No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Canadian Cases in Public International Law in 2006–7 / Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international public en 2006–7
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Extract
Evidence — letters rogatory — public policy against extraterritorial applications of US law
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier (2006), 82 OR (3d) 189 (29 August 2006). Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The applicant MLB was a US law firm carrying on business principally in Philadelphia. It sought an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice giving effect to a letter of request issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. This court sought the assistance of the Ontario court in obtaining document production and testimony from the respondent, Claude Gauthier, a Canadian citizen resident in Ontario.
- Type
- Cases / Jurisprudence
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 45 , 2008 , pp. 527 - 346
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2008
References
1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier at paras. 60–61.
2 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier at para. 65.
3 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier at paras. 73–74.
4 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier at paras. 81–82.
5 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier at para. 84.
6 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier at para. 85.
7 [1994] Can. T.S. no. a.
8 See, e.g., Reference re Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act (N.S.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 704 and MacMillan Bleodel Ltd. v. Simpson, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725.
9 Council of Canadians at para. 25.
10 Council of Canadians at paras. 26–29.
11 Council of Canadians at paras. 37–38.
12 Council of Canadians at paras. 39–41.
13 Council of Canadians at para. 45.
14 Council of Canadians at para. 50.
15 Council of Canadians at paras. 52–55.
16 Council of Canadians at para. 57–59.
17 Treaty between the Czechoslovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Extradition of Criminals, 11 November 1924 as amended by a Protocol signed at London on June 4, 1926, [1926] UKTS no. 31; see also Notification extending to Canada as from the 15th August, 1928, the Treaty between His Majesty and Czechoslovakia, for the Extradition of Criminals signed at London on 11 November 1924, and amended by Protocol signed at London, 4 June 1926 [1928] Can. T.S. no. 8.
18 Ganis at paras. 23–26.
19 [1980] Can. T.S. no. 37.
20 [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at paras. 21–23.
21 R.S.A. 2000 c. I-5.
22 R.S.C. 1985 c. S-18.
23 Collavino v. Yemen at paras. 52–66.
24 Collavino v. Yemen at para. 107.
25 Collavino v. Yemen at paras. 115–21.
26 Collavino v. Yemen at para. 130.
27 [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50.
28 Collavino v. Yemen at paras. 131–35.
29 Collavino v. Yemen at paras. 136–39.
30 Collavino v. Yemen at para. 140.
31 Collavino v. Yemen at paras. 141–42.
32 LRC 1985 c. C-26 tel que modifiée.
33 Plourde c. Service aérien FBO inc. (Skyservice) aux paras. 14–15.
34 Ibid. aux paras. 17–26.
35 [1947] Recueil des traités du Canada no. 15.
36 Plourde c. Service aérien FBO inc. (Skyservice) au para. 30.
37 (2004) 360 F. 2d 366 (2d. Cir.).
38 [1980] Recueil des traités du Canada no. 37; Plourde c. Service aérien FBO inc. (Skyservice) aux paras. 50–1 .
39 [1999] RJQ 2024.
40 2002 OJ 3421 (QL) aux paras. 7–8.
41 Plourde c. Service aérien FBO inc. (Skyservice) au para. 55.
42 Ibid. aux paras. 59–61.
43 [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597.
44 Hape at para. 33.
45 Hape at para. 35.
46 Hape at para. 36.
47 [1977] 1 Q.B. 529 (Eng. C.A.).
48 Hape at para. 37, citing such cases as The Ship “North v. The King (1906) 37 S.C.R. 385, Re Armed Forces, [1943] S.C.R. 483 and Saint John v. Fraser-Brace Overseas Corp., [1958] S.C.R. 263 (mistakenly cited by the court as Fraser-Bruce).
49 Hape at para. 39
50 Hape at paras. 53–56.
51 Hape at para. 40.
52 Hape at para. 46.
53 Hape at paras. 47–52.
54 Hape at para. 52.
55 Case of the SS “Lotus” (1927) PCIJ Ser. A, No. 10 (PCIJ).
56 Hape at paras. 57–65.
57 Hape at para. 68.
58 Hape at paras. 66–8.
59 Hape at para. 69.
60 Take the example of the RCMP officers loading Hape’s documents onto their plane: when the local official protested, they chose (quite rightly) to avoid an incident and unload their plane. But they could have ignored the protest and flown away, though doing so might have brought all sorts of undesirable consequences. In short, to the extent that the RCMP’s investigation in Turks and Caicos may be regarded as an exercise in extraterritorial enforcement of Canadian law, it could in fact have been done without the host state’s consent. Many more grievous examples of extraterritorial enforcement of state laws can be imagined.
61 “It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.” 22 George V. c. 4 (UK).
62 For example, “In essence, there is no topic that cannot be legislated upon, though the particulars of such legislation may be limited by, for instance, the Charter. Ajurisdictional challenge in respect of any law is therefore limited to determining to which head of power the law relates.” Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698 at para. 34.
63 Hape at paras. 70–82.
64 Hape at paras. 83–95.
65 Hape at para. 84.
66 Hape at para. 86.
67 See also Hape at para. 92, in which LeBel J. expresses the view that for an accused person, detained abroad, to claim a right to retain and instruct counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter interferes with the territorial sovereignty of the detaining state.
68 Hape at para. 99.
69 Hape at para. 100.
70 Hape at para. 101 .
71 Hape at paras. 114–23.
72 Hape at para. 160.
73 Hape at para. 161.
74 Hape at para. 162.
75 Hape at para. 169; see also para. 174.
76 Hape at paras. 181–92.
77 S.B.C. 2002, c. 2.
78 For a more fulsome description of the impugned provisions, see Health Services at paras. 116–28.
79 Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, PSAC v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; and RWDSUv. Saskatchewan, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460.
80 See, for example, Freeman, M. and van Ert, G., International Human Rights Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2004) at 235–40.Google Scholar
81 See Health Services at paras. 89–92.
82 Health Services at para. 20. The other three propositions enumerated by the majority in this paragraph are: (1) that “the reasons evoked in the past for holding that the guarantee of freedom of association does not extend to collective bargaining can no longer stand”; (2) that “an interpretation of s. 2(d) that precludes collective bargaining from its ambit is inconsistent with Canada’s historic recognition of the importance of collective bargaining to freedom of association”; and (3) that “interpreting s. 2 (d) as including a right to collective bargaining is consistent with, and indeed, promotes, other Charter rights, freedoms and values.”
83 Health Services at para. 69. Ironically, the case cited in support of this proposition is perhaps the most notorious example of a Charter decision that flies in the face of international law, namely Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.
84 Health Services at para. 70.
85 [1976] Can. T.S. no. 46.
86 [1976] Can. T.S. no. 47.
87 [1973] Can. T.S. no. 14.
88 Health Services at para. 71.
89 Health Services at paras. 72–75.
90 Health Services at para.76.
91 Gernigon, B., Odero, A., and Guido, H., “ILO Principles Concerning Collective Bargaining” (2000) 139 Int’l Lab. Rev. 33;Google Scholar and Health Services at para. 77.
92 Health Services at para. 78.
93 Health Services at para. 79, citing Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313 at 349 per Dickson CJ (dissenting).
94 [1992] Can. T.S. no. 3.