Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 19, 1998
Judgment: November 5, 1998
Full case nameCanadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry
Citations[1998] 3 S.C.R. 157
Docket No.25192 [1]
Prior historyJudgment against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories.
RulingAppeal allowed
Holding
  1. Corporations who are defendants in civil litigation instigated by the state have the right to raise an argument under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  2. In regards to section 6 of the Charter, sections 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) should be read together as forming one right.
  3. The purpose of the mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter is to protect against human rights discrimination, not economic discrimination.
  4. The mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter include the ability to create wealth in another province, not just the ability to physically move to another province.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
MajorityIacobucci and Bastarache JJ., joined by Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, and Binnie JJ.
DissentMcLachlin J., joined by Major J.

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on standing to challenge a law as a violation of the Constitution of Canada. The Court expanded the exception first established in R. v. Big M Drug Mart to allow corporations to invoke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in civil litigation. The corporation had claimed rights to freedom of association and freedom of movement under section 2(d) and section 6 of the Charter.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 25192 Supreme Court of Canada