Office de la construction du Québec v. Larochelle, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 241
Gérard Larochelle Appellant
v.
Office de la construction du Québec Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Quebec Respondent
indexed as: quebec (office de la construction) v. larochelle
File No.: 18982.
1987: April 1.
Present: Beetz, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Labour law ‑‑ Construction industry ‑‑ Regulation on placement of employees ‑‑ Employee charged with working on site without classification certificate ‑‑ Arguments made by employee asking that Regulation be found ultra vires dismissed ‑- Regulation No. 5 on the Placement of Employees in the Construction Industry, (1977) 109 O.G. 5581 (No. 43, 26/10/77), s. 2.01.
Administrative law ‑‑ Regulations ‑‑ Validity ‑‑ Employee charged with working on site without classification certificate ‑‑ Whether the Regulation on the Placement of Employees in the Construction Industry valid ‑‑ Regulation No. 5 on the Placement of Employees in the Construction Industry, (1977) 109 O.G. 5581 (No. 43, 26/10/77), s. 2.01.
Appellant has worked as a plasterer since 1963 and holds a qualification certificate pursuant to the Manpower Vocational Training and Qualification Act, S.Q. 1969, c. 51 (now R.S.Q. c. F‑5) and the regulations adopted thereunder. In 1977, under the Construction Industry Labour Relations Act, S.Q. 1968, c. 45 (am. S.Q. 1975, c. 51; now R.S.Q. c. R‑20), the Office de la construction adopted Regulation No. 5 on the Placement of Employees in the Construction Industry, (1977) 109 O.G. 5581. Section 2.01 of the Regulation provides that as of July 1, 1978, any employee shall hold a classification certificate in order to work in the construction industry. In 1979, appellant, who did not hold such a certificate, was charged with contravening s. 2.01. In the Court of Sessions of the Peace, appellant admitted the facts alleged in the charge but pleaded not guilty and alleged that the Regulation was ultra vires on the grounds that (1) it was contrary to the provisions of its enabling Act; (2) it adversely affected vested rights of qualified employees in the construction industry; (3) it conflicted with the Manpower Vocational Training and Qualification Act; (4) it was retroactive in application; and (5) it conferred discretion and was discriminatory and unreasonable. The trial judge dismissed these defence arguments and convicted appellant, who appealed to the Superior Court by trial de novo. That Court also dismissed the various arguments made by appellant, except for the one regarding vested rights, and acquitted him. The Superior Court judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal[^1], dismissing a judgment of the Superior Court[^2], which allowed an appeal by an employee by trial de novo against his conviction for working on a construction site without a classification certificate[^3]. Appeal dismissed.
[^1]: C.A. Qué. No. 200‑10‑000079‑819, June 1, 1984.
[^2]: Sup. Ct. Saguenay, No. 240‑36‑000011‑805, June 12, 1981.
[^3]: S.P. Saguenay, No. 240‑27‑000594‑79, November 24, 1980.
Pierre W. Morin and Guy Morin, for the appellant.
Jean Ménard, for the respondent the Office de la construction du Québec.
Benoit Belleau and Pierre Lemieux, for the respondent the Attorney General of Quebec.
English version of the judgment delivered orally by
The Court‑‑It will not be necessary to hear you, Messrs. Ménard and Belleau.
Appellant reiterated in this Court essentially the arguments he made against the disputed by‑law in the Court of Sessions of the Peace, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal. He made all those arguments without success in all the aforementioned courts except for one argument, regarding vested rights, on which the Superior Court ruled in his favour and the Court of Appeal against him.
Appellant has not persuaded this Court that the Court of Appeal erred in holding that all these grounds have no merits. In particular, we consider that the ground regarding vested rights‑‑to the extent that the matter really involves vested rights and in as much as they are affected by the by‑law‑‑cannot be allowed in view of the duty imposed on the Office de la construction du Québec to adopt by July 1, 1976 at latest a by‑law specifying hiring standards, notwithstanding any legislative or regulatory provision to the contrary.
The appeal is dismissed, but without costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Morin & Pépin, St‑Georges Est.
Solicitors for the respondent the Office de la construction du Québec: Ménard & Associés, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent the Attorney General of Quebec: Benoit Belleau, Montréal; Pierre Lemieux and André Gaudreau, Ste‑Foy.