Smith v. The Queen

Smith v. The Queen
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1960-10-04
Report
[1960] SCR 776
Judges
Kerwin, Patrick; Taschereau, Robert; Locke, Charles Holland; Cartwright, John Robert; Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Constitutional law
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
SMITH v. THE QUEEN, [1960] S.C.R. 776
Date: 1960-10-04
LYLE FRANCIS SMITH
APPELLANT
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, UPON THE INFORMATION OF A. BRUCE SWAIN
RESPONDENT.
1960, May 23, Oct. 4
PRESENT: Kerwin C.J. and Taschereau, Locke, Cartwright, Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Judson and Ritchie JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Constitutional law—Criminal law—Offences as to prospectus under pro­vincial securities legislation—Whether conflict with Criminal Code false prospectus provision—The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, ss. 38(1), (9), 47, 47a, 63(1), 68(1)—Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51, ss. 343, 406.
On an appeal from an order prohibiting the magistrate from further proceeding with an information charging the accused with certain offences under The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial judge and quashed the order of prohibition. The accused appealed to this Court. Held (Locke, Cartwright and Ritchie JJ. dissenting) : The appeal should be dismissed.
Per Kerwin W. and Taschereau, Fauteux, Abbott and Judson JJ.: Sec­tion 63 of The Securities Act is not criminal law within head 27 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1.867, as it is not a provision the pith and substance of which is to prohibit an act with penal consequences. It is merely incidental to the main purpose and aim of the enactment, which is to regulate the security business.
There is no repugnancy between s. 63 of the Act and s. 343 of the Criminal Code, as the purposes of the two enactments are entirely different. Lymburn v. Mayland, [19321 A.C. 318, Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [19411 S.C.R. 396, O'Grady v. Spading, [19601 S.C.R. 804, Regina v. Yolles, [19591 O.R. 206, and Regina v. Dodd, [19571 O.R. 5, referred to.
Per Abbott, Martland and Judson JJ.: There is no conflict between s. 63(1)(d) and (e) of the Act and s. 343 of the Code. The latter provision makes it an offence to make, circulate or publish a prospectus known to be false in a material particular with intent to induce persons to become shareholders in a company. Section 63(1)(d) and (e), on the other hand, is designed to penalize a person who, required as he is, by the provisions of the Act, to furnish full, detailed information about the company whose securities are sought to be sold, is knowingly responsible for incorporation in that material of information which is false.
The matter of the provincial legislation is not so related in substance to s. 343 of the Code as to be brought within the scope of criminal law in the sense of s. 91 of the British North America Act. The Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, supra, and Lymburn v. Mayland, supra, referred to.
Per Locke J., dissenting: By s. 343 of the Code Parliament has declared to be criminal and has provided the penalty for the publishing of false statements, whether written or oral, which are known to be false in. a material part with the intent to induce others to purchase securities, and by s. 406 has also rendered criminal an attempt to do so.
As the whole purpose of The Securities Act is the protection of the public from relying upon false information when purchasing securities, and that of s. 63 to declare criminal the act of making fraudulent misstatements in a prospectus designed for the purpose of inducing such purchases, there is in essence no difference between the offences created and those prohibited by the Code.
Therefore the offences dealt with in s. 63 of the Act trespass upon the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament in this field and are accordingly ultra vires. Lymburn v. Mayland, supra, and Tennant v. Union. Bank of Canada, [18941 A.C. 31, referred to.
Per Cartwright J., dissenting: The difference between s. 38(1) and (9) of the Act and s. 343 of the Code, in that under the latter it would be necessary to establish not only that the accused had been knowingly responsible for the making of a material false statement in. the pros­pectus, but also, that this was done with intent to induce persons, whether ascertained or not, to become shareholders in the company, is apparent rather than real. Having regard to the presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts, proof of the allegations in any of the counts in the information would constitute a prima facie case under s. 343(1) (a) of the Code. Moreover, there is no realistic distinction between making a statement with intent that it shall be relied upon by persons before they become shareholders, as provided for in s. 68(1), and making a statement "with intent to induce" those persons to become shareholders.
By the combined effect of ss. 38, 47, 47a and 63(1) of the Act the Province has attempted to punish by fine, imprisonment, or both, a course of conduct which is so similar to that condemned by s. 343 of the Code as to create an inconsistency or conflict, with the result that the Dominion legislation must prevail. Rex. v. Nat. Bell Liquors, [1922] 2 A.C. 218, and Lymburn v. Mayland, supra, referred to.
Per Ritchie J., dissenting : The impugned provisions of the Act have the combined effect, when read in the context of the statute as a whole, of creating an offence which is substantially the same as that for which provision is made in s. 343 of the Code.
Although the specific "intent to induce persons ... to become shareholders of the Company" which is required under s. 343 of the Code is not expressly stated to be one of the ingredients of the offences created by the combined effect of s. 63(1)(d) and (e), and s. 38(1) and (9) of the Act, it is nevertheless implicit in the latter provisions that such an intent must form a part of the offences thereby created. Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, supra, referred to.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1], reversing the judgment of Hughes J. Appeal dismissed, Locke, Cartwright and Ritchie JJ. dissenting.
C. Thomson, for the appellant;
H. S. Bray and W. A. Macdonald, for the respondent;
W. R. Jackett, Q.C. and S. Samuels, for the Attorney General of Canada;
R. Cleary, for the Attorney General of Alberta;
J. Holgate, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;
L. Tremblay, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Quebec.
The judgment of Kerwin C. J. and of Taschereau, Fauteux, Abbott and Judson JJ. was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:—By leave of this Court Lyle Francis Smith appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario' reversing the judgment of Hughes J. and quashing the order of prohibition granted by the latter. That order prohibited His Worship Magistrate J. P. Pren­tice or such other justices as might be in Magistrate's Court in the City of Toronto from further proceeding to hear the charges against the appellant wherein he is charged with offences under subss. (1) and (9) of s. 38 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, contrary— to s. 63 thereof. The learned judge of first instance pointed out that it was not contended that the Act as a whole was invalid and, in fact, any such contention could not hope to succeed in view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Lymburn v. Mayland[2]. If subss. (1) and (9) of s. 38 of the Act are valid, there can be no question that the Provincial Legisla­ture had power by s. 63 to make it an offence to fail to comply with those provisions.
The general aim of the Act is to regulate the security business (there being a wide definition of "security") and this is accomplished by the setting-up of The Ontario Securities Commission, with power to it to supervise the trading in securities by regulation and also power to super­vise the trading in securities during a primary distribution by requiring the filing of a prospectus. It is sufficient for the disposition of this appeal to indicate that subs. (1) of s. 38 prohibits a person or company from trading in any security issued by a mining company, where such trade would be in the course of a primary distribution to the public of such security, until there has been filed with the Commission a prospectus containing a full, true and plain disclosure relating to the security. Subsection (9) compels the filing of an amended prospectus where a change occurs during the period of primary distribution to the public in any material fact contained in any prospectus. Section 63 reads:
63. (1) Every person, including any officer, director, official or employee of a company, who is knowingly responsible for,
(a) any fictitious or pretended trade in any security;
(b) any course of conduct or business which is calculated or put forward with intent to deceive the public or the purchaser or the vendor of any security as to the nature of any transaction or as to the value of such security;
(c) the making of any material false statement in any application, information, statement, material or evidence submitted or given to the Commission, its representative, the registrar or any person appointed to make an investigation or audit under this Act, under this Act or the regulations;
(d) the furnishing of false information in any report, statement, return, balance sheet or other document required to be filed or furnished under this Act or the regulations; (e) the commission of any act or failure to perform any act where such commission or failure constitutes a violation of any provision of this Act or the regulations; or
(f) failure to observe or comply with any order, direction or other requirement made under this Act or the regulations,
shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or both.
(2) Subsection 1 shall be deemed to apply, mutatis mutandis, to any company save that the money penalties may be increased in the discretion of the magistrate to a sum of not more than $25,000.
(3) Every person or company is a party to and guilty of an offence under this Act,
(a) that actually commits the offence;
(b) that does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding another person or company in the commission of the offence;
(c) that abets another person or company in the commission of the offence; or
(d) that counsels or procures another person or company to commit the offence.
(4) Every person or company that counsels or procures another person or company to be a party to an offence under this Act of which that other person or company is afterwards guilty is a. party to that offence, although it may be committed in a way different from that which was counselled or procured.
(5) Every person or company that counsels or procures another person or company to be a party to an offence under this Act is a party to every other offence under this Act which that other person or company commits in consequence of such counselling or procuring and which the person or company counselling or procuring knew, or ought to have known, to be likely to be committed in consequence of such counselling or procuring.
This section is not criminal law within Head 27 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, as it is not a provi­sion the pith and substance of which is to prohibit an act with penal consequences. It is merely incidental to the main purpose and aim of the enactment. The words of Lord Atkin, speaking for the Judicial Committee in Lymburn v. Mayland[3], at p. 324, are particularly apt:
There was no reason to doubt that the main object sought to be secured in this part of the Act is to secure that persons who carry on the business of dealing in securities shall be honest and of good repute, and in this way to protect the public from being defrauded.
There is no repugnancy between s. 63 of The Securities Act and s. 343 of the Criminal Code. The latter reads:
343. (1) Every one who makes, circulates or publishes a prospectus, statement or account, whether written or oral, that he knows is false in a material particular, with intent (a) to induce persons, whether ascertained or not, to become share-holders or partners in a company,
(b) to deceive or defraud the members, shareholders or creditors, whether ascertained or not, of a company,
(c) to induce any person to entrust or advance anything to a com­pany, or
(d) to enter into any security for the benefit of a company, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
(2) In this section, "company" means a syndicate, body corporate or company, whether existing or proposed to be created.
The purposes of the two enactments are entirely different. Counsel for the appellant argued that the word "knowingly" in subs. (1) of s. 63 of the Ontario Act indicated that the Legislature was encroaching upon the field of criminal law in its widest sense. However, it is not the same conduct being dealt with by the two legislative bodies. The word "knowingly" is really in ease of the provisions of The Securities Act. I agree with the submission of counsel for the respondent that the main purpose of the provincial enactment is to ensure the registration of persons and com­panies before they are permitted to trade in securities, coupled with what is essentially the registration of the securities themselves before the latter may be traded in the course of a primary distribution to the public. Par­liament undoubtedly had power 'to enact s. 343 of the Criminal Code, but a prospectus may in one aspect and for one purpose be the subject of valid provincial legislation, while, in another aspect and for another purpose, it may be the subject of valid federal legislation: Provincial Sec­retary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan[4]. Since the Prov­incial Legislature has power to prescribe certain information to be supplied to the Commission and since the Legislature has power to provide for punishment of infractions, the enactments of the Legislature and of Parliament may co-exist. The remarks of Lord Atkin at pp. 326-327 of the report in Lymburn v. Mayland[5], mentioned by Hughes J., cannot apply to the problem before us:
The penal provisions of s. 14 have been subsequently incorporated into the Criminal Code of the Dominion by 20 & 21 Geo. 5, e. 11 (Canada), s. 5, which now presumably occupies the field so far as the criminal law is concerned. As appears from the reasons for judgment of Judson J. in O'Grady v. Sparling[6], with which I agree, the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Regina v. Yolles[7] was approved, while the previous decision of that Court in Regina v. Dodd[8] was not.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs, but there should be no costs to or against the Attorney General of Canada or to or against the Attorney General of any of the Provinces.
LOCKE J. (dissenting) :—The question to be determined in this appeal is as to whether subss. (b), (d) and (e) of s. 63 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, trespasses upon a field which is occupied by legislation duly enacted by Parliament under head 27 of s. 91 of the British North America Act.
It was not contended before Hughes J., nor was it contended before this Court, that the Securities Act, other than in respect of the penal provisions of s. 63, was ultra vires. The decision of the Judicial Committee in Lymburn v. Mayland[9] need not be considered, therefore, except that portion of the judgment delivered by Lord Atkin dealing with the criminal provisions of the Alberta legislation which are referred to at p. 327 of the report. To the extent that this is relevant to the present matter, it appears to be con­trary to the view advanced by the respondents in the present appeal.
It is necessary to determine the real object and purpose of s. 63, considered in its context, and it is of some assistance in arriving at a conclusion to examine the history of the legislation. The section reads in part:
Every person, including any officer, director, official or employee of a company, who is knowingly responsible for,
(b) any course of conduct or business which is calculated or put forward with intent to deceive the public or the purchaser or the vendor of any security as to the nature of any transaction or as to the value of such security;
(d) the furnishing of false information in any report, statement, return, balance sheet or other document required to be filed or furnished under this Act or the regulations; (e) the commission of any act or failure to perform any act where such commission or failure constitutes a violation of any provision of this Act or the regulations;
shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or both.
In 1928, by c. 34, the legislature enacted the Security Frauds Prevention Act. The purpose of the legislation is indicated by its title; it was the protection of the public against fraud and fraudulent acts by brokers and other persons offering securities for sale of the nature defined in s. 2. Brokers and salesmen were prohibited by s. 3 from trading in securities unless they were registered in accordance with the requirements of the Act and applicants for registration were required to furnish bonds for the protec­tion of persons dealing with them. Fraud was defined as including, inter alia, any intentional misrepresentation by word, conduct, or in any manner, of any material fact, either present or past, and any intentional omission to disclose any such fact, and generally any course of conduct or business calculated or put forward with intent to deceive the public or the purchaser of any security as to the value of such security. Section 16 of this Act provided that every person violating any provision of the Act or the regulations designated as an offence, or who does any fraudulent act not punishable under the provisions of the Criminal Code should be liable upon conviction under the Summary Con­victions Act to a money penalty and to imprisonment.
The provisions of this statute and its name were changed and added to by various amendments between the years 1928 and 1950, when it appeared under the name of The Securities Act in the Revised Statutes of Ontario. Various amendments made since that date do not affect the present consideration.
Under the Act as it now is, brokers, investment dealers as defined, and persons issuing securities—an expression defined to include bonds, debentures and shares—are prohibited from trading unless they are registered with the Ontario Securities Commission, a body constituted under the provisions of the Act. Trading is defined as including any attempt to deal in, sell or dispose of a security for valuable consideration. Sections 38, 39 and 40 require respectively that before the securities of a mining company, an industrial company or an investment company may be offered for sale to the public, a prospectus signed by the directors or promoters of such companies giving the informa­tion detailed in these sections must be accepted for filing by the commission. Part XI of the Act, consisting of sec­tions 49 to 62, both inclusive, under the heading "Provisions relating to Trading in Securities Generally", contains further provisions designed for the protection of the public. These are followed by Part XII of the Act which includes s. 63 and it appears under 'the general heading "Offences and Penalties".
Section 68(1) of the Act reads in part:
Where a prospectus has been accepted for filing by the Commission under this Act, every- purchaser of the securities to which the prospectus relates shall be deemed to have relied upon the representations made in. the prospectus whether the purchaser has received the prospectus or not and, if any material false statement is contained in the prospectus, every person who is a director of the company issuing the securities at the time of the issue of the prospectus, and every person who, having authorized such naming of him, is named in the prospectus as a director of the com­pany ... shall be liable to pay compensation to all persons who have purchased the securities for any loss or damage such persons may have sustained.
The other provisions contained in Part XIII of the Act deal with general matters which are not relevant to the matters to be considered.
It will be seen from the foregoing that, as the original name of the Act implied, the purpose of this legislation is the protection of the public who purchase securities from fraudulent statements or acts which might induce such purchases. Sections 1 to 62 of the Act, both inclusive, to some of which reference has been made, contain provisions designed to ensure that the statements made by brokers and others engaged in the sale and distribution of shares, bonds, debentures or other securities, whether the same be in writing in the form of a prospectus or oral, relating to the security offered for sale shall be the truth and in accordance with the facts and provide the machinery designed to accomplish this purpose.
I agree with my brother Cartwright that if the subject matter of the punishment of persons who induce others to purchase securities by false or fraudulent statements had not been dealt with in the Criminal Code, s. 63 of The Securities Act would be intra vires the legislature under head 15 of s. 92.
The punishment of directors or other persons who induce others to become members of a company by false or fraud­ulent statements has long been treated as an offence to be punished by fine or imprisonment. Section 84 of the Larceny Act, 24-25 Vict. (Imp.), e. 96, read:
Whosoever, being a Director, Manager, or Public officer of any Body Corporate or Public Company, shall make, circulate, or publish, or concur in making, circulating, or publishing, any written Statement or Account which he shall know to be false in any material Particular, with Intent to deceive or defraud any Member, Shareholder, or Creditor of such Body Corporate or Public Company, or with Intent to induce any Person to become a Shareholder or Partner therein ... shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to any of the Punishments which the Court may award as herein-before last mentioned.
In substantially this form these provisions were enacted as s. 85 of the Statutes of Canada for 1869 (c. 21). It appears that s. 343 of the Criminal Code replaces these provisions of the earlier legislation. That section reads in part:
Every one who makes, circulates or publishes a prospectus, statement or account, whether written or oral, that he knows is false in a material particular, with intent
(a) to induce persons, whether ascertained or not, to become share-holders or partners in a company,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
(b) It will be seen that the offence described in s. 63 (1) (b) of The Securities Act if made with the intent, inter alia, to induce persons to become shareholders of a company is an offence under this section and is punishable as such.
Section 406 of the Criminal Code reads in part:
Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are acces­sories after the fact to the commission of offences, namely,
every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, upon conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable. In my opinion subss. (b), (d) and (e) directly trespass upon the field occupied by s. 343 of the Criminal Code. The requirement that the prospectus must be filed with the Commission is not, as has been said, merely to enable that body to determine whether or not the security may be offered for sale to the public—that is of course one of the reasons—but also to place on record a statement of the facts affecting the value of the security upon the faith of which purchasers are by virtue of s. 68 deemed to have purchased, whether or not they have read the prospectus or become aware of its terms. The application to the Commis­sion to file the prospectus is a necessary step on the part of the trader to enable him to offer the security to the pub­lic for sale and is made by him for this and for no other purpose.
The section does not purport to deal with innocent misrepresentations; it is only directed against persons who are knowingly responsible for the making of the false state­ments and this can only refer to fraudulent conduct on the part of the person charged. In the present matter the language of charges 1, 2 and 3 is that Smith was knowingly responsible for the furnishing of false information in a document.
Since the whole purpose of the Act is the protection of the public from relying upon false information when purchasing securities, and that of s. 63 to declare criminal the act of making fraudulent misstatements in a prospectus designed for the purpose of inducing such purchases, there is in essence no difference between the offences created and those prohibited by s. 343 of the Criminal Code. The person applying to file a false prospectus must be taken to be aware of the terms of s. 68 of The Securities Act and is either publishing or attempting to publish the document within the meaning of s. 343 for the purpose and with the intent of inducing others to purchase the security offered upon the faith of the false statements.
In the present matter, as appears from the information, the prospectus was that of a mining company and was received for filing by the Commission and a receipt issued. The statements were, therefore, published and were so published with the intent to induce others to purchase the securities. Whether any of the securities were sold on the faith of the prospectus we are not informed.
Accepting the statements in the information as being correct, while the appellant was not charged that he pub­lished the prospectus with the intent to induce any person to become a shareholder in the company as must have been done had the charge been laid under s. 343 of the Criminal Code, he was charged with the very conduct which that section is designed to prohibit. If the publishing of the false prospectus to the Commission for the purpose and with the intent above mentioned was not in itself sufficient to constitute the offence referred to in s. 343, it was, in my opinion, an attempt to commit that offence within the meaning of s. 406 of the Code which I have mentioned above.
In Tennant v. Union Bank of Canada[10], Lord Watson, in discussing an apparent conflict between the Mercantile Amendment Act of Ontario and the Bank Act, said:
Statutory regulations with respect to the form and legal effect, in Ontario, of warehouse receipts and other negotiable documents, which pass the property of goods without delivery, unquestionably relate to property and civil rights in that province; and the objection taken by the appellant to the provisions of the Bank Act would be unanswerable if it could be shewn that, by the Act of 1867, the Parliament of Canada is absolutely debarred from trenching to any extent upon the matters assigned to the provincial legislature by sect. 92. But sect. 91 expressly declares that, "not-withstanding anything in this Act", the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada shall extend to all matters coming within the enumerated classes; which plainly indicates that the legislation of that Parliament, so long as it strictly relates to these matters, is to be of paramount authority.
Here Parliament, under the powers vested in it by head 27 of s. 91, has declared to be criminal, and provided the penalty for, the publishing of false statements, whether written or oral, which are known to be false in a material part with the intent to induce others to purchase securities, and by s. 406 has also rendered criminal an attempt to do so. The offences dealt with in s. 63 in The Securities Act, for the reasons above stated, trespass upon the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament in this field and are accordingly, in my opinion, ultra vires. No one could, of course, suggest that there is any doubt as to the jurisdiction of Parliament in the matter and it is not within the powers of the Legisla­ture to deal with offences of the same nature by penal legislation to supplement or vary the penalties prescribed by the Code.
As the report shows, the main question considered by the Judicial Committee in Lymburn v. Mayland[11] was as to whether the Security Frauds Prevention Act, apart from its criminal provisions, was intra vires, and it is only at the conclusion of the reasons delivered that any mention is made of s. 20 which made it an offence to commit any fraudulent act not punishable under the Criminal Code. Considering the Act as a whole, Lord Atkin said that there was no ground for holding that the Act was a colourable attempt to infringe upon the exclusive legislative power of the Dominion as to criminal law. There is, of course, in the present matter no such contention advanced by the appellant. As to s. 20 the judgment reads (p. 327) :
It is said that this encroaches on the exclusive legislative power of the Dominion as to criminal law. Having regard to the wide definition of "fraudulent act" above referred to, it may well be that this argument is well founded. But so far as the section is invalid it appears to be clearly severable.
This appears to indicate, without deciding the point, that the section in question was beyond provincial powers, a conclusion inconsistent with the arguments addressed to us in this matter on behalf of the respondent.
I have had the advantage of reading, and I agree with, the judgment to be delivered by my brother Cartwright in this matter and would allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and restore the order of Hughes J.
CARTWRIGHT J. (dissenting) :—This appeal is brought, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, from a unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[12], quashing an order of prohibition made by Hughes J. directed to His Worship Magistrate Prentice or such other Justices as might be in Magistrate's Court in the City of Toronto prohibiting them from further proceeding with an informa­tion charging the appellant with offences under The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The information in question contained the following four counts:
(1) That Lyle Francis Smith, formerly of the City of Toronto in the County of York, being a director of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, between the 13th day of January, 1955, and the 13th day of April, 1955, in the County of York and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, was knowingly responsible for the furnishing of false information in a docu­ment, namely a prospectus for Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited dated the 4th day of March, 1955, submitted to the Ontario Securities Commission by Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 38 of The Securities Act, and for which a receipt was issued by the Registrar of the Ontario Securities Commission on. April 12th, 1955, which prospectus was required to be filed pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 38 of The Securities Act, contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, and Amendments thereto.
(2) AND FURTHER that the said LYLE FRANCIS SMITH, being a director of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, between the 12th day of April, 1955, and the 28th day of September, 1955, in the County of York in the Province of Ontario was knowingly responsible for the furnish­ing of false information in a document, namely, an Amendment dated the 8th day of September, 1955, to the prospectus of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited dated the 4th day of March, 1955, submitted to the Ontario Securities Commission pursuant to subsection 9 of Section 38 of The Securities Act, and for which a receipt was issued by the Registrar of the Ontario Securities Commission on the 27th day of September, 1955, which Amendment was required to be filed pursuant to subsection 9 of Section 38 of The Securities Act, contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, and Amendments thereto.
(3) AND FURTHER that the said LYLE FRANCIS SMITH being a director of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, between the 12th day of April, 1955 and the 15th day of October, 1955, in the County of York and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario was knowingly responsible for the furnishing of false information in a document, namely an Amendment dated the 3rd day of October, 1955, to the prospectus of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited dated the 4th day of March, 1955, submitted to the Ontario Securities Commission, pursuant to subsection 9 of Sec­tion 38 of The Securities Act, and for which a receipt was issued by the Registrar of the Ontario Securities Commission on October 14th, 1955, which Amendment was required to be filed pursuant to subsection 9 of Section 38 of The Securities Act, contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351 and Amendments thereto.
(4) AND FURTHER that the said LYLE FRANCIS SMITH, being a director of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, between the 13th day of January, 1955, and the 14th day of February, 1956, in the County of York and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, was knowingly respon­sible for failure to perform certain acts where such failure constituted a violation of subsection 1 of Section 38 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 351, and Amendments thereto, in that the said LYLE FRANCIS SMITH, being a director of Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, between the 13th day of January, 1955, and the 14th day of February, 1956, in the County of York and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, was knowingly responsible for trading by Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, on its own account, in securities issued by a mining company, namely Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited, where such trading was in the course of a primary distribution to the public of such securities, without filing with the Ontario Securities Commission, and without obtaining a receipt therefor from the Registrar of the Ontario Securities Commission, a prospectus containing full, true and plain disclosure relating to the securi­ties issued by the said Canadian All Metals Explorations Limited and setting forth the information required to be given by clauses (i), (j), (o), (q), and (u) of subsection 1 of Section 38 of The Securities Act contrary to Sub-Section 1 of Section 38 and Section 63 of The Securities Act, R.S.O. 1950, chapter 351 and amendments thereto.
Section 38 (1) of the Act, which is referred to in counts (1) and (4) of the information, is as follows:
38(1) No person or company shall trade in any security issued by a mining company either on his or its own account or on behalf of any other person or company where such trade would be in the course of a primary distribution to the public of such security until there has been filed with the Commission a prospectus, and a receipt therefor obtained from the registrar, which prospectus shall be dated and signed by every person who is, at the time of filing, a director or promoter of the mining company issuing the security or an underwriter or optionee of such security, and which prospectus shall contain a full, true and plain disclosure relating to the security issued and shall set forth.
(There follow 23 clauses lettered from (a) to (w), several of which contain sub-clauses, setting out in detail the mat­ters required to be disclosed)
Clauses (i), (j), (o), (q) and (u), which are referred to in count (4) of the information are as follows:
(i) the shares sold for cash to date tabulated under each class of shares as follows:
(i) the number of shares sold, separately listed as to price,
(ii) the total cash received for the shares sold, and
(iii) the commissions paid on the sale of the shares;
(j) the particulars of securities, other than shares, sold for cash to date as follows:
(i) the securities sold,
(ii) the total cash received for the securities sold, and
(iii) the commissions paid on the sale of the securities;
(o) the details of future development and exploration plans of the management showing how it is proposed to expend the proceeds from current sales of securities;
(q) the amount and general description of any indebtedness to be created or assumed, which is not shown in a balance sheet filed with the Commission, and also particulars of the security, if any, given or to be given for such indebtedness;
(u) any other material facts not disclosed in the foregoing; Section 38(9) of the Act, which is referred to in counts (2) and (3) of the information, is as follows:
(9) Where a change occurs during the period of primary distribution to the public in any material fact contained in any prospectus, financial statement or report accepted for filing under this section, which is of such a nature as to render such prospectus, financial statement or report misleading, an amended prospectus, financial statement or report shall be filed within twenty days from the date the change occurs but, subject to any direction of the Commission, the amended prospectus shall be required to be signed only by the signatories to the original prospectus and where any change in directors, promoters, underwriters or optionees has occurred since the filing of the original prospectus the decision of the Commission as to who shall be required to sign the amended prospectus or as to any like matter shall be final.
Section 63 of the Act, which is referred to in all of the counts, is set out in the reasons of the Chief Justice.
It is clear that each count charges an offence created by the Act, that in count (1) by the combined effect of s. 38(1) and s. 63(1) (d), those in counts (2) and (3) by the com­bined effect of s. 38(9) and s. 63(1) (d), and that in count (4) by the combined effect of s. 38(1) and s. 63(1)(e); and the questions are (i) whether, in the absence of con­flicting legislation by Parliament, it is within the power of the Legislature to create these offences, and (ii) whether the provisions creating them are so far in conflict with existing provisions of the Criminal Code as to be inoperative. The question whether the provisions of the Act other than those mentioned in this paragraph are intra vires of the legislature arises only in connection with Mr. Thomson's argument that certain provisions of s. 63 other than those contained in s. 63(1) (d) and (e) are ultra vires and that the section is inseverable.
It was decided in Rex v. Nat Bell Liquors[13], that where a provincial Act imposes penalties for enforcing a law of the Province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in s. 92 of the British North America Act, proceedings to enforce such penalties are proceedings in a criminal cause in the sense in which the word "criminal" is used in what is now s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act, although the provincial Act creating the offence is not legislation in relation to "the criminal law" in the sense in which that term is used in head 27 of s. 91