R. v. Horne & Pitfield Foods Ltd., 1985 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 364
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant;
and
Horne & Pitfield Foods Ltd. Respondent.
File No.: 17206.
1984: March 8; 1985: April 24.
Present: Ritchie*, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson JJ.
*Ritchie J. took no part in the judgment.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Prerogative writs ‑‑ Mandamus ‑‑ Application to direct magistrate to proceed with hearing ‑‑ Information laid in 1981 pursuant to Lord’s Day Act ‑‑ Fiat of Attorney General required to commence prosecution ‑‑ Leave to prosecute signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General ‑‑ Information properly quashed ‑‑ Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L‑13, s. 16.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal, 1982 ABCA 202, [1982] 5 W.W.R. 162, 69 C.C.C. (2d) 240, 39 A.R. 428, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Wambolt J. dismissing an application for mandamus. Appeal dismissed.
Bruce Fraser, for the appellant.
No one appearing for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
McIntyre J.‑‑This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. On May 7, 1981 an information was sworn by a police constable alleging that the respondent had unlawfully sold goods on a Sunday, contrary to the provisions of the Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L‑13. The day before, leave to commence the prosecution had been given as required by s. 16 of the Act. The fiat granting leave was in the name of the Attorney General for the Province of Alberta, but was signed by one E. J. Gamache, described as "Acting Deputy Attorney General, Province of Alberta". The fiat was in adequate form, but an issue was raised as to the authority of the signatory to sign and issue it.
In the provincial court the information was quashed for lack of authority on the part of Mr. Gamache. On January 20, 1982 an application for mandamus to direct the magistrate to proceed with the hearing of the information was dismissed in the Court of Queen's Bench. On June 17, 1982 an appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeal.
I am not persuaded that there was error in the disposition of the issue arising in this case in the Court of Appeal. I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the appellant: B. Duncan, Calgary.
Solicitors for the respondent: Pritchard, Lerner & Co., Medicine Hat.