Quebec (Attorney General) v. Brunet; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Albert; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Collier, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 260
The Attorney General of Quebec Appellant
v.
Pierre Brunet Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Canada, the
Attorney General for New Brunswick and the
Attorney General of Manitoba Interveners
and between
The Attorney General of Quebec Appellant
v.
Louis Albert Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Canada, the
Attorney General for New Brunswick and the
Attorney General of Manitoba Interveners
and between
The Attorney General of Quebec Appellant
v.
Linda Collier Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Canada, the
Attorney General for New Brunswick and the
Attorney General of Manitoba Interveners
Indexed as: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Brunet; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Albert; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Collier
File Nos.: 19652, 19653, 19654.
1990: February 28.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Constitutional law ‑‑ Language rights ‑‑ Quebec legislation enacted in French and English ‑‑ Sessional papers constituting the very essence of legislation tabled in National Assembly in French only ‑‑ Whether Quebec legislation consistent with s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 ‑‑ Act respecting remuneration in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 35 ‑‑ Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 45.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Act respecting remuneration in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 35.
Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 45.
Constitution Act, 1867, S. 133.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, 1985 CanLII 3056 (QC CA), [1985] C.A. 559, 23 D.L.R. (4th) 339, allowing respondent Brunet's appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, J.E. 84‑62, D.T.E. 84T‑38, allowing an appeal by way of trial de novo from respondent Brunet's acquittal, J.E. 83‑510, D.T.E. 83T‑373, on a charge of taking part in an illegal strike. Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, 1985 CanLII 3056 (QC CA), [1985] C.A. 559, 23 D.L.R. (4th)_ 339, allowing respondent Albert's appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, [1983] C.S. 359, allowing an appeal by way of trial de novo from respondent Albert's acquittal, [1983] C.S.P. 1017, on a charge of taking part in an illegal strike. Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, 1985 CanLII 3056 (QC CA), [1985] C.A. 559, 23 D.L.R. (4th) 339, dismissing appellant's appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, [1983] C.S. 366, dismissing an appeal by way of trial de novo from respondent Collier's acquittal, [1983] C.S.P. 1005, on a charge of taking part in an illegal strike. Appeal dismissed.
Jean Bouchard, Paul Monty and Françoise St‑Martin, for the appellant.
Louise Otis, for the respondent Brunet.
Gilles Grenier, for the respondent Albert.
Jean L'Heureux, for the respondent Collier.
Gaspard Côté, Q.C., and Warren J. Newman, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Gabriel Bourgeois, for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick.
Donna J. Miller and Deborah Carlson, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Judgment
The Chief Justice ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from the respondents, Canada, or New Brunswick. The Court is ready to render judgment. My colleague, Justice Lamer, will deliver the judgment of the Court.
Lamer J. ‑‑ For the reasons given by Paré J.A. of the Quebec Court of Appeal, we affirm the judgments rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal in these cases. The appeals are dismissed with costs throughout. Costs will only be awarded to the respondents, however, the Attorney General of Canada having waived them and the Attorney General for New Brunswick not having asked for costs. The constitutional question stated by the Chief Justice is answered as follows:
Constitutional Question
Question: Are an Act respecting remuneration in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 35, and an Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 45, including the sessional documents 350, 650, 651, 653 and 665, inconsistent with the provisions of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, unconstitutional and of no force and effect to the extent of the inconsistency?
Answer: Yes, they are unconstitutional.
Judgments accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Department of Justice, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitors for the respondents Brunet and Albert: Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Cleary, Larivière & Associés, Québec.
Solicitors for the respondent Collier: Malo, Dansereau, Montréal.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick: The Department of Justice and Attorney General, Fredericton.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.