Roncarelli v Duplessis

Last updated

Roncarelli v. Duplessis
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: June 2–6, 1958
Judgment: January 27, 1959
Full case nameFrank Roncarelli v. The Honourable Maurice Duplessis
Citations [1959] S.C.R. 121
RulingTrial judge correct, amount awarded at trial increased by $25,000.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Patrick Kerwin
Puisne Justices: Robert Taschereau, Ivan Rand, Charles Holland Locke, John Robert Cartwright, Gerald Fauteux, Douglas Abbott, Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson
Reasons given
MajorityMartland J., joined by Locke J.
ConcurrenceKerwin C.J.
ConcurrenceRand J., joined by Judson J.
ConcurrenceAbbott J.
DissentTaschereau J.
DissentCartwright J.
DissentFauteux J.

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, [1] was a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court held that in 1946 Maurice Duplessis, both Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by ordering the manager of the Liquor Commission to revoke the liquor licence of Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah's Witness who was an outspoken critic of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. Roncarelli provided bail for Jehovah's Witnesses arrested for distributing pamphlets attacking the Roman Catholic Church. The Supreme Court found Duplessis personally liable for $33,123.56 in damages plus Roncarelli's court costs. [2]

Contents

A significant decision on civil liberties in the pre-Charter era, Roncarelli became known as one of the central cases in the constitutional theory later called the "Implied Bill of Rights." [3] [4] Justice Morris Fish would describe it as "Canada's most important decision on the rule of law." [5]

Background

The Jehovah's Witnesses began to aggressively evangelize and seek converts among Catholic French Canadians in the mid-1940's. Methods included home services, public lectures, and distributing pamphlets and selling periodicals such as The Watchtower and Awake! door to door. [6] These were unpopular with the Catholic majority. Meetings were broken up, and members were beaten, ordered out of town, or even thrown out of the province. [7] Protestant groups had traditionally limited themselves to winning converts among the English-speaking minority, and Jehovah's Witnesses aggressively attacked other faiths as paths to damnation, particularly Roman Catholicism, so they became the target of Quebec's powerful Catholic Church. [8]

In 1945, Maurice Duplessis acting as both Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had provincial and municipal authorities take action against what they considered seditious and offensive behaviour, resulting in the arrest of groups of Jehovah's Witnesses in Montreal for distributing pamphlets and literature. A Montreal city bylaw had been enacted in 1945 requiring a licence "for peddling any kind of wares" to curtail their activity. This carried a fine of $40 or 60 days imprisonment. The accused pleaded 'not guilty", maintaining that under the Quebec Freedom of Worship Act they were ministers of the Gospel and could visit homes and distribute literature without a permit. The police arrested over a thousand young Jehovah's Witnesses between 1944 and 1946. [1] [6] [7] [9] All of these cases would eventually be thrown out of court. (see Saumur v. The City of Quebec.) [7]

Frank (Francesco) Roncarelli was an Italian immigrant and a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1946 he was the owner of the Quaff Cafe, a successful upscale restaurant on Crescent Street in Montreal started by his father in 1912. It had been continually licensed by the Quebec Liquor Commission to serve alcohol for that period. [1] [9] Roncarelli used his wealth to secure bail bonds for the accused, eventually furnishing bail for Jehovah's Witnesses about 390 times putting up a total surety of $83 000. [10] [11]

The defence and lawyers for the city and province agreed to proceed with a test case, but the large numbers of bonds led to a backlog of cases. [6] The Chief Prosecutor of the city, Oscar Gagnon, was overwhelmed by the number of Witnesses being arrested and then set free by Roncarelli's intervention. On November 25, 1946, city courts decided that the property bonds posted for bail by Roncarelli would no longer be accepted. [6] In response, the Jehovah's Witnesses circulated "Quebec's Burning Hate", a pamphlet with a blistering attack in the Church and Duplessis government. [6] Gagnon would contact the Premier who spoke to Édouard Archambault, Chairman of the Quebec Liquour Commission. Roncarelli's licence was subsequently revoked by Premier Duplessis, who later called a press conference to announce that he had cancelled Roncarelli's licence because of his support of Witnesses. [11] Extensive testimony showed the government actors believed that Roncarelli was disrupting the court system, causing civil disorder and so was not entitled to the liquor licence. [10]

On December 4, 1946, shortly before 2 p.m., constables of the Quebec Liquor Police entered the Quaff Cafe while it was full of diners, and confiscated all the liquor. [10] [6] On the same day, Premier Duplessis convened a press conference announcing that he had ordered the Quebec Liquor Commission to suspend Roncarelli's liquor licence because of his support of the Jehovah's Witness prisoners. Duplessis would declare their activities as seditious and compare their activities to those of Nazis and Communists. Roncarelli was told that he was barred from holding a liquor licence and that the action was a warning that others would similarly be stripped of provincial "privileges" if they persisted in their activities related to the Witnesses. Roncarelli tried to keep his business open without the licence, but it was not profitable, and he put it up for sale within six months. [6]

Roncarelli would sue for damages. [11] He employed Stein & Stein, a law firm involved in many civil rights cases, to sue Archambault. But the Quebec Alcoholic Liquor Act says the QLC chairman could not be sued without the permission of the Chief Justice of Quebec, who did not give his consent. He attempted to sue the Quebec Liquor Commission, but that required the support of the Attorney General to proceed, who was Duplessis. Duplessis responded at a February 7, 1947, press conference by saying that the licence was now suspended "forever". Roncarelli would bring on civil rights lawyers F. R. Scott to again petition the Chef Justice to sue Archambeault, to no avail. [6] Roncarelli then sued Premier Duplessis directly, asking $118,741, but was awarded $8000 when he won his case in Superior Court. Both parties appealed and the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the case with one judge dissenting. [6] [11]

Decision

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the trial decision, holding that Duplessis wrongfully caused the revocation of Roncarelli's liquor licence.

The six judges who sided with Roncarelli used different legal reasoning to reach their decision. Three judges wrote that Duplessis had ordered the cancellation outside his authority as premier; two judges stated that although Duplessis had the power to order the cancellation, he had done so in bad faith; and the sixth judge concluded the premier was not entitled to immunity as a public official. Justice Ivan Rand wrote in his often-quoted reasons that the unwritten constitutional principle of the "rule of law" meant no public official was above the law and so could neither suspend nor dispense it. Although Duplessis had authority under the relevant legislation, his decision was not based on any factors related to the operation of the licence but was made for unrelated reasons and so was held to be exercised arbitrarily and without good faith. [12]

Roncarelli was awarded $33,123.53 in damages as well as costs in the Court of Queen's Bench and the Supreme Court of Canada. Roncarelli's son maintained that it was also a significant moral victory in his father's struggle against the system.

Roncarelli's legal counsel throughout were A. L. Stein and Professor Frank Scott.

Dissent

Cartwright wrote a dissenting judgement which argued that it was within the power of the commission to refuse to grant Roncarelli a permit, as the act only fettered the commission by delineating circumstances under which the granting of a permit was forbidden and circumstances in which the cancellation of a permit was mandatory. Cartwright argued that as the Commission was an administrative tribunal, not a judicial one, it was "a law unto itself" and did not need to base its decision on anything more than policy and expediency. Cartwright went on to argue that even if the Commission were to be considered quasi-judicial, in which case procedural fairness guarantees would apply, that still would not entitle the plaintiff to monetary damages.

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jehovah's Witnesses</span> Restorationist Christian denomination

Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian, millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination. As of 2023, the group reported approximately 8.6 million members involved in evangelism, with around 20.5 million attending the annual Memorial of Christ's death. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent, and the establishment of God's kingdom over earth is the only solution to all of humanity's problems.

The implied bill of rights is a theory in Canadian jurisprudence which proposed that as a consequence of the British North America Act, certain important civil liberties could not be abrogated by the government. The theory was never adopted in a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and was rejected by the court in 1978. The enactment and interpretation of the statutory Bill of Rights, and later the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provided alternative formulations of the limits applicable to civil liberties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Louis-Alexandre Taschereau</span> Premier of Quebec from 1920 to 1936

Louis-Alexandre Taschereau was the 14th premier of Quebec from 1920 to 1936. A member of the Parti libéral du Québec, Taschereau's near 16-year tenure remains the longest uninterrupted term of office among Quebec premiers.

The Coffin affair was an event in Canadian history in which a man named Wilbert Coffin was hanged for the murder of three men. The affair started in June 1953 in Gaspésie when three men from Pennsylvania were reported missing. Their bodies were found a month later deep in the woods 60 km (37 mi) from the nearest town.

Francis Reginald Scott (1899–1985), commonly known as Frank Scott or F. R. Scott, was a lawyer, Canadian poet, intellectual, and constitutional scholar. He helped found the first Canadian social democratic party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and its successor, the New Democratic Party. He won Canada's top literary prize, the Governor General's Award, twice, once for poetry and once for non-fiction. He was married to artist Marian Dale Scott.

The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ivan Rand</span> Canadian politician and Supreme Court judge

Ivan Cleveland Rand was a Canadian lawyer, politician, academic, and justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He has been described as "probably the greatest judge in Canada's history".

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duplessis Orphans</span> Canadian children, wrongly classified as mentally ill

The Duplessis Orphans were a population of Canadian children wrongly certified as mentally ill by the provincial government of Quebec and confined to psychiatric institutions in the 1940s and 1950s. Many of these children were deliberately miscertified in order to acquire additional subsidies from the federal government. They are named for Maurice Duplessis, who served as Premier of Quebec for five non-consecutive terms between 1936 and 1959. The controversies associated with Duplessis, and particularly the corruption and abuse concerning the Duplessis orphans, have led to the popular historic conception of his term as Premier as La Grande Noirceur by its critics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

Various individuals, courts and the media around the world have raised concerns about the manner in which cases of child sexual abuse are handled when they occur in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses. An independent 2009 study in Norway was critical of how Jehovah's Witnesses dealt with cases of child sexual abuse but stated there is no indication that the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses is higher than found in general society. The organization's stated position is that it abhors child sexual abuse.

<i>British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd</i> Pivotal Canadian lawsuit against the tobacco industry

British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473, 2005 SCC 49, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court found that the provincial Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allowed the government to sue tobacco companies, was constitutionally valid. Imperial Tobacco Canada is an indirect subsidiary of British American Tobacco.

<i>Hodge v The Queen</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1883

Hodge v The Queen is a Canadian constitutional law decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1883, at that time the highest court of appeal in the British Empire, including Canada.

<i>Saumur v Quebec (City of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Saumur v Quebec (City of) [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299 is a famous constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down a municipal by-law prohibiting the distribution of literature to the public.

Jehovah's Witnesses experienced religious persecution in Canada during World War II because of their evangelical fervour and objection to compulsory military service. In 1940, Jehovah's Witnesses were banned as an illegal organization under the War Measures Act.

The Grande Noirceur refers to the regime of conservative policies undertaken by the governing body of Quebec Premier Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis from 1936 to 1939 and from 1944 to 1959.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

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".

References

  1. 1 2 3 Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 121 (Supreme Court of Canada1959-01-27).
  2. ↑ Scott, Stephen A. (7 February 2006). "Roncarelli v Duplessis". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
  3. ↑ Gibson, Dale (1966). "Constitutional Amendment and the Implied Bill of Rights" (PDF). McGill Law Journal . 12 (4): 497–501.
  4. ↑ Adams, Eric M. (2009). The Idea of Constitutional Rights and the Transformation of Canadian Constitutional Law, 1930-1960 (PDF) (JD). University of Toronto.
  5. ↑ Fish, Morris J. (2011). "The effect of alcohol on the Canadian Constitution...seriously" (PDF). McGill Law Journal . 57 (1): 189. Retrieved 19 March 2023.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sheppard, Claude-Armand (1960), "Roncarelli v. Duplessis: Art 1053 C.C. Revolutionized" (PDF), The McGill Law Journal, 6 (2): 75–97
  7. 1 2 3 Bowal, Peter (1 November 2012). "Whatever Happened To ... Roncarelli v. Duplessis". LegalNow. Center for Public Legal Education Alberta. Retrieved 22 April 2021.
  8. ↑ Stokes, Mary (9 July 2015). "Why Roncarelli v. Duplessis was Crucial to the Rule of Law?". The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History. Retrieved 22 April 2021.
  9. 1 2 "The Roncarelli Affair and Maurice Duplessis". CBC Digital Archives. Canadian Broadcast Corporation.
  10. 1 2 3 Amdur, Reuel S. "Roncarelli and the Duplessis Affair: Canadian Jehovah's Witnesses Fight for Religious Freedom." Liberty. March/April, 2015. 28-31.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Frasier, Blair (7 June 1958). "Backstage at Ottawa: How will the Supreme Court weigh Duplessis power?". MacLean's Magazine. Retrieved 24 April 2021.
  12. ↑ Sarah Blake, Administrative Law in Canada, 5th edition, pages 99 - 100.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.