MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460 (1986)
Linked as:
Extract
MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460 (1986)
MacDonald v. City of Montreal, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460
Duncan Cross MacDonald Appellant;andCity of Montreal Respondent;andThe Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Société franco-manitobaine and Alliance Quebec, Alliance for Language Communities in Quebec Interveners.File No.: 17528.1984: December 18, 19: 1986: May 1.Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.on appeal from the court of appeal for quebecAppeal -- Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Canada -- Leave to appeal refused by Court of Appeal -- Whether leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada may be granted by the Supreme Court -- Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, s. 41(1).Constitutional law -- Language rights -- Court proceedings -- English-speaking person in Quebec given summons for traffic violation in French only -- Whether summonses emanating from Quebec courts constitutionally valid if issued in one or other of the official languages -- Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133.Appearing before the Municipal Court of the City of Montréal to answer a charge of violating a municipal by-law, appellant, an English-speaking person, unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court to proceed against him on the ground that the unilingual French summons issued by the court violated his fundamental rights as an English speaker under s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In a trial de novo in the Superior Court, appellant was again convicted. The court concluded that documents such as summonses emanating from the province's courts must be considered constitutionally valid so long as they are issued in one or other of the French or English languages. The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court. This appeal raises two issues: (1) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a case for which leave to appeal to a provincial court of appeal was denied by the provincial court of appeal and (2) if so, whether the summons, being expressed in the French language only, and not in the language of the English-speaking accused, offends the provisions of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, resulting in a total absence of jurisdiction of the court to proceed against him.Held (Wilson J. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.(1) The Jurisdictional IssuePer Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer and Le Dain JJ.: This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case. It is a jurisdiction which, for obvious reasons of policy and comity, should be exercised most sparingly, in very rare cases such as this one, where there is a risk that a question of major constitutional importance might otherwise be put beyond the possibility of review by this Court.Per Dickson C.J. and Wilson J.: This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to s. 41(1) of the Supreme Court Act to review the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision not to grant leave to appeal from a judgment at trial. While the Court should in general maintain an attitude of deference to the exercise of judicial discretion by intermediate appellate courts, it should not hesitate, in light of the broad language of s. 41(1) and the role of the Court as the ultimate appellate tribunal, to interfere with discretionary decisions on those rare occasions when it perceives legal principles of national, and more particularly, constitutional significance to be at stake. To the extent that the Ernewein and Nicholson cases are inconsistent with this view, they should not be followed.Cases CitedBy Beetz J.Paul v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 452; Walsh v. City of Montreal (1980), 55 C.C.C. (2d) 299 (Que. S.C.), application for leave to appeal refused, Mtl. C.A., November 10, 1980; Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639; Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 92, referred to.By Wilson J.Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639; Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 92, not followed; R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; R. v. Joseph (1900), 6 C.C.C. 144; Walsh v. City of Montreal (1980), 55 C.C.C. (2d) 299 (Que. S.C.), application for leave to appeal refused, Mtl. C.A., November 10, 1980, referred to.(2) The Constitutional IssuePer Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer and Le Dain JJ.: The summons in French given to the English-speaking appellant did not offend the provisions of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. On the plain meaning of s. 133, as construed by this Court in the two Blaikie cases, appellant has no right to be summoned before a court of Quebec by a process issued in his own language. The section provides that a process issued from a Quebec court may be in either of the official languages. If there is a right to use either language, there can be no obligation nor a duty to use the other. In judicial proceedings in the courts covered by s. 133, the langu...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
