Odette Laverdière

The appeal concerned the constitutional validity of provincial legislation that repealed a statutory lease, revested water and water power rights in the province, vested hydro-electric works in the Crown, and limited compensation to creditors and shareholders.

The Court held that extrinsic evidence was admissible in constitutional cases to determine both the operation and effect of legislation and its true object and purpose, particularly where colourability was alleged.

Applying pith and substance analysis, the Court found the legislation was a colourable attempt to interfere with contractual rights to the delivery of power in Quebec under a long-term power contract.

Because those civil rights were situated outside Newfoundland, the legislation was ultra vires.

The appeal was allowed and the Act, taken as a whole, was held invalid.

The Government of Quebec referred a question to the Quebec Court of Appeal asking whether its consent was constitutionally required, by convention, for the adoption of a resolution to amend the Canadian Constitution in a way that affected its legislative competence or status.

The Court of Appeal answered in the negative, and Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec has no conventional power of veto over constitutional amendments.

The Court reaffirmed its previous ruling that there is no conventional rule of unanimity among the provinces, and found that Quebec failed to demonstrate that the other political actors had recognized or accepted a specific conventional veto power for Quebec.

The Attorney General of Quebec applied for a rehearing to determine whether section 133 of the British North America Act applies to delegated legislation, such as regulations of statutory bodies, municipalities, and school boards.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 133 applies to regulations enacted by the provincial government, ministers, and agencies subject to government approval, as well as to court rules of practice.

However, the Court concluded that section 133 does not apply to municipal or school body by-laws, even if they are subject to government approval.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure that exclude representation by counsel before the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, answering the constitutional question in the affirmative and upholding the competence of the National Assembly of Quebec to enact such exclusions.