Reasons of the court
Justice La Forest, writing for the Court in a plurality opinion, held that the restriction on residency was unconstitutional.
La Forest found that the selection of a place of residence was within the meaning of "private life" which is protected under section 5 of the Quebec Charter. He held that the city could not justify the infringement under section 9.1 of the Charter, which allows for limitations on the scope of rights.
La Forest also considered the question of whether the Canadian Charter applied to municipalities. He found that it did as they were government entities. He noted that municipalities were run by elected officials and were accountable to the public, they had the power to collect taxes, and they had the power to make laws which they derived from the provincial government. In addressing the municipality's argument that the residency requirement was merely a private employment contract and not a governmental function, La Forest J. found that once a body is labelled governmental, that body cannot use colourable devices or organize activities to avoid Charter responsibility.
La Forest further considered the validity of the law under section 7 of the Canadian Charter. He identified section 7 as protecting personal autonomy which includes the choice of selecting one's home. At no time did Godbout waive that right, even in signing the employment contract that contained the residency restriction. He further found that the restriction did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice as there was no compelling reason to have such a restriction.
Justice La Forest's decision on the Canadian Charter (joined by L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ.) does not have legal force, as the six other justices declined to consider the s.7 claim, after likewise finding that the Quebec Charter was violated.
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.
The Charter of the French Language, also known in English as Bill 101, Law 101, or Quebec French Preference Law, is a law in the province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the official language of the provincial government. It is the central legislative piece in Quebec's language policy, and one of the three statutory documents Quebec society bases its cohesion upon, along with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec. The Charter also protects the Indigenous languages of Quebec.
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, also known as the "Quebec Charter", is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975. It received Royal Assent from Lieutenant Governor Hugues Lapointe, coming into effect on June 28, 1976. Introduced by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, the Charter followed extensive preparatory work that began under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson.
The legal dispute over Quebec's language policy began soon after the enactment of Bill 101, establishing the Charter of the French Language, by the National Assembly of Quebec in 1977.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography, hate speech, and obscenity.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first of several sections of the Constitution dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Section 16 declares that English and French are the official languages of Canada and of the province of New Brunswick.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.
Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section 27 "officially recognized" a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism.
Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Charter that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. While the section 17 right to use either language within the Parliament of Canada repeats a right already anchored in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 17 also guarantees the right to use both languages in the legislature of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.
Montréal v 2952-1366 Québec Inc, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141, 2005 SCC 62 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that a strip club has no constitutional right to broadcast music into public streets in order to attract customers. The decision stated that location of the expression was a factor in considering if there was a violation.
Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.
Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 requires that all statutes and other records made by the Parliament of Canada must be available in both official languages. Section 133 places a similar obligation on the legislature of Quebec, and this is reaffirmed by section 21 of the Charter. Section 18 of the Charter places a similar obligation on the legislature of New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.
Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.
Quebec v Boisbriand , 2000 SCC 27, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665, is a leading Canadian civil rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court considered the nature of a handicap in law and found that a handicap is not merely a biomedical condition but rather can exist as a perceived limitation or social construct.
Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.
Lamb v Benoit, [1959] SCR 321 was a legal case that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. Lamb, a Jehovah's Witness, was arrested for distributing religious pamphlets in Verdun, Quebec, in 1946, along with three other members of the religion. She was accused by the plaintiff of distributing copies of Quebec's Burning Hate, but the Supreme Court found no evidence of that specific pamphlet being distributed. Lamb was detained for a weekend without access to legal counsel. Local authorities offered to release Lamb if she would not hold them responsible for her detention, but she refused. She was then charged with conspiracy to publish sedition, but this was dismissed by a trial judge and that decision was upheld when appealed. Justice Abbott, a common law justice, concluded that the police officers had violated a Quebec statute through not acting in good faith. She was awarded $2,500 in damages. This was cited by Kent Roach, writing for the University of Toronto Law Journal, as an example that "courts were more generous in accessing damages than they are today under the Charter".
