http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/supreme-court-gerard-comeau-1.4097320
Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal of cross-border booze case
214 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story
Whereas things in Heaven and Hell are done in threes I made three comments and called three lawyers. CBC allowed one comment to stand and one lawyer called me back thus far. Now I blog email and tweet about the mindless chickenshits working for the CROWN.
Jacques LeGarcon
Sometimes you just have to
shake your head when reading news stories on Canada. No wonder we can't
compete internationally, good lord, we can't even transport goods or
trade between provinces! This country needs all the help it can get
given the vast distances and sparse population and to complete the
difficulty absurd inter-provincial trade and movement of goods barriers.
David Raymond Amos
@Jacques LeGarcon Methinks
the lawyers acting on behalf of New Brunswick, lawyers working for the
Feds and the lawyers with Canadian Constitution Foundation are gonna be
very nervous in short order if I have my way.
John Brown
This particular topic is
about as asinine as it gets. If I wanna carry a boat load of my
favourite beer, wine, liquor whatever from NFLD to BC that should be up
to me.
How anyone in government thinks trade barriers between provinces is a good thing pretty much proves how short-sited and narrow minded politicians eventually become.
What's next, armed border crossings with guards demanding your 'papers'? Freaking tools.
How anyone in government thinks trade barriers between provinces is a good thing pretty much proves how short-sited and narrow minded politicians eventually become.
What's next, armed border crossings with guards demanding your 'papers'? Freaking tools.
Content disabled.
@John Brown The funny part is
our own court of appeal refused to hear these VERY dumb lawyers working
for Premier Gallant so they took it to the top court in order to get
their fat fancy arses booted bigtime.
In the meantime mindless Cpl Horseman hires his former Fat Fred City Finest Boss hire a bunch of other ex cop pals to spend more money we don't have in order to guard our border from more booze and smokes coming in from Quebec?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cigarettes-smoking-contraband-smuggling-convenience-stores-1.3494528
We pay these legal beagles way too much already yet Gallant just gave them another RAISE Methinks Gallant Higgs Coon and the Wannabe NDP leader whom I ran against in Fundy Royal in 2015 should go figure as to why I am considering filing an intervention in the Supreme Court.
Somebody should speak up against the asinine nonsense before the province goes bankrupt from all the bureaucratic bilingual bullshit.
(BTW the last word is NOT a curse word CBC has used it many tiems in the past N'esy Pas Hubby Lacriox and Minister Joly?)
In the meantime mindless Cpl Horseman hires his former Fat Fred City Finest Boss hire a bunch of other ex cop pals to spend more money we don't have in order to guard our border from more booze and smokes coming in from Quebec?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cigarettes-smoking-contraband-smuggling-convenience-stores-1.3494528
We pay these legal beagles way too much already yet Gallant just gave them another RAISE Methinks Gallant Higgs Coon and the Wannabe NDP leader whom I ran against in Fundy Royal in 2015 should go figure as to why I am considering filing an intervention in the Supreme Court.
Somebody should speak up against the asinine nonsense before the province goes bankrupt from all the bureaucratic bilingual bullshit.
(BTW the last word is NOT a curse word CBC has used it many tiems in the past N'esy Pas Hubby Lacriox and Minister Joly?)
Content disabled.
David Raymond Amos
@John Brown The funny part is
our own court of appeal refused to hear these VERY dumb lawyers working
for Premier Gallant so they took it to the top court in order to get
their fat fancy arses booted bigtime.
In the meantime mindless Cpl Horseman hires his former Fat Fred City Finest Boss hire a bunch of other ex cop pals to spend more money we don't have in order to guard our border from more booze and smokes coming in from Quebec?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cigarettes-smoking-contraband-smuggling-convenience-stores-1.3494528
We pay these legal beagles way too much already yet Gallant just gave them another RAISE Methinks Gallant Higgs Coon and the Wannabe NDP leader whom I ran against in Fundy Royal in 2015 should go figure as to why I am considering filing an intervention in the Supreme Court.
Edited because CBC has a low tolerance for references to bovine manure a commonly used fertilizer for commercial foods that McDonald's and everybody else serve us Correct?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mcdonald-s-canada-ceo-calls-foreign-worker-controversy-bullshit-1.2621151
McDonald's Canada CEO calls foreign worker controversy 'bullshit'
Posted: Apr 24, 2014 6:33 PM PT
Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal of cross-border booze case
Limiting movement of products between provinces violates Constitution, N.B court has ruled
By Alan White, CBC News Posted: May 04, 2017 8:00 AM AT
New Brunswick law allows only 12 pints of beer or one
bottle of wine or liquor to be brought into the province from another
province. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal of a New
Brunswick court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to limit the
amount of alcohol someone can bring into the province.
At the centre of the case is Gerard Comeau of Tracadie, N.B. He was acquitted by a provincial court judge of exceeding provincial importation limits on beer and liquor that can be brought into New Brunswick.
Comeau was charged in 2012. RCMP had stopped him after he entered New Brunswick from Quebec with 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor. New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act sets a personal importation limit of 12 pints of beer or one bottle of alcohol or wine.
Provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc ruled the liquor restriction was unconstitutional because Sec. 121 of the 1867 Constitution states products from any province "shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces."
Lawyer Ian Blue, who acted as part of Comeau's defence team on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, says the case stands to have major implications.
Blue said the federal and provincial governments are currently discussing trade matters pertaining to NAFTA, milk marketing boards, softwood lumber tariffs, but "they're not looking at this Comeau case."
"This Comeau case, with the Supreme Court decision, could have more profound effects on interprovincial trade barriers than President Trump could," said Blue. "That's how important this case is."
Provincial governments have justified the limits on the interprovincial movement of liquor and other products based on a 1920 Supreme Court decision in Gold Seal Ltd. v Dominion Express Co. that ruled Section 121 of the Constitution meant only that province's couldn't impose customs barriers at their border.
LeBlanc's ruling in R. v Comeau held that the 1920 case was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court and took a broader interpretation of the trade clause in the Constitution.
"The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is, is the broad interpretation of Section 121 correct?" said Blue.
"I think that the Supreme Court of Canada will not be able to uphold
the old 1920 Supreme Court decision," said Blue. "It is so wrong that
the Supreme Court of Canada could not do that without losing a lot of
credibility and political capital."
In agreeing to hear the appeal by New Brunswick, the Supreme Court directed that Comeau's costs to fight the case in the country's highest court be covered by the provincial government.
At the centre of the case is Gerard Comeau of Tracadie, N.B. He was acquitted by a provincial court judge of exceeding provincial importation limits on beer and liquor that can be brought into New Brunswick.
Comeau was charged in 2012. RCMP had stopped him after he entered New Brunswick from Quebec with 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor. New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act sets a personal importation limit of 12 pints of beer or one bottle of alcohol or wine.
Gerard Comeau was all smiles after a judge
acquitted him on a charge of bringing too much alcohol into New
Brunswick from Quebec because it violated free trade provisions in the
Constitution. (Bridget Yard)
Provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc ruled the liquor restriction was unconstitutional because Sec. 121 of the 1867 Constitution states products from any province "shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces."
Lawyer Ian Blue, who acted as part of Comeau's defence team on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, says the case stands to have major implications.
Blue said the federal and provincial governments are currently discussing trade matters pertaining to NAFTA, milk marketing boards, softwood lumber tariffs, but "they're not looking at this Comeau case."
"This Comeau case, with the Supreme Court decision, could have more profound effects on interprovincial trade barriers than President Trump could," said Blue. "That's how important this case is."
Provincial governments have justified the limits on the interprovincial movement of liquor and other products based on a 1920 Supreme Court decision in Gold Seal Ltd. v Dominion Express Co. that ruled Section 121 of the Constitution meant only that province's couldn't impose customs barriers at their border.
LeBlanc's ruling in R. v Comeau held that the 1920 case was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court and took a broader interpretation of the trade clause in the Constitution.
"The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is, is the broad interpretation of Section 121 correct?" said Blue.
Ian Blue of the Canadian Constitution Foundation is one of Gerard Comeau's lawyers. (Julianne Hazlewood/CBC)
In agreeing to hear the appeal by New Brunswick, the Supreme Court directed that Comeau's costs to fight the case in the country's highest court be covered by the provincial government.
Supreme Court of Canada is hearing a case about bringing beer across the Quebec-New Brunswick border6:37
Following the initial decision, the provincial prosecution service sought leave to appeal LeBlanc's ruling directly to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, but the province's highest court declined to hear the case.
As is customary, the Appeal Court did not give a reason for declining to hear the case.
The prosecution service then decided to ask Canada's top court to hear the case.
In a statement Thursday, the public prosecution service said it will now begin work on its submission to the Supreme Court about Article 121 and "its impact on provincial authority to regulate alcoholic beverages within New Brunswick's borders."
The prosecution service described itself as independent from government and said it "does not act on direction from government in the discharge of its duties." The statement also said there would be no other comments until after the issue was settled.
The Gallant government declined to comment on Thursday's decision because the case is before the courts.
With files from Rachel Cave
Today, with the support of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Gérard Comeau filed his response in the Supreme Court of Canada to the New Brunswick government’s Application for Leave to appeal his case. Mr. Comeau received national attention when provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc threw out a $293 fine against him and held that New Brunswick’s restrictions on possessing alcohol purchased in another province were unconstitutional.
W hat was Mr Comeau’s offence? He had bought beer and spirits in Quebec and driven them back to his home in New Brunswick. Unbeknownst to him, his beer run had been targeted by the RCMP. As the province’s Application puts it, “the RCMP had the defendant under surveillance.” When he crossed the provincial line on his way home, they pounced. The RCMP stopped his car, detained him, seized his beer, and issued Mr Comeau a ticket for $292.50 for violating the province’s Liquor Control Act.
Imagine, an RCMP surveillance operation set up not to prevent serious crime, but to seize legally-purchased beer from a retiree trying to save a few dollars. And all to enforce a provincial liquor monopoly that violates the constitutional guarantee to the free movement of goods within Canada.
Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that “all articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces.”
This provision was intended to guarantee that the newly confederated country of Canada would be a single economic unit for internal trade. The Fathers of Confederation were keenly aware of the benefits of free trade and repeatedly referred to the benefits of open trade between the four provinces of their new country.
George Brown, for example, predicted that “[the] union of all provinces would break down all trade barriers between us, and throw open at once … a combined market of four million people.” And Alexander Galt, a fellow member of the Great Coalition government that secured Confederation, believed that one of “the chief benefits expected to flow from Confederation [would be] the free interchange of the products of the labour of each province.” Their vision was enshrined in Section 121.
Since 1867, the federal and provincial governments have repeatedly betrayed the Framers’ promise and violated the constitution by erecting protectionist barriers that impede the free flow of goods across Canada. New Brunswick’s limitations on possessing alcohol purchased in another province is an obvious example, and Judge LeBlanc had no trouble finding that it violated both the spirit and the letter of Section 121.
A recent study by economists Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht of the University of Calgary estimated the annual benefits of free trade among the provinces at between $50 billion and $130 billion, or $7,500 per Canadian household per year. By comparison, the federal government predicts that CETA will add only $12 billion per year to our gross domestic product (GDP), or about $1,000 per household.
At a minimum, a victory in the Supreme Court should open up Canada’s closed provincial alcohol monopolies, making it possible for Quebeckers to buy wine directly from BC wineries and Nova Scotians to order craft beers from Ontario. A ruling that respects the history and purpose of Section 121 could also spell the end of provincial agricultural cartels and other non-tariff barriers to free trade.
As New Brunswick told the Supreme Court in its Application, “if [Comeau] is correct, any law that serves to operate either as a direct or indirect trade barrier (sometimes referred to as a ‘non-tariff trade barrier’) within Canada would invite an ultra vires finding by a court.”
The New Brunswick Attorney General has brought the dispute to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking it to review that decision. Mr Comeau agrees that the case deserves the Court’s attention. The Canadian Constitution Foundation welcomes the opportunity to continue supporting Mr. Comeau in his fight for the constitutional rights of all Canadians, consumers and producers, to free trade within Canada.
Benefits:
Mr. Comeau’s Response can be found here.
http://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Comeau-Response-to-Leave-Application.pdf
A copy of New Brunswick’s Application for Leave can be found here.
http://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Comeau.Memorandum-of-Argument.PDF.Hyperlinks.OCR_.FINAL-OTT_LAW-7050599-v1.pdf
Judge LeBlanc’s trial court decision can be found here
canadianconstitutionfoundation.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=99ddf17099e8b3ba076a7d32b&id=d80a39b58a&e=f2dcbe0581
.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (“Freedom’s Defence Team”) is a registered charity, independent and non-partisan, whose mission is to defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education, communication and litigation.
https://theccf.ca/staff/
Following the initial decision, the provincial prosecution service sought leave to appeal LeBlanc's ruling directly to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, but the province's highest court declined to hear the case.
As is customary, the Appeal Court did not give a reason for declining to hear the case.
The prosecution service then decided to ask Canada's top court to hear the case.
- New Brunswick asks Supreme Court to rule on cross-border liquor limits
- New Brunswick judge throws out cross-border booze limits
In a statement Thursday, the public prosecution service said it will now begin work on its submission to the Supreme Court about Article 121 and "its impact on provincial authority to regulate alcoholic beverages within New Brunswick's borders."
The prosecution service described itself as independent from government and said it "does not act on direction from government in the discharge of its duties." The statement also said there would be no other comments until after the issue was settled.
The Gallant government declined to comment on Thursday's decision because the case is before the courts.
With files from Rachel Cave
Beer Freedom and Free Trade: R. v. Comeau in the Supreme Court of Canada
Today, with the support of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Gérard Comeau filed his response in the Supreme Court of Canada to the New Brunswick government’s Application for Leave to appeal his case. Mr. Comeau received national attention when provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc threw out a $293 fine against him and held that New Brunswick’s restrictions on possessing alcohol purchased in another province were unconstitutional.
What is the case about?
W hat was Mr Comeau’s offence? He had bought beer and spirits in Quebec and driven them back to his home in New Brunswick. Unbeknownst to him, his beer run had been targeted by the RCMP. As the province’s Application puts it, “the RCMP had the defendant under surveillance.” When he crossed the provincial line on his way home, they pounced. The RCMP stopped his car, detained him, seized his beer, and issued Mr Comeau a ticket for $292.50 for violating the province’s Liquor Control Act.
Imagine, an RCMP surveillance operation set up not to prevent serious crime, but to seize legally-purchased beer from a retiree trying to save a few dollars. And all to enforce a provincial liquor monopoly that violates the constitutional guarantee to the free movement of goods within Canada.
What is the Constitutional Issue?
Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that “all articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces.”
This provision was intended to guarantee that the newly confederated country of Canada would be a single economic unit for internal trade. The Fathers of Confederation were keenly aware of the benefits of free trade and repeatedly referred to the benefits of open trade between the four provinces of their new country.
George Brown, for example, predicted that “[the] union of all provinces would break down all trade barriers between us, and throw open at once … a combined market of four million people.” And Alexander Galt, a fellow member of the Great Coalition government that secured Confederation, believed that one of “the chief benefits expected to flow from Confederation [would be] the free interchange of the products of the labour of each province.” Their vision was enshrined in Section 121.
Since 1867, the federal and provincial governments have repeatedly betrayed the Framers’ promise and violated the constitution by erecting protectionist barriers that impede the free flow of goods across Canada. New Brunswick’s limitations on possessing alcohol purchased in another province is an obvious example, and Judge LeBlanc had no trouble finding that it violated both the spirit and the letter of Section 121.
Why is the case important?
A recent study by economists Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht of the University of Calgary estimated the annual benefits of free trade among the provinces at between $50 billion and $130 billion, or $7,500 per Canadian household per year. By comparison, the federal government predicts that CETA will add only $12 billion per year to our gross domestic product (GDP), or about $1,000 per household.
At a minimum, a victory in the Supreme Court should open up Canada’s closed provincial alcohol monopolies, making it possible for Quebeckers to buy wine directly from BC wineries and Nova Scotians to order craft beers from Ontario. A ruling that respects the history and purpose of Section 121 could also spell the end of provincial agricultural cartels and other non-tariff barriers to free trade.
As New Brunswick told the Supreme Court in its Application, “if [Comeau] is correct, any law that serves to operate either as a direct or indirect trade barrier (sometimes referred to as a ‘non-tariff trade barrier’) within Canada would invite an ultra vires finding by a court.”
What stage is the case at?
The New Brunswick Attorney General has brought the dispute to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking it to review that decision. Mr Comeau agrees that the case deserves the Court’s attention. The Canadian Constitution Foundation welcomes the opportunity to continue supporting Mr. Comeau in his fight for the constitutional rights of all Canadians, consumers and producers, to free trade within Canada.
Quotes:
“Free trade among the Canadian provinces would not only be a massive boost to Canada’s economy, adding tens of billions of dollars to GDP each year, it also happens to be what the Canadian Constitution requires. The Fathers of Confederation were highly attuned to contemporary debates about free trade vs. protectionism. They knew the benefits that would accrue to their new country from being a single free-trading bloc would counter American protectionist tendencies. Some things never change!”
Howard Anglin, J.D.
Executive Director,
Canadian Constitution Foundation
“Judge LeBlanc’s trial court opinion got it right. He accepted the testimony of our expert witness on the history and drafting of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was that Section 121 was intended to create a seamless economic union between the former colonies. The province’s argument amounts to saying that, because the real meaning and purposes of Section 121 has been ignored for 100 years, provinces should continue to be able to ignore it in order to defend protectionist interests. That’s ridiculous.”
Derek From, J.D.
Staff Lawyer
Canadian Constitution Foundation
Benefits:
Mr. Comeau’s Response can be found here.
http://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Comeau-Response-to-Leave-Application.pdf
A copy of New Brunswick’s Application for Leave can be found here.
http://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Comeau.Memorandum-of-Argument.PDF.Hyperlinks.OCR_.FINAL-OTT_LAW-7050599-v1.pdf
Judge LeBlanc’s trial court decision can be found here
canadianconstitutionfoundation.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=99ddf17099e8b3ba076a7d32b&id=d80a39b58a&e=f2dcbe0581
.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (“Freedom’s Defence Team”) is a registered charity, independent and non-partisan, whose mission is to defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education, communication and litigation.
https://theccf.ca/staff/
Howard Anglin, J.D.
Executive Director
Howard grew up in Victoria, British
Columbia, and attended McGill University where he received a B.A.
(Hons.) in English Literature in 1997. He pursued graduate studies for
two years before changing paths to attend New York University Law
School, where he graduated in 2002. At law school he was an editor of
the NYU Law Review, served as co-president of the NYU chapter of the
Federalist Society, and was a research assistant for Prof. Alan
Dershowitz. After graduating, he practised at two international law
firms in New York and London, U.K., before accepting a clerkship with
the Hon. Diarmuid O’Scannlainn on the United States Court of Appeal for
the Ninth Circuit, in Portland, OR. After clerking, he resumed legal
practice, with a focus on appellate litigation, in Washington, DC. In
2011, he moved to Ottawa, where he served first as Chief of Staff to a
federal cabinet minister and later as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime
Minister. He has written widely on legal matters, as well as politics
and culture.
Adam Revay, B.A.
Operations Director
Adam Revay earned a B.A. in Political
Science from the University of Calgary in 2006. Since joining the CCF in
2008, Adam has been involved in redesigning the CCF website and in
co-ordinating the Foundation’s involvement in social media like YouTube,
Twitter and Facebook. Adam produced the CCF’s first in-house YouTube
video titled, “U of C: University of Censorship.” He was also
instrumental in planning and organizing the Foundation’s 2008 and 2009
law conferences. Adam enjoys the great outdoors and is an experienced
skier. He is also a computer hobbyist and an avid gamer. Adam lives in
Calgary with his wife Chloé.
Derek From, B.R.S., B.A. (Hon), J.D.
Staff Lawyer
Derek From has worked at the Canadian
Constitution Foundation since 2009. He graduated with a degree in law
from the University of Western Ontario after earning degrees in
philosophy and religious studies. His law practice is focused on
advancing personal and economic liberty by advocating for individual
freedom in the courts. He has contributed to a number of important
constitutional cases on freedom of expression, freedom of religion,
property rights, and equality rights. His articles regularly appear in
newspapers such as the Toronto Star, Financial Post, Huffington Post,
and others. He frequently appears in the media discussing issues such as
freedom of expression, individual liberty, and human rights. Derek’s
work has appeared in the Alberta Law Review and the C2C Journal and he
was a contributor to the Fraser Institute’s 2012 “Towards a Worldwide
Index of Human Freedom”. Derek enjoys spending time with his wife and
two children, and volunteering within his community.
Joanna Baron, B.A., M.A., B.C.L./LL.B.
Runnymede Society Director
Joanna Baron is the CCF’s Runnymede Society
Director. She clerked at the Court of Appeal for Ontario and was called
to the bar in Ontario in 2013. Following her clerkship, Joanna worked
in barrister’s chambers in London, UK as a Harold G. Fox Scholar. Joanna
practiced criminal law, appearing at all levels of court in Ontario,
including the Supreme Court of Canada, until 2016.
Russell Phillips, B.A.
Communications
Russell earned his BA from Mount Royal
University in Calgary in 2013. Since joining the Canadian Constitution
Foundation in 2014, Russell has been involved primarily with its
communications work as well as helping plan and organize their annual
Law & Freedom conference.
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/05/top-kenney-aide-howard-anglin-to-head-up-legal-affairs-at-pmo.html
According to an internal memo sent out this afternoon, Anglin is currently settling into his new position as special advisor within the PMO policy team, where he will handle "all matters relating to Justice, Public Safety and Immigration," as well as manage files related to ongoing litigation.
Anglin, who joined Kenney's office just before the last election, made at least one headline back in 2008 when he attempted to convince a Commons human rights subcommittee that Omar Khadr did not qualify as a 'child soldier, ' which resulted in a lively exchange with Liberal justice critic Irwin Cotler.
As Macleans.ca blogger Aaron Wherry reported in 2011, during his pre-staffer days, Anglin contributed conservative-leaning commentary to both the Daily Caller and National Review.
In 2006, he and current PMO planning director Alykhan Velshi teamed up to critique a US Supreme Court ruling that found the military commissions established by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo Bay detainees were in violation of both US military law and the Geneva Convention.
The two were briefly reunited in Kenney's office, where Velshi worked as communications director until after the election, when he spent a few months in the private sector before signing on as the PM's director of planning.
Congratulations all 'round! (And good luck filling those elegantly trimmed wingtips, minister.)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/gerard-comeau-border-beer-appeal-1.3802048
New Brunswick's highest court has reserved decision on whether it
should hear the border booze case instead of the Court of Queen's Bench.
Court of Appeal Justice Margaret Larlee did not indicate when she would deliver her ruling, but did say it can be expected shortly.
Lawyers representing Gerard Comeau and the attorney general's office both argued before Larlee Thursday that the Court of Appeal is the appropriate court to hear the matter because it's of national importance.
Comeau was charged with bringing too much alcohol and wine into New Brunswick from Quebec in October 2012.
With help from the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, the retired steelworker from Tracadie mounted a constitutional defence, arguing the section of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act that limits how much alcohol can be brought into the province by an individual is unconstitutional.
Ian Blue, who represents Comeau, also argued Thursday that potentially putting the case through two appeal courts would be a waste of money and judicial resources.
Blue added his client would fight to uphold the provincial court's decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
"[Comeau] feels that what he did was right. He feels what he did is what many other people do regularly," said Blue.
"And I wouldn't be surprised if Judge LeBlanc himself went across the border to buy beer."
In a provincial court decision on April 29, Judge
Ronald LeBlanc acquitted Comeau, concluding the Fathers of Confederation
intended interprovincial free trade.
Comeau had brought 14 cases of beer and three bottles of alcohol into the province. New Brunswick's personal importation limit under the Liquor Control Act regulations is 12 pints of beer or one bottle of alcohol or wine.
The provincial government appealed the case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal on May 27.
The attorney general's office argues LeBlanc made legal errors pertaining to Section 121 of the Constitution Act and Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act
Section 121 of the Constitution Act states: "All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any of the provinces shall, and from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces."
The province alleges LeBlanc erred in law with his legal interpretation of Section 121 of the Constitution Act in the following ways:
The province also contends the trial judge made four errors in law pertaining to Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act.
Before Comeau's provincial court trial began in August 2015, the Canadian Constitution Foundation stated it expected the case to eventually end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The appeal hearing is expected to proceed once it's determined whether the Court of Appeal will hear the case.
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Top Kenney aide Howard Anglin to head up legal affairs at PMO
Hot off the prime ministerial presses comes word that Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has lost his chief of staff to the lures of Langevin Block.According to an internal memo sent out this afternoon, Anglin is currently settling into his new position as special advisor within the PMO policy team, where he will handle "all matters relating to Justice, Public Safety and Immigration," as well as manage files related to ongoing litigation.
Anglin, who joined Kenney's office just before the last election, made at least one headline back in 2008 when he attempted to convince a Commons human rights subcommittee that Omar Khadr did not qualify as a 'child soldier, ' which resulted in a lively exchange with Liberal justice critic Irwin Cotler.
As Macleans.ca blogger Aaron Wherry reported in 2011, during his pre-staffer days, Anglin contributed conservative-leaning commentary to both the Daily Caller and National Review.
In 2006, he and current PMO planning director Alykhan Velshi teamed up to critique a US Supreme Court ruling that found the military commissions established by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo Bay detainees were in violation of both US military law and the Geneva Convention.
The two were briefly reunited in Kenney's office, where Velshi worked as communications director until after the election, when he spent a few months in the private sector before signing on as the PM's director of planning.
Congratulations all 'round! (And good luck filling those elegantly trimmed wingtips, minister.)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/gerard-comeau-border-beer-appeal-1.3802048
Border booze case goes before New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Province is appealing acquittal of man on charge of importing too much alcohol on constitutional grounds
By Alan White, Julianne Hazlewood, CBC News Posted: Oct 13, 2016 8:00 AM AT
Gerard Comeau was all smiles after a judge dismissed a
charge against him of bringing too much alcohol into New Brunswick from
Quebec because it violated free trade provisions in the Constitution.
(Bridget Yard)
Court of Appeal Justice Margaret Larlee did not indicate when she would deliver her ruling, but did say it can be expected shortly.
Lawyers representing Gerard Comeau and the attorney general's office both argued before Larlee Thursday that the Court of Appeal is the appropriate court to hear the matter because it's of national importance.
- New Brunswick judge throws out cross-border booze limits
- New Brunswick appeals border booze court ruling
Comeau was charged with bringing too much alcohol and wine into New Brunswick from Quebec in October 2012.
With help from the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, the retired steelworker from Tracadie mounted a constitutional defence, arguing the section of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act that limits how much alcohol can be brought into the province by an individual is unconstitutional.
Ian Blue, who represents Comeau, also argued Thursday that potentially putting the case through two appeal courts would be a waste of money and judicial resources.
'He feels what he did was right'
Blue added his client would fight to uphold the provincial court's decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
"[Comeau] feels that what he did was right. He feels what he did is what many other people do regularly," said Blue.
"And I wouldn't be surprised if Judge LeBlanc himself went across the border to buy beer."
Comeau had brought 14 cases of beer and three bottles of alcohol into the province. New Brunswick's personal importation limit under the Liquor Control Act regulations is 12 pints of beer or one bottle of alcohol or wine.
The appeal: What you need to know
The provincial government appealed the case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal on May 27.
The attorney general's office argues LeBlanc made legal errors pertaining to Section 121 of the Constitution Act and Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act
Section 121 of the Constitution Act states: "All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any of the provinces shall, and from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces."
The province alleges LeBlanc erred in law with his legal interpretation of Section 121 of the Constitution Act in the following ways:
- By interpreting the section to have a meaning contrary to that determined by prior decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which are binding on him.
- By concluding without evidence that previous decisions of the Supreme Court were rendered without the benefit of evidence before him.
- By finding that placing Section 121 in the category of Revenues, Debts, Assets and Taxation in the Constitution Act is of no legal consequence to the determination of its meaning.
- By giving Section 121 a meaning that is internally inconsistent and conflicts with Sections 91, 92, and 94 of the Constitution Act.
- By finding Section 121 was drafted as an absolute free trade provision that constitutionally must be rigorously interpreted as such today
Ian Blue, one of Gerard Comeau's lawyers,
said his client will take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if
needed. (Julianne Hazlewood/CBC)
The province also contends the trial judge made four errors in law pertaining to Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act.
Before Comeau's provincial court trial began in August 2015, the Canadian Constitution Foundation stated it expected the case to eventually end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The appeal hearing is expected to proceed once it's determined whether the Court of Appeal will hear the case.
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Just arrived to the Gerard Comeau border booze case. Need a refresher? Here you are: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/new-brunswick/gerard-comeau-border-beer-appeal-1.3802048 …
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Quite a few journos are in attendance, I heard Comeau wouldn't be here today, but we'll see
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
This case
comes down to 14 cases of beer and three bottles of alcohol. That's what
Comeau brought in from Quebec last October 12.
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
NB's limit
on interprovincial alcohol is 12 pints of beer (if I'm not mistaken, I
believe that's a 24 pack) OR 1 bottle of wine or alcohol.
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
On April 29, the provincial court acquitted Comeau, but the Attorney General's office appeal on May 27
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, which has backed Comeau's case, has said it expects it to end up in the Supreme Court.
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Justice
Margaret E.L. Larlee is presiding over the case today, she's not in the
courtroom yet. Things should get underway in a couple mins.
Julianne Hazlewood @juleshazlewood
Justice Larlee notes Blue is from Ontario, jokes around for a minute
Julianne Hazlewood @JHazlewoodCBC
Ian Blue representing Gerard Comeau, Bill Richards, Kathryn Gregory from Attorney General's office
- Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodJustice Larlee notes Blue is from Ontario, jokes around for a minute - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee says no jurisprudence for this case in appeal court. Clarifies it would not be appealed to court of queen's bench, but appeal court. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodGregory says it appeals NB somewhat unique in that it allows a direct appeal to court of appeal - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodGregory says this was dismissal of info, not acquittal. Larlee asks if there is difference. Gregory says yes. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodGregory says Crown took advantage of section 116, subsection 3. That's why crown appealed directly to court of appeal. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodJust to clarify for y'all. This case was appealed directly to court of appeal, NB's highest court, instead of court of queen's bench. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee points out case where Gregory argued opposite of what she's arguing know, at least that's what I gather. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee: so you're arguing this would be of national importance? Gregory: certainly - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee says she's asking so many q's re case being heard by appeal court because nobody else will argue against, needs stringent questioning - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee says this is not criticism, but says provincial court judges not used to writing long decisions - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee says there are parts of the decision that begs the question: what's the relevance of that - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee says the argument is that the court of queens bench should weigh in before getting to appeal court - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodThat last bit from Larlee saying parts of court decision not relevant is quite interesting - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodGregory has wrapped up. Ian Blue says he more or less agrees with appellant on case going before appeal court vs. court of queens bench - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodBlue: Judge Leblanc's decision was very well thought out. Blue is arguing to hold up Judge's decision but to go straight to appeal court. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee says she will reserve decision and that they will have it shortly, not sure how soon that be. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodLarlee will decide whether decision will be heard by appeal court. After that point, appeal will start. - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodIan Blue says it should be heard by appeal court because its of national importance, says client will fight to take… twitter.com/i/web/status/7… - Julianne Hazlewood
@juleshazlewoodBlue also adds that he wouldn't be surprised if Judge Leblanc took over his own shipment of booze over the border
No comments:
Post a Comment