R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd: Case Summary and Analysis

This article provides a detailed summary and analysis of the R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd case, which involved the dumping of wood waste product in Canadian waters and raised questions about federal and parliamentary legislative jurisdiction. The article covers the citation, parties involved, procedural history, issues, majority decision, and outcome of the case.

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd 1
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd
Name:
Tutor:
Institution:
Course:
City:
Date:

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd 2
Citation
Title: R. verses Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited
Name of the court: Supreme Court of Canada
Year: march 24, 1988
Reference no: 1 S.C.R 401
File no: 18526
Parties
Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent: Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited
Interveners: The Attorneys General of British Columbia and Quebec
Justice(s): Beetz, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, McIntyre, Dickson C.J., La Forest JJ.
Facts
The respondent was taken to court by the appellant because of dumping of wood waste
product on the waters that goes directly to the ocean of pacific. It brings into arise an issue of
who should govern and control on waters of Canada, is it under the federal legistrative or
parliament legistrative.crown zellerbach Canada limited claims he had dumping permission
from the minister of environment .

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd 3
Procedural history
The case had been presented before two courts earlier. The provincial court and the court
of appeal. It was decided that the respondent crown zellerbach Canada limited had not
committed any criminal offence by dumping of wood waste product in the waters of Canada. He
had consent from the minister of environment. All the due process of acquiring the permission
from the minister was followed and the due amount paid by the respondent. The wood waste did
not have effect on the marine life nor the navigation in the ocean. The court also ruled that
controlling and management of waters of Canada should be done by federal legistrative and not
the parliament.
Issues
The key issues in this case were whether regulating and prevention of dumping of
substances in the sea lie under federal legislative jurisdiction, whether it is legal for federal
power to regulate and prevent marine pollution to extend to regulation of provincial marine
waters, meaning of the word sea and the waters covered in the ‘sea”.
Majority decision
Justices Dickson C.J., Wilson, McIntyre and Le Dain were in favor of the ruling. Lamer, La
forest and Beetz were the minority who were dissented. The majority justices upheld decisions
the provincial court and the court of appeal. “Section 4(1) of the Act was ultra vires to parliament
(Foster, R. and SPRED A., 2016). That the ocean Dumping Regulation Act was alarmed with the
discarding substances which posed harm on the marine environment and was focused to the
control of aquatic pollution. The federal legislative jurisdiction as provided in section 91(12) of
the Constitution Act, 1867 in accordance to seacoast and inland fisheries, was not adequate by

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd 4
itself to back up the constitutional legitimacy of section 4(1) of the Act. The impact on marine
life was as a result of dumping waste in the waters. That was concisely one of the interests of the
Act. However, it was not the sole pollution effect with which the Act was had interest in. The
minority argued that the legislature respecting peace, order and quality governance might
legislate for the pollution control in areas of the sea outside the provincial jurisdiction (Davies,
R. and Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, 2017). Parliament is not restrained to amending activities
taking place within such sectors.
Disposition/outcome
The supreme court upheld both the lower courts validity of the Ocean Dumping Act
finding that every matter in relation to polluting water pollution lie within the exclusive authority
of the national government owing to the federal concern branch of the "peace, order, and good
governance" clause. The court decide in favor of the respondent (R.) v. Crown Zellerbach
Canada Limited.
Concurring opinion
Section 4(1) of the Ocean Dumping Regulation Act was ultra vires Parliament (Hostetler,
R., et. al., 2012). The ruling was justified since it concisely set who should regulate the ocean
pollution without duplication of functions of the government agencies.
Importance of the case
The case clearly stated on who should regulate the waters of Canada and to what level
and substances are covered on the water pollution. The case brings an end to duplication of
responsibilities in the arms government.

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd 5
Reference List
Hostetler, R.E., James River Corp of Nevada, 2012. High bulk papermaking system. U.S. Patent
4,356,059.
Wallace, H.S. and Taylor, R.C., HOPPLE PLASTICS Inc, 2018. Shipping tray for fruit. U.S.
Patent 4,101,049.
Davies, R.D., Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, 2017. Method of determining the moisture content
of thin porous materials. U.S. Patent 3,350,789.
Foster, R.D., SPRED A BAG Inc, 2016. Dispensing bag. U.S. Patent 4,576,316.