Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights – Alleged violations of ss. 2(a), 2(b), 7, 9 and 15 of the Charter – Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Motion to strike – Constitutional law – Division of powers – Does a Judge, sitting on a motion to strike, have the jurisdiction to make findings of fact – Does a Judge sitting on a motion to strike have jurisdiction to “strike the entirety of the claim”, with leave to amend, and not allow to proceed the factual assertions and legal remedy not struck – Can an action for Declaratory relief proceed without a “cause of action” for damages – Does a guilty plea in Provincial Court, under a statute where its constitutionality has not been determined, bar a subsequent Superior Court action attacking the constitutionality of the legislation, based on a “collateral attack/abuse of process” pursuant to Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63.

The applicants are individual and corporate consumers, distributors and producers of certain health products (the “Products”) in Canada. The Products are regulated as “drugs” as defined by s. 2 under the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27 (the “Act”) and the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR 2003-196 (the “Regulations”). The applicants brought an action challenging Parliament’s constitutional authority to regulate the production and sale of natural health products, including vitamins and dietary and nutritional food supplements. Alternatively, they challenged the statutory authority for the Regulations, pleading Charter breaches and tortious conduct by government officials in administering and enforcing the regulatory scheme. Their statement of claim sought, inter alia, damages, declarations of invalidity and a stay of enforcement of provisions of the Act and Regulations.

The respondents brought a motion to strike the statement of claim in its entirety or paragraphs amounting to the bulk of the claim, and brought a motion to remove all defendants but Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. The Federal Court struck the Claim “in accordance with these reasons”, granted leave to amend the Claim within 30 days, and struck the other defendants. The applicants appealed the decision, arguing that the Judge had erred in striking parts of the Claim and that those parts which had not been struck should be allowed to proceed. The respondents cross-appealed on the issue of whether the whole Claim had been struck. The Federal Court of Appeal interpreted the lower court decision as striking the entire statement of claim and dismissed the appeal.