Border booze case goes before New Brunswick Court of Appeal

New Brunswick's highest court has reserved decision on whether it should hear the border booze caseinstead of the Court of Queen's Bench.

Court of AppealJustice MargaretLarleedid not indicate when she would deliver her ruling, butdid say it can be expected shortly.

Lawyers representing Gerard Comeauand the attorney general's office both argued before Larlee Thursday that the Court of Appeal is the appropriate court to hear the matterbecause it's of national importance.

• New Brunswick judge throws out cross-border booze limits
• New Brunswick appeals border booze court ruling

Comeauwas charged with bringing too much alcohol and wine into New Brunswick from Quebec in October2012.

With help from the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, the retired NB Power lineman fromTracadiemounted a constitutional defence, arguing the section of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act that limits how much alcohol can be brought into the province by an individual is unconstitutional.

Ian Blue, who representsComeau, also argued Thursday that potentially putting the case through two appeal courts would be a waste of money and judicial resources.

'He feels what he did was right'

Blueadded his clientwould fight to uphold the provincial court's decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

"[Comeau] feels that what he did was right. He feels what he did is what many other people do regularly," said Blue.

"And I wouldn't be surprised if JudgeLeBlanchimself went across the border to buy beer."

In a provincial court decision on April 29, Judge RonaldLeBlancacquittedComeau, concluding the Fathers of Confederation intendedinterprovincialfree trade.

Comeauhad brought 14 cases of beer and three bottles of alcohol into the province. New Brunswick's personal importation limit under the Liquor Control Act regulations is 12 pints of beer or one bottle of alcohol or wine.

The appeal: What you need to know

The provincial government appealed the case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal on May 27.

The attorney general's office argues LeBlanc made legal errors pertaining to Section 121 of the Constitution Act and Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act.

Section 121 of the Constitution Act states: "All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any of the provinces shall, and from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces."

The province alleges LeBlanc erred in law with his legal interpretation of Section 121 of the Constitution Act in the following ways:

• By interpreting the section to have a meaning contrary to that determined by prior decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which are binding on him.
• By concluding without evidence that previous decisions of the Supreme Court were rendered without the benefit of evidence before him.
• By finding that placing Section 121 in the category of Revenues, Debts, Assets and Taxation in the Constitution Act is of no legal consequence to the determination of its meaning.
• By giving Section 121 a meaning that is internally inconsistent and conflicts with Sections 91, 92, and 94 of the Constitution Act.
• By finding Section 121 was drafted as an absolute free trade provision that constitutionally must be rigorously interpreted as such today.

The province also contends the trial judge made four errors in law pertaining to Section 134 of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act.

Before Comeau's provincial court trial began in August 2015,the Canadian Constitution Foundation stated it expected the case to eventually end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appeal hearing is expected to proceed once it's determined whether the Court of Appeal will hear the case.