Peralta v. Ontario, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1045

Vito Peralta, Ronald Moody and Jack Loney Appellants

v.

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario and the Minister of Natural Resources of Ontario Respondents

and

The Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General for Saskatchewan Interveners

Indexed as: Peralta v. Ontario

File No.: 19386.

1988: May 25; 1988: December 15.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain*, La Forest and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ.

On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Constitutional law ‑‑ Delegation ‑‑ Federal government empowered to make regulations for management of fisheries ‑‑ Licensing function delegated to provincial minister without setting species quotas ‑‑ Right of provincial minister to set quotas implicit in federal legislation ‑‑ Want of provincial jurisdiction to regulate commercial fisheries by general legislation not entailing want of jurisdiction to regulate provincially‑owned fisheries as an aspect of administration of provincial public property.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1985), 1985 CanLII 3125 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (2d) 705, 7 O.A.C. 283, allowing an appeal from a judgment of Smith J. granting an application for judicial review of a decision of a provincial minister, and dismissing a reference to the Court of Appeal on an application for judicial review of a subsequent decision of the minister. Appeal dismissed.

Edward Belobaba and Christopher Dassios, for the appellants.

Blenus Wright, Q.C., and John Cavarzan, Q.C., for the respondents.

T. L. James, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.

B. Gale Welsh, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

The following is the judgment delivered by

[1] The Court ‑‑ We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons given by MacKinnon A.C.J.O. for the Ontario Court of Appeal: (1985), 1985 CanLII 3125 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (2d) 705, 7 O.A.C. 283. At one point, however, the reasons state that the provinces are powerless to regulate fishing for commercial purposes. That is undoubtedly true of general legislation for that purpose. We would not wish, however, to be taken as accepting the proposition that the provinces lack jurisdiction to make such regulations in respect of provincially‑owned fisheries as an aspect of their power to administer their public property. Any such regulations would, of course, be subject to overriding federal legislation.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors for the appellants: Gowling & Henderson, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondents: Archie Campbell, Toronto.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan: Brian Barrington‑Foote, Regina.

* Le Dain J. took no part in the judgment.