The Okanagan wine industry is lamenting a Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) decision after it upheld laws limiting the amount of alcohol that can be taken between provinces.
The unanimous ruling indicated that provincial trade barriers are legal because the constitution “does not impose absolute free trade across Canada.”
“The court’s ruling today is disappointing for the B.C. wine industry,” said Miles Prodan President & CEO of the British Columbia Wine Institute.
He said the industry association will continue to advocate for the removal of barriers to “allow winery direct shipping to customers across Canada.”
President of the Canadian Vintners Association, Dan Paszkowski, called it a missed opportunity.
“Removing restrictions would have opened the door to allowing consumers to order wine for direct delivery to their home from any Canadian winery located in any province,” he said.
A coalition of small Okanagan wineries intervened in the case. They included Painted Rock, 50th Parallel Estate, Okanagan Crush Pad, Noble Ridge and Liquidity Wines.
Winemakers said it’s easier to ship their wine to the U.S. than it is to provinces like Ontario.
Shea Coulson, counsel for the five winery owners, said the ruling should be viewed in two parts and the section dealing with protectionism is actually “very helpful.”
Coulson said that the high court ruled that a protectionist law with the purpose of creating an interprovincial trade barrier isn’t constitutional.
WATCH BELOW: Free the Beer’ case now before Supreme Court
“What the court says is that any law that creates a tariff or something functionally like a tariff… that increases the costs of a good as it crosses the provincial border, and if the primary purpose of the law or policy that’s being challenged is to create a barrier to crossing a provincial border, then the law is unconstitutional,” Coulson said.
He said he hopes provinces like Ontario will take a hard look at the 80-page ruling and reconsider its policies.
The high court ruling came after a New Brunswick man’s beer run to Quebec in 2012 sparked a constitutional question over cross-border liquor sales.
The ruling affirmed the constitutionality of a New Brunswick law limiting the possession of alcohol not purchased through the province’s liquor stores.
The unanimous decision effectively preserves the current trade regime, in which provinces have the power to enact laws that restrict commerce if there is another overriding purpose — in this case, the desire to control the supply of alcohol within New Brunswick.
Comeau was fined nearly $300 in 2012 after buying 14 cases of beer and three bottles of alcohol in Quebec.
-With files from the Canadian Press