Case-by-case approach was not antithetical to criminal law jurisdiction

MCG Inc. was company operating in field of home development, in which it bought large areas of land, subdivided land, developed homes and resold them. MCG Inc.’s lands were subject to emergency order under Species at Risk Act, where it was determined necessary to protect specifies of frog. MCG Inc. brought application to set aside emergency order. Application dismissed. Practical object and effect of subparagraph 80 (4) (c) (ii) of Act is to provide Governor in Council with power to intervene in emergency when species at risk was about to suffer harm that could jeopardize its survival or recovery. There was real link between apprehended prejudice and need to repress sudden disappearance of species in danger because of human activity or quality of environment. There was no evidence in this case that Parliament, when it adopted section 80 (4) (c) (ii) of Act, had ulterior motive or that it was attempting to unjustifiably encroach on jurisdictions assigned to provinces. Latitude allowed Governor in Council to carefully adapt prohibited activity according to particularities of species within its habitat and this case-by-case approach was not antithetical to criminal law jurisdiction.

Groupe Maison Candiac inc. c. Canada (Procureur général) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 3416, 2018 CarswellNat 4437, 2018 FC 643, 2018 CF 643, René LeBlanc J. (F.C.).