House of Assembly In 1802, there is one expulsion an historical right to
- 14 of the Assembly remains a valid function if by resolution, would normally not be reviewable by the Court. In my opinion s. 3 of the Charter not emcompass s. 2 of the Act could stand on its own. If I am wrong in this conclusion, then the Act, including the expulsion, must be looked at which states in part, "Every right .... to be qualified for membership .... " assembly. I accept that Mr. MacLean is a Canadian citizen. The defendant makes the following submissions concerning s. 3 of the Charter as it relates to the Act: the legislature is proper qualifications or standards for its members; - s. 3 does not guarantee an absolute right, but rather, permits limitation; the aim of the Act dignity of the House standards of morality; if there are sufficient it follows that the House to set the same standards to preserve the dignity of the Assembly, and on its plain meaning does which I find is severable and under s. 3 of the Charter, citizen of Canada has the in a legislative not impeded from establishing is to preserve the traditional of Assembly by setting down reasons to expe 1 a member, of Assembly has the power for entry into the House, and usefulness of the House,
thus preventing the immediate member even by the elected process. I agree that proper standards may be set by the House. In right to vote and the right to be elected and that is different from setting standards for sitting no breach of s. 3 occurs by members. The same cannot be said to impose restrictions on future members of the House. Beauchesne and Erskine May all agree that the legislature has the power to expel a member for "such reasons as it deems fit". They also all agree that "such expulsion right of a Member to run again Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Parliament, supra,) The Act attempts to not also to keep him out of the The Act purports to make the membership (in the future) retroactive. Act not only expels Mr. MacLean, but also prevents his candidacy in a provincial election for five years from October 3rd, 1986. Does the Act have an unconstitutional effect which should invalidate the legislation? - 15 return of an expelled for its sitting members my opinion s. 3 deals with the members. In my opinion the House expelling one of its for the attempt by the House Bourinot, does not affect the and be re-elected".(p.16 Proceedings and Usage of only expel Mr. MacLean, but House using the same criteria. criteria for qualification for At this time, the unconstitutional purpose or an
- 16 (R. v. Big M Drug Mart Limited If the answer is yes, the onus shifts to the Crown to demonstrate under s. 1 of the Charter that the "prescribed by law as can be demonstrably and democratic society". (R. v. 200 (S.C.C.)). For the purposes of this analysis, the expulsion of Mr. MacLean as to be a candidate for the legislature, that is, as his right to be qualified for membership. As a citizen, the Act prevents Mr. in the House today and from if an election was called tomorrow. the words in s. 3 of the Charter, put limits on membership qualification violates right as a citizen to be qualified for membership in the of Assembly of Nova Scotia. Clearly the effect unconstitutional. It attempts for future members, which are over of s. 3 of the Charter. Probably its purpose is unconstitutional as well which seems to have of the legislation by the words used in the preamble, namely: "AND WHEREAS there is need reasonable limits for membership - (1985), 58 N.S.R. 80 (S.C.C.)). Act is a reasonable 1 imi t justified in a free Oakes (1986), 26 D.L.R. (4th) I am including both a sitting member and his right a citizen, MacLean from sitting being qualified to be a member On the plain meaning of I find that an at tempt to Mr. MacLean' s House of the legislation is to retroactively set standards and above the requirements been recognized by the framers to prescribe by law in the House of
- Assembly; AND WHEREAS it is demonstrably and democratic society to prescribe reasonable limits by law; .... "[emphasis added] The Act uses the words of S. 1 to occur if there has been a violation of Charter rights. The defendant suggests the legislation is both protective and disciplinary. If it is accomplish that and anything demonstrably justified in a Expulsion will protect the integrity of the House. in which Mr. MacLean was involved were offences directly related to his role as a member of the House of Assembly by claiming expenses as a member by using the House chose to expel him. must declare in advance that not forge documents or he will The law is found in the Criminal shall not forge documents. Until he was charged, but innocent until proven guilty. expulsion before conviction or have been wrong and no doubt could have been challenged. the House did in expelling him, protecting the integrity of 17 -justified in a free of the Charter which only needs disciplinary, expulsion would more would be excessive and not free and democratic society. The offences House. He was defrauding the and obtaining funds for alleged forged documents. For that, The argument that the House a person who is a member should be expelled is not necessary. Code, namely, that a person Mr. MacLean pleaded guilty, In my opinion, before his guilty plea would What met their stated purpose of the House and was demonstrably
- justified in a free and democratic society. As to the conditions contained ins. 1 of the Act, these have been made retroactive. At the time Mr. MacLean pleaded guilty there were standards in place. Standards clearly set out so that they can be could not know of the limitations on October 3rd, 1986. Peter W. Hogg, author (2nd ed.) 1985, deals with the p. 684. He deals with the by a provincial legislature is one way of satisfying "prescribed by law" and then puts forth an alternative view which I prefer: " An alternative view of 'prescribed by law' is that it is designed to ensure that citizens are plainly advised of any restrictions on their guaranteed rights, their conduct accordingly. would be satisfied by any requirements: ( 1) the accessible to the public, be formulated with sufficient the citizen to regulate his conduct by it." In Black v. Law Society 590 (Alta. C.A.) Kerans J.A., l stated: " The first is settled by law' in s. l affirm that law which does not permit the capricious or arbitrary exercise of power. More that a violation is not 18 for nomination and election no statutory must be prescribed by law and known to all. Mr. MacLean found in s. 1 of the Act of Constitutional Law of Canada issue "prescribed by law" at argument that a statute enacted the purpose of the phrase so that they can regulate On this basis, the phrase law that fulfilled two law must be adequately and (2) the law must precision to enable of Alberta [1986], 3 W.W.R. at p. 630 in dealing with s. law. The words 'prescribed aspect of the rule of specifically, they indicate protected unless it is
- 19 permitted by some authority having a law-making function in our society and that all members of society could reasonable inquiry, what the rule is ... " The present legislation not known to Mr. MacLean at the time he pleaded guilty on October 3rd, 1986. The legislation attempts to regulate conduct which in Mr. MacLean's case took place passed. It is a serious matter a democratic right found in the not condone such an action unless reason to do so. If for some what could that reason be and that reason (proportionality test)? The reason for the legislation have dealt with its disciplinary the legislative should be able determine what people it does The content of s. l of the Act affects Mr. to run and be elected. It also impinges on the rights of voters to elect a member of their choice by the citizens of this province should be given credit for having the sense to determine who is now know the facts about Mr. run, it should be the voters who decide whether he is the person they want to represent them which is recognized as know in advance, upon although accessible now, was before the Legislation was to retroactively take away Charter and the Court should there was an overwhelming reason I should look further, does the legislation achieve was protective. ( I reason). It is said that to set its own standards and not want to have in the House. MacLean and others a majority vote. Surely a proper member. The voters MacLean and should he chose to in the House. The legislation
- is paternalistic and excessive test is unnecessary to protect society. The prohibition has turned from protection to punitive. The defendant even suggests acceptable standards and conduct to the expulsion. However, the criteria proposed would eliminate people who are not involved in breaching the trust of the House. The first and second preamble of the Act states: " WHEREAS electors are entitled to persons seeking election and members of the House the public trust; AND WHEREAS there is reasonable limits for membership Assembly;" What is proposed, in my opinion, is excessive and exceeds the stated purpose. Thus it does the proportionality test, namely, impairing as little as possible the right in question. I find the prohibition is penal and is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This is not to suggest pass valid legislation qualifying membership in the legislature. I believe it can. It is not speculate, nor to suggest particular legislation but the Court can say that: 20 and under the proportionality the Act has merely set minimum essential to lend finality be assured that to the House of Assembly of Assembly are worthy of need to prescribe by law in the House of not meet another ground of that the legislature cannot appropriate for the Court to
- - the legislation must not be retroactive; the legislation must purpose; - that for the stated purpose it may only be necessary to include a few specific offences. Naturally, any legislation after it was drafted, in light of s. l Al though the plaintiff of legislation, sections 2 and 1. They stand on their own. I find they are severable. To ensure public trust is maintained in the membership of the House, expulsion is demonstrably and democratic society. The restrictions in s. are not. S. 1 of the Act is null and void. Having found that the Act violates s. and having then analysed the and having found that sections test of s. 1 of the Charter but s. do not propose to discuss the arguments presented under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. I wish to thank all material and clarity of arguments which assisted me greatly. 21 -be reasonable for the stated would have to be analysed, of the Charter. argued against the severabili ty 3 of the Act do not need s. justified in a free 1 of the Act 3 of the Charter Act under s. l of the Charter 2 and 3 of the Act meet the l of the Act does not, I counsel for their comprehensive
- 22 -The application is successful 1n part as stated above. C.J.T.D. Halifax, Nova Scotia January 5, 1987
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.