View source for R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd

{{Short description|1982 Supreme Court of Canada decision}}
{{SCCInfoBox
  |case-name=R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd
  |full-case-name=Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v Big M Drug Mart Ltd
  |heard-date=March 6–7, 1984
  |decided-date=April 24, 1985
  |citations=[1985] 1 SCR 295, 18 DLR (4th) 321, 3 WWR 481, 18 CCC (3d) 385, 37 Alta LR (2d) 97
  |docket=18125
  |history=Judgment for the defendant in the [[Court of Appeal of Alberta]]
  |ruling= Appeal dismissed
  |ratio=  The ''Lord's Day Act'' violates section 2 of the ''Charter'' and is therefore invalid.
  |SCC=1982-1984
  |Majority=Dickson (paras 1–151)
  |JoinMajority=Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, and Lamer
  |Concurrence=Wilson (paras 152–164)
  |NotParticipating=Laskin, Ritchie, and Estey
  |LawsApplied=
}}
'''''R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd'''''<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd|year=1985|format=CanLII|num=69|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[1985] 1 SCR 295|date=1985-04-24|courtname=auto|juris=}}</ref> ''(Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v Big M Drug Mart Ltd)'' is a [[landmark case|landmark decision]] by [[Supreme Court of Canada]] where the Court struck down the federal ''[[Lord's Day Act (Canada)|Lord's Day Act]]'' for violating [[Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 2]] of the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]''. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section two.

== Background ==

In 1978, Nancy Lockhart and Michael Lasrado opened Big M Drug Mart, a {{convert|20000|sqfoot|sqm}} [[supermarket]] in the [[Forest Lawn, Calgary|Forest Lawn]] community in [[Calgary]].<ref name="CBC_2024-12-29">{{cite news |last1=Dryden |first1=Joel |last2=Dempster |first2=Allison |title=Shopping on Sundays was illegal until this Calgary drug mart fought a $40 fine to the Supreme Court |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-sunday-shopping-tim-boyle-nancy-lockhart-1.7417773 |access-date=February 25, 2025 |work=[[CBC News]] |date=December 29, 2024 |location=Calgary}}</ref> Big M and other stores remained open on Sundays despite the prohibition in the ''Lord's Day Act'' as revenue exceeded the small fines of between $15–$40 (${{Inflation|CA|15|1978}}–${{Inflation|CA|40|1978}} in {{Inflation/year|CA}}).<ref name="CBC_2024-12-29"/>

On Sunday, May 30, 1982, [[Calgary Police Service|Calgary police officers]] entered Big M Drug Mart and observed the sale of groceries, plastic cups, and a bicycle lock to customers in contravention of the federal ''Lord's Day Act''.<ref name="1983ABCA268_p2">{{cite CanLII|litigants=R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd|courtname=auto|year=1983|court=ABCA|num=268|pinpoint=para 2}}</ref> At the [[Provincial Court of Alberta]], Justice Brian Stevenson<ref name="CalgaryHerald_2024-07-09">{{cite news |last1=Martin |first1=Kevin |title=Calgary's legal community gathers to celebrate judge's 50th anniversary on the bench |url=https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-judge-brian-stevenson-celebrated-50-years |access-date=February 25, 2025 |work=[[Calgary Herald]] |date=July 9, 2024}}</ref> acquitted Big M Drug Mart and found the legislation unconstitutional under section 2 of the Charter, striking down section 4 of the ''Lord's Day Act''.<ref name="1983CanLII3630_p78">{{cite CanLII|litigants=R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd|court=abpc|courtname=auto|year=1983|format=Canlii|num=3630|pinpoint=78}}</ref> At the [[Alberta Court of Appeal]], the 3—2 majority written by Justice [[James Herbert Laycraft]] and concurred with by Justices [[Milt Harradence]] and [[William Stevenson (judge)|William Stevenson]] upheld the Provincial Court's acquittal.<ref name="1983ABCA268">{{cite CanLII|litigants=R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd|courtname=auto|year=1983|court=ABCA|num=268|pinpoint=}}</ref> The dissent by Justice R. Paul Belzil and concurred with by Chief Justice [[William A. McGillivray]] relied on the 1963 Supreme Court of Canada judgement in ''Robertson and Rosetanni'',<ref name="1963canlii17">{{cite CanLII|litigants=Robertson and Rosetanni v The Queen|courtname=auto|court=scc|year=1963|format=canlii|num=17|parallelcite=[1963] SCR 651|pinpoint=}}</ref> finding section 4 of the ''Lord's Day Act'' did not violate the ''[[Canadian Bill of Rights]]''.<ref name="1983ABCA268"/>

The constitutional question put before the Court was whether the Act infringed the right to [[freedom of conscience]] and [[freedom of religion|religion]],  if so, whether it is justified under [[section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 1]] of the ''Charter'', and whether the Act was ''[[intra vires]]'' ("within") Parliament's criminal power under section 91(27) of the ''[[Constitution Act, 1867]]''.

== Ruling ==
The Supreme Court ruled that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of section 2 of the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]'', deciding that there was no true [[secular]] basis for the legislation and its only purpose was, in effect, to establish a state [[religion|religious]]-based requirement, and was therefore invalid. The drug store's victory was made possible by [[Section Fifty-two of the Constitution Act, 1982|section 52]] of the ''[[Constitution Act, 1982]]'', which provides that unconstitutional laws can be found invalid, as opposed to [[Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 24 of the ''Charter'']], which is for those whose rights are violated. In as much as a corporation is not a natural person, it cannot have a religion and therefore the ''corporation'''s religious freedom was not violated.<ref>{{cite book |first=Peter W. |last=Hogg |title=Constitutional Law of Canada, 2003 Student Ed. |location=Toronto, Ontario |publisher=Thomson Canada Limited |year=2003 |pages=742–743}}</ref>

In that case, Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote that this freedom at least includes freedom of religious speech, including "the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination." Freedom of religion would also prohibit imposing religious requirements.

The ''Lord's Day Act'' was the first law in ''Charter'' jurisprudence to be struck down in its entirety, and some of the [[Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 1]] analysis in the decision played a role in developing the "[[Oakes test]]" in the later case ''[[R v Oakes]]''.

==See also==
* [[List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Dickson Court)]]
*''[[R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd]]'' (1986) - later Sunday closing law decision
* ''[[McGowan v. Maryland]]'' (1961) - Contrary US Supreme Court decision on blue laws, holding that laws originally passed for religious reasons may nonetheless be constitutional if they can be shown to fulfill a secular purpose

== References ==
<!-- Dead note "CJ": Laskin had stepped down in mid-March due to ill health and took no part in the case. -->
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Berger |first1=Benjamin L. |title=Moral Judgment, Criminal Law and the Constitutional Protection of Religion |journal=The Supreme Court Law Review |date=2008 |volume=40 |pages=513–552 |doi=10.60082/2563-8505.1124 |id=[https://canlii.ca/t/ssj3 2008 CanLIIDocs 424]|doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book |last1=Cameron |first1=Jamie |editor1-last=Newman |editor1-first=Dwight |editor2-last=Ross |editor2-first=Derek B.M. |editor3-last=Mix-Ross |editor3-first=Sarah E. |editor4-last=Bird |editor4-first=Brian |title=The forgotten fundamental freedoms of the Charter |date=2020 |publisher=LexisNexis |location=Toronto |isbn=978-0-433-50933-2 |chapter=Big M’s Forgotten Legacy of Freedom}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Faulds |first1=P. Jonathan |title=Writing on a Blank Slate: The Alberta Court of Appeal's Early Charter Cases |journal=Alberta Law Review |date=2014 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=111–126 |id=[https://canlii.ca/t/7p0 2014 CanLIIDocs 33]}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Gold |first1=Marc |author1-link=Marc Gold |title=The Rhetoric of Rights: The Supreme Court and the Charter |journal=Osgoode Hall Law Journal |date=1987 |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=375–410 |doi=10.60082/2817-5069.1843 |id=[https://canlii.ca/t/7njf2 1987 CanLIIDocs 434]|doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book |last1=Moon |first1=Richard |editor1-last=Babie |editor1-first=Paul T. |editor2-last=Barker |editor2-first=Renae |editor3-last=Foster |editor3-first=Neil |title=Law and religion in the Commonwealth: the evolution of case law |date=2022 |publisher=Hart Publishing |location=London |isbn=978-1-5099-5017-1 |chapter=
R v Big M Drug Mart: The Unavoidable Pragmatism of Religious Freedom}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
*{{lexum-scc2|1985|1|295|69}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Big M Drug Mart Ltd.}}
[[Category:Section Two Charter case law|Big M Drug Mart Ltd.]]
[[Category:Canadian freedom of religion case law|Big M Drug Mart Ltd.]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases|Big M Drug Mart Ltd.]]
[[Category:1985 in Canadian case law|Big M Drug Mart Ltd.]]
[[Category:Sunday shopping]]
[[Category:1980s in Calgary]]