Roncarelli v. Duplessis
Encyclopedia
Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, was a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
where the Court held that Maurice Duplessis
, the premier of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by revoking the liquor licence of a Jehovah's Witness. Justice Rand wrote in his often-quoted reasons that the unwritten constitutional principle of the "rule of law
" meant no public official was above the law, that is, they could neither suspend it or dispense it. Though he had the authority to do this by the law granting him the discretion, he overstepped the reasons why he held this. It is held as an example of a ruling showing we need, and have, rules governing the granting of authority.
security for those who had been arrested by the municipal government.
At the time, sometimes violent tension between the dominant Roman Catholic community and the Jehovah's Witness community saw increasing arrests of Jehovah's Witness members for selling copies of their magazines without the necessary permits under city by-laws.
Roncarelli furnished bail for over 375 Jehovah's Witness members in three years and many were arrested multiple times.
The Chief Prosecutor of the city, Oscar Gagnon, overwhelmed by the number of Witnesses being arrested and then set free by Roncarelli's intervention, contacted the Premier who spoke to Edouard Archambault, Chairman of the Quebec Liquor Commission. Roncarelli's liquor licence was subsequently revoked. Extensive testimony showed the government actors believed Roncarelli was disrupting the court system, causing civil disorder, and was therefore not entitled to the liquor licence. Roncarelli was told that he was “forever” barred from holding a liquor licence and that this action was a warning to others that they would similarly be stripped of provincial “privileges” if they persisted in their activities related to the Witnesses.
Roncarelli received news of the revocation in December 1946, and while he tried to keep his business open without the licence, it was not profitable and he put it up for sale within six months. Consequently, he brought an action against Duplessis for $118,741 in damages.
At trial, the Québec Court of Queen's Bench found in favour of Roncarelli, however it was overturned on appeal.
The six judges who sided with Roncarelli used different legal reasoning to reach their decision. Three judges wrote that Duplessis had ordered the cancellation which was outside his authority as premier; two judges stated that although Duplessis had the power to order the cancellation, he had done so in bad faith; and the sixth judge concluded the premier was not entitled to immunity as a public official.
Roncarelli was awarded $33,123.53 in damages, a fraction of his claim, plus costs in the Court of Queen's Bench and the Supreme Court of Canada. Roncarelli's son, however, maintained that it was a significant moral victory in his father's struggle against the system.
Roncarelli's legal counsel throughout was A.L. Stein and Professor Frank Scott
.
Duplessis died shortly after the verdict.
The court’s francophone judges supported Duplessis, and had done so in other cases of abuse of power by the government of Duplessis. Two were sons of previous premiers of Quebec.http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/930107--is-eating-people-wrong
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
where the Court held that Maurice Duplessis
Maurice Duplessis
Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis served as the 16th Premier of the Canadian province of Quebec from 1936 to 1939 and 1944 to 1959. A founder and leader of the highly conservative Union Nationale party, he rose to power after exposing the misconduct and patronage of Liberal Premier Louis-Alexandre...
, the premier of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by revoking the liquor licence of a Jehovah's Witness. Justice Rand wrote in his often-quoted reasons that the unwritten constitutional principle of the "rule of law
Rule of law
The rule of law, sometimes called supremacy of law, is a legal maxim that says that governmental decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws with minimal discretion in their application...
" meant no public official was above the law, that is, they could neither suspend it or dispense it. Though he had the authority to do this by the law granting him the discretion, he overstepped the reasons why he held this. It is held as an example of a ruling showing we need, and have, rules governing the granting of authority.
Background
Frank Roncarelli was a successful restaurant owner and practicing Jehovah's Witness in Montreal. He was very active in the Jehovah's Witness community and used his wealth to support persecuted members by offering bailBail (Canada)
Bail in Canada refers to the release of a person charged with a criminal offence prior to being sentenced. A person may be released by a peace officer or by the courts. A release on bail by the courts is officially known as a judicial interim release. There are also a number of ways to compel a...
security for those who had been arrested by the municipal government.
At the time, sometimes violent tension between the dominant Roman Catholic community and the Jehovah's Witness community saw increasing arrests of Jehovah's Witness members for selling copies of their magazines without the necessary permits under city by-laws.
Roncarelli furnished bail for over 375 Jehovah's Witness members in three years and many were arrested multiple times.
The Chief Prosecutor of the city, Oscar Gagnon, overwhelmed by the number of Witnesses being arrested and then set free by Roncarelli's intervention, contacted the Premier who spoke to Edouard Archambault, Chairman of the Quebec Liquor Commission. Roncarelli's liquor licence was subsequently revoked. Extensive testimony showed the government actors believed Roncarelli was disrupting the court system, causing civil disorder, and was therefore not entitled to the liquor licence. Roncarelli was told that he was “forever” barred from holding a liquor licence and that this action was a warning to others that they would similarly be stripped of provincial “privileges” if they persisted in their activities related to the Witnesses.
Roncarelli received news of the revocation in December 1946, and while he tried to keep his business open without the licence, it was not profitable and he put it up for sale within six months. Consequently, he brought an action against Duplessis for $118,741 in damages.
At trial, the Québec Court of Queen's Bench found in favour of Roncarelli, however it was overturned on appeal.
Decision of the Court
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the trial decision; holding that Duplessis wrongfully caused the revocation of Roncarelli's liquor licence.The six judges who sided with Roncarelli used different legal reasoning to reach their decision. Three judges wrote that Duplessis had ordered the cancellation which was outside his authority as premier; two judges stated that although Duplessis had the power to order the cancellation, he had done so in bad faith; and the sixth judge concluded the premier was not entitled to immunity as a public official.
Roncarelli was awarded $33,123.53 in damages, a fraction of his claim, plus costs in the Court of Queen's Bench and the Supreme Court of Canada. Roncarelli's son, however, maintained that it was a significant moral victory in his father's struggle against the system.
Roncarelli's legal counsel throughout was A.L. Stein and Professor Frank Scott
F. R. Scott
Francis Reginald Scott, CC commonly known as Frank Scott or F.R. Scott, was a Canadian poet, intellectual and constitutional expert. He helped found the first Canadian social democratic party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and its successor, the New Democratic Party...
.
Duplessis died shortly after the verdict.
Dissent
Cartwright J. wrote a dissenting judgement which argued that it was within the power of the commission to refuse to grant Roncarelli a permit as the act only fettered the commission by delineating circumstances under which the granting of a permit was forbidden and circumstances in which the cancellation of a permit was mandatory, and nothing more. Cartwright J. argued that as this was an administrative tribunal, and not a judicial one, it was "a law unto itself" and did not need to base its decision on anything more than policy and expediency. Cartwright J. went on to argue that even if the commission were to be considered quasi-judicial, in which case procedural fairness guarantees would apply, that still would not entitle the plaintiff to monetary damages.The court’s francophone judges supported Duplessis, and had done so in other cases of abuse of power by the government of Duplessis. Two were sons of previous premiers of Quebec.http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/930107--is-eating-people-wrong