Harrison v Carswell
Harrison v Carswell (1975),  2 S.C.R. 200 is a famous pre-Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court denied the right to protest as a freedom of expression. Facts. Sophie Carswell, employee of one of the businesses located in the Polo Park Shopping Centre (Winnipeg, MB), was participating in a strike and picketing in front of her place of work, when the manager of said shopping centre, Peter Harrison, requested that she and the other picketers leave the area or they would be charged with trespass under the "Petty Trespasses Act" of  Manitoba (1970). Carswell continued to picket, and was therefore charged with trespassing. She was initially convicted by the County Court, but then this judgment was reversed by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Harrison then asked for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the case was heard by this Court in 1976. Opinion of the Court. The Court held that there was no right of a store employee to protest in a shopping centre when it was against the wishes of the centre. The centre was held to be sufficiently under the control of the owner and did not  constitute a public place, thus the owner had the right to protect the private property under trespass. The decision heavily relies on a case also previously decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, "Peters v The Queen" (1971), 17 DLR (3d) 128. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the owner of a shopping mall had "sufficient control or possession of the common areas" of the mall so as to be able to claim that the picketers in the "Peters" case were in fact trespassing. As the "Peters" case could not sufficiently be distinguished from the Harrison case, Justice  Dickson states, it could not be decided otherwise. In fact, deciding otherwise might have raised questions as to "the limits of judicial function". The decision therefore tries to address three separate issues: Justice Dickson and the majority of the Court found that the two cases were indistinguishable and, as the first one recognized to the owner the right to invoke trespass, the Court was compelled to make a similar decision in the "Harrison" case. The Court, therefore, refused to read an exception in the existing statute ("The Petty Trespasses Act" of Manitoba) for a lawful activity (in this case, striking ), as such exception should be decided by the Legislature and not by the Court. Dissent. In one of his most famous dissents, Chief Justice Laskin held that the centre was a public place as the public had free access to the place. Laskin also argues for a view of property rights balanced by the rights of others. He also distinguishes Harrison from the Peters case based on the fact that, in this case, the appellant had an "interest sanctioned by law, in pursuing legitimate claims against her employer". Additionally, he calls for a more reasoned adoption of "stare decisis" by  the Supreme Court of Canada. This would allow the Court to depart from some of its previous decisions as it comes to realize that social conditions are changing: Aftermath. In Post-Charter Canada the question remains unresolved. The Court's multiple reasons in "Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada"  1 SCR 139 leave things particularly ambiguous. Shortly after the decision the Manitoba government amended "The Petty Trespasses Act" to allow picketing and other forms of communication of "true statements" on mall property. The legislation recognizes malls as public spaces where arbitrary withdrawal is no longer lawful on  behalf of mall owners.