Marise Visocchi

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision declaring that various instruments amalgamating the cities of Rouyn and Noranda were unconstitutional for failing to comply with s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the entire legislative process, including the ministerial orders and letters patent, was subject to the mandatory bilingualism requirements of s. 133.

The Court declared the instruments nullities but suspended the declaration of invalidity for one year to allow the National Assembly to remedy the defects.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision regarding the constitutionality of provincial legislation amalgamating the cities of Rouyn and Noranda.

The respondents challenged the legislation on various grounds under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, including the right to vote, fundamental justice, freedom of association, and equality rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered an oral judgment from the bench, answering the constitutional questions in the negative and finding the arguments without merit.

Appeal concerning whether Quebec's municipal court system, which permitted part-time municipal judges to continue practising law subject to statutory safeguards, infringed the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Court held that the challenge was properly characterized as one of institutional impartiality rather than traditional judicial independence from government.

Applying the reasonable apprehension of bias standard, the Court found that while practising law is per se incompatible with judicial functions absent safeguards, the oath of office, judicial immunity, ethics code, recusation obligations, and statutory conflict rules sufficiently minimized the risk.

The impugned provisions did not violate s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter or s. 23 of the Quebec Charter.