R. v. Gérard Comeau

Background

In October, 2012 M. Comeau lived in Tracadie, New Brunswick.

He drove across the Restigouche River to Quebec He stopped at Pointe‐A‐la‐Croix and the Listiguj First Nation Indian Reserve.

All this took about fifteen minutes.

Once he arrived in Quebec, the RCMP observed him.

He purchased a quantity of beer, wine and liquor.

The RCMP followed him to the border and radioed ahead to Campbellton RCMP who stopped, searched and charged him Mr. Comeau.

The Charge

He was charged under s. 134(1)(b) of New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act:

  • 134(1)(b). Except as provided by this Act or the regulations, no person, within the Province, by himself, his clerk, employee, servant or agent shall(b) have or keep liquor not purchased from the Corporation.

M. Comeau's argument

  • We defended M. Comeau
  • We argued that s. 134(b) was unconstitutional because it violated s. 121 of the Constitution Act 1867:

All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

  • No one had ever successfully argued s. 121 before.
  • Because 98 years ago, the SCC had said that the only things s. 121 specifically prohibited were custom duties at the provincial border and not any other types of interprovincial trade barriers

Gold Seal Limited v The Attorney General of the Province of Alberta (1921), 62 SCR 424 [Gold Seal Case].

Comment on Subsequent Cases

  • What has changed since 1920 when the Gold Seal case was decided?

What Changed to cast doubt on Gold seal?

  • The SCC 's new decisions on The Charter have provided new rules for interpreting our Constitution.
  • In 2003 the Supreme Court said that our Constitution is a living tree and that this is "a fundamental tenet of constitutional interpretation."
  • [R v Blais, [2003] 2 SCR 236 at para 40].
  • The Court has also said that the Constitution must be interpreted "purposefully" and must consider:
    • the wording of the act,
    • the legislative history of the provision,
    • the scheme of the act, and
    • the legislative context of the provision.

[R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 SCR 483 at para 82.]

To view the full report please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.