Skip to main content
The Supreme Court’s badge designed by Ernest Cormier SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Case information

Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.

30065

UL Canada Inc. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.

(Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave)

Docket

Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.

List of proceedings
Date Proceeding Filed By
(if applicable)
2005-04-21 Record returned to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal
2005-04-05 Transcript received, 27 pages
2005-03-22 Appeal closed
2005-03-18 Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties
2005-03-17 Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Ma LeB De F Abe Cha, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-008256-992, dated October 1, 2003, was heard this day and the following judgment was rendered orally:
[Translation]
LeBel J. – The appellant has not shown that this Court should intervene to reverse the judgments of the courts below. Based on the constitutional principles governing the division of legislative powers, the impugned regulatory provision is within the limits of the provinces' legislative authority over local trade. Also, the provision respecting the colour of margarine was authorized by the enabling legislation, the words of which are clear. Furthermore, the statutory interpretation arguments drawn by the appellant from provincial and international trade agreements have no effect on the validity of this provision. Finally, the appellant's freedom of expression is not compromised in light of the scope this Court has previously attributed to that fundamental freedom. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Dismissed, without costs
2005-03-17 Acknowledgement and consent for video taping of proceedings, from all the parties.
2005-03-17 Hearing of the appeal, 2005-03-17, CJ Ma LeB De F Abe Cha
Judgment rendered
2005-03-17 Respondent's condensed book Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2005-03-17 Respondent's condensed book Attorney General of Quebec
2005-03-15 Correspondence received from, Normand Lemyre - revised copy of page 15 of the factum of A.G. Canada. (sent to the judges March 15/05) Attorney General of Canada
2005-03-14 Correspondence received from, Normand Lemyre, re: Changes to be made in factum. (sent to the judges March 16/05) Attorney General of Canada
2005-03-14 Correspondence received from, Noel & Assoc. - revised page 16 of the factum. (sent to the judges March 14/05) Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2005-03-09 Notice of appearance, Normand Lemyre and Warren J. Newman will be present at the hearing. Attorney General of Canada
2005-03-09 Notice of appearance, David Lepofsky and S. Zachary Green will be present at the hearing. Attorney General of Ontario
2005-03-08 Notice of appearance, Gérald R. Tremblay and Donald Bisson will be present at hearing. UL Canada Inc.
2005-03-07 Appellant's condensed book, (14 copies rec'd) UL Canada Inc.
2005-03-07 Notice of appearance, Jean-François Jobin, Éric Théroux and Raymond Tremblay will be present at the hearing. Attorney General of Quebec
2005-03-07 Notice of appearance, Claude Savoie and Véronique Brouillette will be present at the hearing. Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2005-02-24 Book of authorities, Completed on: 2005-02-24 Attorney General of Canada
2005-02-24 Intervener's factum - AG on constitutional question, Completed on: 2005-02-24 Attorney General of Canada
2005-02-21 Order on motion to extend time
2005-02-21 Decision on motion to extend time, LeB, l'intervenant, le Procureur général du Canada, est autorisé à produire son mémoire et son recueil de sources au plus tard le 25 février 2005;
l'intervenant, le Procureur général du Canada, est autorisé à plaider oralement à l'audition de l'appel.
Granted
2005-02-18 Book of authorities, Completed on: 2005-02-18 Attorney General of Ontario
2005-02-18 Intervener's factum - AG on constitutional question, Completed on: 2005-02-18 Attorney General of Ontario
2005-02-18 Submission of motion to extend time, LeB
2005-02-11 Respondent's record, Completed on: 2005-02-11 Attorney General of Quebec
2005-02-11 Respondent's book of authorities, (Vol. I to 3), Completed on: 2005-02-11 Attorney General of Quebec
2005-02-11 Respondent's factum, (Vol. I to 4), Completed on: 2005-02-11 Attorney General of Quebec
2005-02-10 Respondent's book of authorities, Completed on: 2005-02-10 Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2005-02-10 Respondent's factum, Completed on: 2005-02-10 Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2005-02-09 Response to motion to extend time, e-mail from Colin Baxter dated Feb. 9/05, Completed on: 2005-02-09 UL Canada Inc.
2005-02-01 Order on motion to extend time
2005-02-01 Decision on motion to extend time, to serve and file the intervener, A.G. Ont., factum and book of authorities to Feb. 18/05 and to present an oral argument at the hearing of the appeal, Ba
Granted
2005-01-31 Submission of motion to extend time, Ba
2005-01-26 Motion to extend time, to file the intervener factum and authorities to Feb. 25/05, Completed on: 2005-01-26 Attorney General of Canada
2005-01-21 Response to motion to extend time, (Letter Form), Véronique Brouillette dated Jan. 20/05, Completed on: 2005-01-21 Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2005-01-21 Response to motion to extend time, (Letter Form), from Jean-François Jobin dated Jan. 18/05, Completed on: 2005-01-21 Attorney General of Quebec
2005-01-21 Response to motion to extend time, (Letter Form), from Donald Bisson dated Jan. 17/05, Completed on: 2005-01-21 UL Canada Inc.
2005-01-21 Motion to extend time, to file the intervener's factum and authorities to Feb. 18/05, Completed on: 2005-01-21 Attorney General of Ontario
2005-01-05 Appeal perfected for hearing
2004-12-10 Order on motion to strike out, (BY CHARRON J.)
2004-12-10 Decision on motion to strike out, Cha, UPON APPLICATION by the respondent Attorney General of Quebec for an order striking out portions of the appellant's record and factum;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
The respondent Attorney General of Quebec asks that portions of the applicant's record and factum be struck out on the ground that they constitute fresh evidence that was not before the courts below. The material in question was filed with the Court in the context of the application for leave to appeal. The appellant accordingly submits that this evidence is part of the record.
The appellant's submissions are not valid. The material in question cannot be regarded as evidence within the meaning of R. 38(1)(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada merely because it was filed in the context of the application for leave to appeal, and the filing thereof contravenes s. 62 of the Supreme Court Act: see Public School Boards' Association of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 845, at para. 6.
In the alternative, the appellant seeks leave to file this material as fresh evidence pursuant to s. 62(3) of the Supreme Court Act. It submits that this material is relevant and is admissible as a legislative fact.
This submission cannot be accepted. The affidavit in question and the supporting material cannot be characterized as a legislative fact and, in any event, legislative facts are also subject to the conditions for admission of fresh evidence: see Public School Boards' Association of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 44, at para. 6. As mentioned by the Court, the tests for admission of fresh evidence are due diligence, relevance, credibility and decisiveness of the proposed evidence. In my view, the evidence does not meet these tests. There is no indication that the appellant could not have adduced this evidence at trial, so the due diligence test is not met in the case at bar. Also, the material in question raises a number of controversial questions and accordingly should not be admitted in evidence at this stage of the proceedings. Finally, the appellant's fresh evidence is not determinative as regards the issues before the Court.
This material must therefore be struck from the record and any reference to it struck from the appellant's factum.
The respondent Attorney General of Quebec also requests an order striking any reference to s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 from the appellant's factum. The respondent submits that the appellant's argument that the impugned regulations violate s. 121 raises a new constitutional question that is not included in the order issued by the Chief Justice of the Court on August 12, 2004.
In my opinion, this argument is relevant to the constitutional questions and it is for the Court to determine whether it is valid. This second part of the motion is therefore dismissed.
The motion is granted in part, with costs.
Allowed in part, with costs
2004-12-03 Submission of motion to strike out, Cha
2004-11-26 Reply to motion to strike out, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-12-10 Attorney General of Quebec
2004-11-25 Notice of hearing sent to parties
2004-11-25 Appeal hearing scheduled, 2005-03-17, (Previously Feb. 14 and Mar. 14/05)
Judgment rendered
2004-11-23 Response to motion to strike out, and alternatively motion for leave to submit new evidence (bookform), Completed on: 2004-11-23 UL Canada Inc.
2004-11-17 Motion to extend time, to file the respondent's material within same delay than the A.G. of QC (do not deal with this motion), Completed on: 2004-11-17 Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2004-11-16 Motion to strike out, parts of appellant's record and factum, Completed on: 2004-11-16 Attorney General of Quebec
2004-10-29 Appellant's book of authorities, (Vol. I to IV), Completed on: 2004-11-03 UL Canada Inc.
2004-10-29 Appellant's factum, (Vol. I to V) Amended factum rec'd Dec. 20/04 (24 copies of Vol. I with service on all parties - sent to the judges Dec. 21/04), Completed on: 2004-11-03 UL Canada Inc.
2004-10-29 Appellant's record, (Vol. I to V) Amended record rec'd Dec. 20/04 (12 copies of Index and Vol. 2 and 3 with service on all parties - sent to the judges Dec. 21/04), Completed on: 2004-11-03 UL Canada Inc.
2004-09-15 Notice of intervention respecting a constitutional question Attorney General of Canada
2004-09-15 Notice of intervention respecting a constitutional question Attorney General of Ontario
2004-08-18 Notice of constitutional question(s) UL Canada Inc.
2004-08-12 Order on motion to state a constitutional question, (BY CHIEF JUSTICE)
2004-08-12 Decision on the motion to state a constitutional question, CJ, 1. Does s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation respecting dairy products substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3. Is s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation respecting dairy products substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, ultra vires the Province of Quebec on the ground that it relates to a subject matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under s. 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
4. Is s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation respecting dairy products substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, invalid or inoperable on the basis that it is inconsistent with the principles of Canadian federalism?
Allowed in part
2004-08-09 Submission of motion to state a constitutional question, CJ
2004-07-20 Reply to the motion to state a constitutional question, (Letter Form), from Colin S. Baxter dated 07/19/04 re: does not intend to file any reply, Completed on: 2004-07-20 UL Canada Inc.
2004-06-16 Response to the motion to state a constitutional question, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-06-28 Attorney General of Quebec
2004-06-15 Response to the motion to state a constitutional question, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-06-15 Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2004-06-02 Motion to state a constitutional question, Completed on: 2004-06-02 UL Canada Inc.
2004-06-02 Notice of appeal, Completed on: 2004-06-02 UL Canada Inc.
2004-05-17 Correspondence received from, C. Savoie dated May 17, 2004 (fax copy) re: Noel & Ass. is the Ottawa agent Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2004-05-13 Correspondence received from, D. Bisson dated May 13, 2004 (fax copy) re: McCarthy, Tétrault is the Ottawa agent UL Canada Inc.
2004-05-12 Appeal court record, (2 boxes - joint with Trial Court record)
2004-05-10 Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Leave granted)
2004-05-07 Judgment on leave sent to the parties
2004-05-06 Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-008256-992, dated October 1, 2003, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.
Granted, with costs
2004-03-15 All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Ba LeB De
2003-12-24 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2003-12-24 Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec
2003-12-22 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, 3 volumes, Completed on: 2003-12-22 Attorney General of Quebec
2003-11-28 Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal
2003-11-27 Application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2003-11-27 UL Canada Inc.

Parties

Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.

Main parties

Main parties - Appellants
Name Role Status
UL Canada Inc. Appellant Active

v.

Main parties - Respondents
Name Role Status
Attorney General of Quebec Respondent Active
Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec Respondent Active

Other parties

Other parties
Name Role Status
Attorney General of Ontario Intervener Active
Attorney General of Canada Intervener Active

Counsel

Party: UL Canada Inc.

Counsel
Gérald R. Tremblay, c.r.
Donald Bisson (514 397-4261)
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Le Windsor, 5ième étage
1170, rue Peel
Montréal, Quebec
H3B 4S8
Telephone: (514) 397-4157
FAX: (514) 875-6246
Email: fperodeau@mccarthy.ca
Agent
Colin S. Baxter
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
1400 - 40 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1R 5K6
Telephone: (613) 238-2000
FAX: (613) 563-9386
Email: cbaxter@mccarthy.ca

Party: Attorney General of Quebec

Counsel
Jean-François Jobin
Éric Théroux
Marise Visocchi
Raymond Tremblay
Bernard, Roy & Associés
8.00 - 1 rue Notre-Dame Est
Montréal, Quebec
H2Y 1B6
Telephone: (514) 393-2336 Ext: 51452
FAX: (514) 873-7074
Email: jean-francois.jobin@justice.gouv.qc.ca
Agent
Sylvie Roussel
Noël et Associés, s.e.n.c.r.l.
111 Rue Champlain
Hull, Quebec
J8X 3R1
Telephone: (819) 771-7393
FAX: (819) 771-5397

Party: Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec

Counsel
Claude Savoie
Véronique Brouillette
Tremblay, Brosseau, Fleury, Savoie
Cours Mont-Royal, Bureau 805
1550, rue Metcalfe
Montréal, Quebec
H3A 1X7
Telephone: (514) 499-7490
FAX: (514) 499-7401
Agent
Sylvie Roussel
Noël et Associés, s.e.n.c.r.l.
111 Rue Champlain
Hull, Quebec
J8X 3R1
Telephone: (819) 771-7393
FAX: (819) 771-5397

Party: Attorney General of Ontario

Counsel
M. David Lepofsky
S. Zachary Green
Attorney General of Ontario
720 Bay St
10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2K1
Telephone: (416) 326-4458
FAX: (416) 326-4656
Email: dlepofsky@sympatico.ca
Agent
Robert E. Houston, Q.C.
Burke-Robertson
70 Gloucester Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0A2
Telephone: (613) 566-2058
FAX: (613) 235-4430
Email: rhouston@burkerobertson.com

Party: Attorney General of Canada

Counsel
Jean-Marc Aubry, c.r.
Normand Lemyre
Warren J. Newman
Attorney General of Canada
Tour St-Andrew, bureau T-6045
284, rue Wellington
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H8
Telephone: (613) 957-4663
FAX: (613) 952-6006
Email: jmaubry@justice.gc.ca
Agent
Christopher M. Rupar
Attorney General of Canada
Bank of Canada Building - East Tower
1216 - 234 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H8
Telephone: (613) 941-2351
FAX: (613) 954-1920
Email: Christopher.Rupar@justice.gc.ca

Summary

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

By the combined effect of s. 29 and 42 of the Dairy Products Substitutes Act, R.S.Q., c. P-30, and of s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation Respecting Dairy Products Substitutes, R.R.Q., 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, the sale or offering for sale in Quebec of butter-coloured margarine is prohibited. On January 8, 1997, the Respondent Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimention published in the Gazette officielle du Québec a notice and a draft regulation providing for the repeal of s. 40(1)(c). The draft regulation was never enacted by the Government.

In November 1997, the Appellant imported form the United States and delivered to a retail distributor in Quebec, some 480 containers of margarine which it had manufactured in the U.S and whose colour did not conform to the requirements of s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation. On November 24, 1997, inspectors from the Respondent Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation of Quebec seized 384 containers from the shipment. The Appellant then sought from the Superior Court to have the seizures quashed, and also sought a declaratory judgment to have s. 40(1)(c) declared null, unconstitutional, invalid, inoperable, unreasonable and contrary to Canadian federalism.

On May 26, 1999, the Superior Court quashed the seizures, but held that the impugned provision was valid. On October 1, 2003, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

Lower court rulings

May 26, 1999
Superior Court of Quebec

500-05-039161-987

Appellant's application for declaratory judgment and mandamus seeking to have section 40(1)(c) of the Regulation Respecting Dairy Products Substitutes declared invalid, dismissed; Appellant's application to quash the seizure of containers of margarine...
October 1, 2003
Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal)

500-09-008256-992

Appellant's appeal dismissed

Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal

The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.

Downloadable PDFs

Not available

Factums on appeal

The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.

Downloadable PDFs

Not available

Webcasts

Not available.

Date modified: 2025-05-13