¹ Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was granted on 6 May 2004. The appeal was dismissed from the bench: 2005 SCC 10 (18 March 2005). The English version of the reasons of LeBel J. for the court was as follows:

The appellant has not shown that this Court should intervene to reverse the judgments of the courts below. Based on the constitutional principles governing the division of legislative powers, the impugned regulatory provision is within the limits of the provinces’ legislative authority over local trade. Also, the provision respecting the colour of margarine was authorized by the enabling legislation, the words of which are clear. Furthermore, the statutory interpretation arguments drawn by the appellant from provincial and international trade agreements have no effect on the validity of this provision. Finally, the appellant’s freedom of expression is not compromised in light of the scope this Court has previously attributed to that fundamental freedom. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed without costs.

² R.R.Q. 1981, c. P–30 r 15.

³ R.S.Q. c. P–30.

⁴ [1994] Can. T.S. no. 2.

⁵ (1994) 33 I-L.M. 114.

⁶ At the time of writing, the agreement was available at: <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inait-aci.nsf/en/i100021e.html>.

⁷ R.S.Q. c. M-35.2.

⁸ R.S.Q. c.-M-35.H.

⁹ UL Canada Inc. v. Quebec at para. 76. This is only true, of course, if that treaty in question is in force when the state ratifies it.

¹⁰ Ibid, at para. 76.

¹¹ Ibid, at para. 77, citing Re Vancouver Island Railway, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 41 and Cree Regional Authority v. Canada, [1991] 3 F.C. 533 (CA).

¹² UL Canada Inc. v. Quebec at para. 80.

¹³ Ibid, at para. 81

¹⁴ Ibid, at para. 82.

¹⁵ See Re Vancouver Island Railway, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 41 at 109.

¹⁶ See Sullivan, R., Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd ed. (Markham, ON: Butterworths, 1994) at 273–5.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Section 2 of the Treaties Act, as amended by S.Q 2002, c. 8, s. 13, now provides: “The object of this Act is to implement the following agreements,” namely the NAFTA, the WTO Agreement, and two others. Nevertheless, it is very hard to see how the remaining ten sections of this act, even as amended, implement these trade treaties in any significant way in Quebec law. By contrast, the AIT Act (which has not been amended) clearly does amend Quebec legislation in implementation of the Agreement on Internal Trade.

¹⁸ R.S.C. 1985, c. H-5.

¹⁹ L.R.C. 1985, c. S-18.

²⁰ Parent au para. 20.

²¹ Voir ibid. aux paras. 8 et 14.

²² Ibid. au para. 25.

²³ Ibid. aux paras. 36–37.

²⁴ Voir Ibid. aux paras. 38–40; Woov. Singapore Airlines Limited and Civil Aeronautics Administration, [2003] S.G.H.C. 190.

²⁵ Voir Parent aux paras. 42–46.

²⁶ Ibid. au para. 51.

²⁷ Ibid. au para. 53.

²⁸ (1936) 165 L.N.T.S. 19. Les critères sont: (a) une population permanente; (b) un territoire défini; (c) un gouvernement; et (d) la capacité d’entrer en relation avec les autres Etats. La juge ignore que le Canada n’a pas adhéré à cette convention. Pourtant, ces critères font parti du droit coutumier.

²⁹ Parent aux paras. 54–55.

³⁰ Ibid. au para. 55.

³¹ Ibid. aux paras. 56–59.

³² An appeal from this judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on 11 January 2005 (Docket: C41169). The court of appeal’s reasons will be considered in the next edition of the Canadian Yearbook of international Law.

³³ [1994] Can. T.S. no 2.

³⁴ R.S.O. 1990, c. I-9. The first paragraph of Chilcott J.’s reasons, describing the application by quoting from Mexico’s pleadings, must be disregarded. Mexico claimed to rely on section 34 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act (which does not exist) and described the award as having been made “in Ot-tawa, Ontario at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Additional Facilities)” (which also does not exist; the ICSID is located in Washington, DC; the Additional Facilities are not facilities in the physical sense but a set of rules administered by the ICSID).

³⁵ See para. 187 of the tribunal’s award, quoted in Mexico v. Karpa at para. 70.

³⁶ Ibid, at paras. 9–10, 52.

³⁷ Ibid, at para. 53; see also para. 43.

³⁸ Ibid, at paras. 77–80.

³⁹ Ibid, at paras. 84–5.

⁴⁰ [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982.

⁴¹ Mexico v. Karpa at para. 13.

⁴² Ibid, at paras. 68–9; see also para. 45.

⁴³ Ibid, at para. 77.

⁴⁴ Ibid, at paras. 14–16.

⁴⁵ Ibid, at paras. 26–38.

⁴⁶ Ibid, at paras. 42–43.

⁴⁷ Ibid, at para. 87, quoting Corporación Transnacional de Inversiones SA de CVv. STET International SpA (1999) 45 O.R. (3d) 183, aff d 49 O.R. (3d) 414 (CA).

⁴⁸ Mexico v. Karpa at para. 95.

⁴⁹ [1994] Can. T.S. no 2.

⁵⁰ Adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on 21 June 1985.

⁵¹ R.S.C. 1985, c 17 (2nd Supp) as amended.

⁵² [Emphasis removed]. (The text uses italics to indicate deviations from the text of the UNCITRAL Model Law.)

⁵³ SD Myers at paras. 25–26.

⁵⁴ Ibid, at para. 39; see generally paras. 35–42.

⁵⁵ Ibid, at para. 42.

⁵⁶ Ibid, at para. 39.

⁵⁷ Ibid, at para. 45.

⁵⁸ Ibid, at paras. 47–54.

⁵⁹ Ibid, at paras. 55–6.

⁶⁰ Ibid, at paras. 62–70.

⁶¹ Ibid, at para. 71.

⁶² Ibid, at paras. 72–4.

⁶³ Legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law has been enacted in Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bermuda, Bulgaria, China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macau Special Administrative Region), Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom (Scotland), the United States (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Oregon, and Texas), Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Furthermore, Article 34 of the Model Law closely resembles Article V of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards [1986] Can. T.S. no 43, a treaty with over 100 states parties.

⁶⁴ Stag Line Ltd. v. Foscolo, Mango & Co. Ltd. [1932] A.C. 328 at 350.

⁶⁵ R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

⁶⁶ Canadian Foundation at paras. 5–6.

⁶⁷ See R. v. Malmo-Levine, [3003] 3 S.C.R. 571 at para. 113.

⁶⁸ [1992] Can. T.S. no. 3 art. 3(1).

⁶⁹ [1982] Can. T.S. no. 31 arts 5(b) and 16(1) (d).

⁷⁰ Canadian Foundation at paras. 8–11.

⁷¹ Ibid, at paras. 21–5.

⁷² Ibid, at para. 30.

⁷³ [1976] Can. T.S. no. 47.

⁷⁴ Canadian Foundation at paras. 26–34.

⁷⁵ Ibid. at paras. 36–9.

⁷⁶ Ibid, at para. 40.

⁷⁷ Ibid, at paras. 45–6.

⁷⁸ Ibid, at paras. 47–9.

⁷⁹ [1999] 1 S.C.R.497.

⁸⁰ See Canadian Foundation at paras. 50–68.

⁸¹ Ibid, at paras. 175–92, especially paras. 186–8.

⁸² Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, [2002] O.T.C. 297. SIA section 3(2) requires courts to give effect to any immunity a foreign state enjoys under the act notwithstanding that the state has failed to take any step in the proceedings.

⁸³ R.S.C. 1985, c S-18.

⁸⁴ Bouzari at para. 28.

⁸⁵ Ibid, at para. 33.

⁸⁶ Ibid, at paras. 36–7.

⁸⁷ [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50.

⁸⁸ Bouzari at paras. 48–54.

⁸⁹ Ibid, at para. 63.

⁹⁰ Ibid, at para. 64.

⁹¹ Ibid, at para. 65.

⁹² Ibid, at para. 66.

⁹³ [1987] Can. T.S. no. 36.

⁹⁴ Bouzari at paras. 69–75.

⁹⁵ [1980] Can. T.S. no. 37.

⁹⁶ Bouzari at paras. 77–9.

⁹⁷ [1976] Can. T.S. no. 47.

⁹⁸ Bouzari at para. 83.

⁹⁹ Ibid, at para. 86.

¹⁰⁰ It is remarkable (and heartening) that the Court of Appeal, the court below, and all participants in the appeal seem to disregard the Supreme Court of Canada’s bewildering conclusion in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 SCR 3 at para. 65, that the prohibition on torture is only an “emerging” peremptory norm that “cannot easily be derogated from.”

¹⁰¹ Bouzari at para. 90.

¹⁰² Ibid, at para. 95.

¹⁰³ Ibid, at paras, 99–101.

¹⁰⁴ See Lord Advocate’s Reference No. ι of 2000 2001 S.L.T. 507; and Ert, G. van, “The Admissibility of International Legal Evidence” (2005) 84 Can. Bar Rev. 31.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See Re Canada Labour Code, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50 at 73–4 per La Forest J.

¹⁰⁶ R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 as amended.

¹⁰⁷ See SOCAN v. CA/P at paras. 48-50.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid, at para. 43.

¹⁰⁹ WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/94.

¹¹⁰ WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/95.

¹¹¹ See, for example, Industry Canada, Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act, October 2002, available at <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incrp-prda.nsf/en/rp00863e.html> at ch. 3B:

Canada signed both WIPO treaties in 1997 but has yet to ratify them. The Government of Canada is committed to bringing the Copyright Act in conformity with the WCT and WPPT once the issues involved are thoroughly analyzed and appropriately consulted upon. Ultimately, the purpose of ratification is to ensure that Canadian rights holders will benefit from copyright protection recognized in all treaty countries. Canada’s obligations under these treaties could not be met without amending the Copyright Act.

¹¹² SOCAN v. CA/P at para. 43.

¹¹³ Ibid, at para. 54, quoting Tolofson v.Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1032 at 1051. See also para. 55.

¹¹⁴ SOCAN v. CAIP at para. 56.

¹¹⁵ Ibid, at para. 57.

¹¹⁶ Ibid, at paras. 60–1.

¹¹⁷ Ibid, at para. 63.

¹¹⁸ Article 8 reads in part:

[A] uthors of literary and artístic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

¹¹⁹ SOCAN v. CAIP at para. 68.

¹²⁰ Ibid, at para. 78.

¹²¹ Ibid, at para. 87.

¹²² Ibid, at para. 89.

¹²³ Ibid, at para. 92.

¹²⁴ Ibid, at para. 97.

¹²⁵ Ibid, at paras. 104–12.

¹²⁶ Ibid, at para. 113–19.

¹²⁷ Ibid, at paras. 120–8.

¹²⁸ Ibid, at para. 144.

¹²⁹ Ibid, at para. 147.

¹³⁰ 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

¹³¹ SOCAN v. CAIP at para. 149.

¹³² Ibid, at para. 152.

¹³³ It is regrettable that the attorney-general for Canada did not intervene to present the government’s views on the questions before the court, particularly that of the proper interpretive weight to be given to a signed but unratified treaty.

¹³⁴ [1980] Can. T.S. no. 37. See Freeman, M. and Ert, G. van, International Human Rights Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2004) at 157.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ For example, Singh v. Minister of Immigration and Employment, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; Re Ng Extradition, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858; Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; USA v. Burns, [2001] S.C.R. 283; and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, and so on.