Aidan Seto
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295
Background Info
During the 1980s, Canada implemented blue laws into their legal system. Blue laws consisted of rules that illegalized certain activities on Sundays. On May 30, 1982, in Calgary, Alberta, a pharmaceutical drugstore known as Big M Drug Mart Ltd. challenged blue laws by selling goods outside of medical drugs on Sunday. This was illegal as the blue laws indicated that businesses would be fined for disobeying the Lord’s Day Act. This caused Big M to be charged with a fine of CAD 40 for unlawfully carrying on the sales of goods such as groceries, plastic cups, and a bicycle lock on Sunday.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The respondent, Big M, took the fine to court and argued that the Lord’s Day Act violates s.2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion.”
The Decision of Constitutionality
The Supreme Court of Canada developed a two-step process for deciding constitutionality. The first step answers the question “Has the charter been infringed upon?” If the first step is satisfied, the next question would be whether the infringement could be justified under the reasonable limits clause. The reasonable limits clause discusses whether freedom restriction can be justified.
Rational reasoning
Referring to the two-step process for deciding constitutionality, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the charter had been infringed upon as the blue laws denied non-Christians their ability to work on Sundays, violating their freedom of religion. Referring to the second question regarding the reasonable limits clause, although the blue law did violate non-Christians’ freedom of religion, it did not fully restrict their limit of freedom. Thus, with only the first question of infringement being satisfied, this led to the conclusion that the Lord’s Day Act was unconstitutional.
Religious Freedom
According to the Lord’s Day Act, it can be argued that blue laws functioned in favour of Christian beliefs as the implementation of the legislative tradition enforced Christianity into Canadian society. This contradicted s.2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where blue laws violated the individual’s right to freedom of conscience and religion. This restricted an individual’s ability to pursue and celebrate their religious values as the blue law conformed the collective individuals of Canada to adhere to the Christian Sabbath.
Holding/Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appeal should be dismissed. According to the court, the Lord’s Day Act was stated not to possess any secular purpose based on changed social conditions. Since the Lord’s Day Act is a long-term legislative tradition that yielded high authority, this led to the compulsion of religious observance. However, although the Lord’s Day Act infringed upon the right to freedom of religion, this act was only applicable to the federal criminal law power under s.91(27) of the Constitution Act 1867. Hence, despite violating the freedom of religion within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Lord’s Day Act did not fully restrict individuals of Canadian society from the freedom of religion. Yet, Big M’s case encouraged reconsideration of the implementation of blue laws in Canadian society as it was concluded that the Lord’s Day Act violated individual freedom of conscience and religion. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. played a prominent role in the law's constitutionality. It functioned as a fundamental building block for the development of legislation. Hence, the case allowed future cases tackling blue laws to refer back to R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. to dig deeper into the legislative tradition preserved by Canada.
Bibliography
Learning, S. W. (2022, March 14). R. V. Big M Drug Mart Ltd: The $40 fine that changed Canadian law.
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYM-1EcHVSM
Wakeling, T. W. (2007, January 25). Sunday Shopping. The Canadian Encyclopedia.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sunday-shopping#:~:text=The%20federal%20Lord’s%20Day%20Act,the%20reign%20of%20Charles%20I.
Supreme Court of Canada. (1985, April 24). R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. R. V. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. - SCC cases.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/43/index.do
The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. (1982). Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, C 11 - canlii.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html
Comments