William Henkel

The appellant, a pastor of a fundamentalist church, educated his children in a schooling program operating in the church basement.

He refused to send his children to public school or seek an exemption under the Alberta School Act, arguing that seeking permission from the state would violate his religious belief that God has final authority over his children's education.

He was charged with truancy.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the requirement to apply for certification of efficient instruction did not violate his freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, as it was a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1.

The Court also held that the requirement did not deprive him of liberty contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7.

A criminal appeal concerning a prosecution of a corporation for selling goods on Sunday contrary to the Lord’s Day Act.

The Court held that any accused may challenge the constitutionality of the law under which it is prosecuted, and that recourse to s. 24 was unnecessary where the challenge was to the legislation itself under s. 52.

The Act’s purpose was found to be the compulsion of Christian Sabbath observance, which infringed freedom of conscience and religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

That infringement was not saved by s. 1, although the statute was held to fall within Parliament’s criminal law power under s. 91(27).

The appellant store was convicted multiple times for selling goods on Sunday contrary to the Lord's Day Act.

The respondent obtained an injunction to restrain the appellant from selling goods on Sunday.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., which struck down the Lord's Day Act as unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the injunction could no longer be supported in law.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council of Alberta referred questions to the Alberta Court of Appeal concerning the constitutionality of a proposed federal tax on exported natural gas, specifically whether it could apply to natural gas owned and exported by the provincial Crown.

The Court of Appeal held the tax was ultra vires in its application to provincial property.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the proposed tax was in pith and substance a taxation measure under s. 91(3) of the B.N.A. Act, rather than a regulatory measure under the trade and commerce power.

As such, it was subject to the immunity granted by s. 125, which protects provincial Crown property from federal taxation.

A citizen complained of harassment by RCMP officers during a narcotics search in Alberta.

The complaint was referred to the RCMP Commanding Officer under Alberta's Police Act, 1973, who found it unjustified.

The citizen appealed to the provincial Law Enforcement Appeal Board.

The officers sought prohibition, arguing the province lacked jurisdiction to discipline RCMP members.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the province has no constitutional authority to apply the disciplinary provisions of its Police Act to RCMP officers, as this would intrude into the internal management of a federal police force.