Luc Leblanc

The Quebec government referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of the Education Act (Bill 107), which proposed restructuring the province's school boards from a denominational basis (Catholic and Protestant) to a linguistic basis (French and English).

Various school boards and associations appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court held that the creation of linguistic school boards and the dissolution of existing denominational boards did not prejudicially affect the rights and privileges protected by s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provided that the right to dissent and the existence of confessional schools in Montreal and Quebec City were maintained.

The Court upheld the legislation's mechanisms for exercising dissent, allocating property, and managing school taxes.

The applicants brought a motion for a rehearing of their appeal, arguing that the Supreme Court of Canada's previous decision dismissing their appeal was rendered per incuriam.

They contended that the Court's findings on the state of the law in force at Confederation regarding school curriculum were based on historical facts reached without reference to the historical record.

The Court dismissed the motion, holding that disagreement with the Court's findings and an assertion that the decision was unreasonable based on the record are not grounds for a rehearing.

The Government of Quebec adopted regulations establishing a uniform curriculum for all non-denominational subjects in all schools, while making special allowance for moral and religious instruction in Catholic and Protestant schools.

The appellant Protestant school boards sought a declaration that the regulations were ultra vires the province as violating their rights under s. 93(1) and (2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 to manage and control their own schools and regulate the course of study.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the regulations were intra vires, as the province has exclusive jurisdiction over education and the regulations did not prejudicially affect the constitutionally protected denominational aspects of the schools or the non-denominational aspects necessary to give effect to denominational guarantees.