Case information

Constitutional law — Interjurisdictional immunity — Impairment — Federal paramountcy — Conflict of purposes — Provincial offences — Licences — Application of provincial statute to marine security activities — Whether Private Security Act applies to appellants’ marine security activities — Whether Private Security Act and regulations made thereunder are constitutionally inapplicable to appellants pursuant to doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity on ground that they impair federal legislative jurisdiction over “Navigation and Shipping” under s. 91(10) of Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether Private Security Act and regulations made thereunder are constitutionally inoperative in relation to appellants pursuant to doctrine of federal paramountcy on ground that they conflict with federal scheme relating to marine transportation security — Private Security Act, CQLR, c. S-3.5.<br>

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.

(Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public)

The appellant Michel Fillion is an employee of the appellant Quebec Maritime Services Inc. (“QMS”), a company working in the international shipping industry. The company performs loading operations for transatlantic vessels. Mr. Fillion’s main task is to oversee and control access to the port facility when a transatlantic vessel is docked. Further to observations made by two investigators from the Bureau de la sécurité privée (“BSP”), the respondent the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (“DCPP”) issued statements of offence to the appellants. Mr. Fillion was charged with contravening s. 116 of the Private Security Act, CQLR, c. S-3.5 (“PSA”), which provides that any person who carries on a private security activity without holding an agent licence (s. 16) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. QMS was also charged with contravening s. 117 PSA by employing Mr. Fillion. At trial, the appellants argued that the PSA’s provisions were constitutionally inapplicable to them.

The Court of Québec declared ss. 16, 116 and 117 PSA inapplicable and inoperative in relation to QMS and Mr. Fillion in the context of this case, having regard to the offences charged, pursuant to the constitutional doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy. The court therefore acquitted them of the offences charged. The trial judge held, among other things, that the application of the PSA to QMS’s operations significantly intruded on marine transportation security. He was also of the view that there was a conflict of purposes between the PSA and the federal scheme. The Superior Court allowed the appeal brought by the DCPP and the Attorney General of Quebec, set aside the trial judgment, convicted QMS and Mr. Fillion of the offences with which they were charged and ordered them to pay the minimum fines. In its view, the trial judge had misinterpreted the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy, which could not apply in this case. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with legal costs. It found, in particular, that the appellants had not shown any actual impairment, or any potential impairment that was certain to occur in the future, of a vital part of the federal legislative power and that the PSA did not frustrate the purpose of the federal legislation. The constitutional doctrines could not apply. Ruel J.A., dissenting, was instead of the view that if the PSA were applicable to QMS’s activities, its provisions would impair the core of the federal navigation and shipping power.