Réjean Rioux

Ratepayers sued a municipal councillor for defamation arising from remarks made at a televised council meeting criticizing litigation over a municipal tax bylaw and infrastructure costs.

The Court held that wrongful individual acts of elected municipal officials in Quebec are governed by arts. 1376 and 1457 C.C.Q., subject to any prevailing public law principles, and that common law doctrines of qualified privilege and fair comment are not imported directly into Quebec civil law.

Instead, the values underlying those doctrines are considered contextually in assessing civil fault, alongside freedom of expression and reputation.

Applying a deferential appellate standard, the Court found the councillor's speech, viewed as a whole and in context, was made in good faith in the public interest and did not constitute a fault.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent's fixed-term contract as chief of police for the appellant city expired and was not renewed.

The respondent claimed he was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the city's appeal, holding that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract does not constitute a dismissal, as the city did not carry out any act depriving the respondent of his office.

The appellant municipality appealed a judgment invalidating a residence requirement imposed on permanent municipal employees and ordering the respondent’s reinstatement and damages.

A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirement unjustifiably infringed the respondent’s right to privacy under s. 5 of the Quebec Charter, while one set of reasons also held that municipalities are subject to the Canadian Charter and that the requirement violated s. 7 liberty.

The Court held that the decision where to establish one’s home is a fundamentally personal choice protected from unjustified interference and that the municipality’s objectives were insufficient or disproportionate.

The respondent’s cross-appeal seeking additional interim damages was also dismissed because the damages were not properly quantified and the Court of Appeal committed no reversible procedural error.