The Queen v. Beauregard, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56 (1986)
Linked as:
Extract
The Queen v. Beauregard, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56 (1986)
The Queen v. Beauregard, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v.Marc Beauregard Respondent indexed as: beauregard v. canadaFile No.: 17884.1985: October 4; 1986: September 16.Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Lamer JJ.on appeal from the federal court of appealConstitutional law -- Judicial independence -- Financial security of federally appointed judges -- Pensions -- Federal legislation requiring superior court judges to contribute to pension --Whether federal legislation plan violated s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867 -- Judges Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-1 as amended, s. 29.1.Civil rights -- Equality before the law -- Federal legislation requiring superior court judges to contribute to pension plan -- Legislative distinction on the basis of the appointment date of judges -- Higher contributions required from judges appointed after the date of first reading of the bill -- Whether federal legislation violated s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights -- Judges Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-1 as amended, s. 29.1.Respondent, a Quebec Superior Court judge appointed on July 24, 1975, challenged the constitutional validity of s. 29.1 of the Judges Act. This section was introduced in Parliament on February 17, 1975 and was enacted December 20, 1975. Section 29.1(1) provided that judges appointed before February 17, 1975 would contribute one and one-half per cent of their salary toward the cost of pensions, while s. 29.1(2) provided that judges appointed after February 16, 1975 would contribute six and one-half per cent prior to January 1, 1977, and seven per cent thereafter. Prior to the enactment of s. 29.1, superior court judges were not required to contribute to their pension plan. The Federal Court, at trial and on appeal, accepted respondent's allegation, but for different reasons, that s. 29.1 violated s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867 but rejected his argument that s. 29.1 was inoperative in that it violated his right to equality before the law recognized by s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. This appeal is to determine whether s. 29.1 of the Judges Act infringes (1) s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and (2) s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.Held (Beetz and McIntyre JJ. dissenting in part): The appeal should be allowed.(1) Section 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867Per curiam: The principle of judicial independence is fundamental to our Constitution. The role of our courts as resolver of disputes, interpreter of the law and defender of the Constitution, requires that they be completely separate in authority and function from all other participants in the justice system, in particular, from the executive and the legislative branches of government. One of the essential components of the principle of judicial independence is financial security. In the present case, the scheme for contributory pensions established in s. 29.1 of the Judges Act does not interfere with the independence of superior court judges. All s. 29.1 does is treat judges, pursuant to the constitutional obligation imposed by s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in accordance with standard, widely used and generally accepted pension schemes in Canada. Canadian judges are Canadian citizens and must bear their fair share of the financial burden of administering the country. Parliament's power to fix the salaries and pensions of superior court judges, however, is not unlimited. If there were any hint that a federal law dealing with these matters was enacted for an improper or colourable purpose, or if there were discriminatory treatment of judges vis-à-vis other citizens, then serious issues relating to judicial independence would arise and the law might well be held to be ultra vires of s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867. There is no suggestion of any of these considerations in the present appeal.There is no "federalism" limitation on Parliament's capacity to change the basis of superior court judges' pensions from non-contributory to contributory. Provincial legislatures under s. 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 have no jurisdiction with respect to these pensions. Section 100 explicitly subtracts them from provincial jurisdiction respecting the administration of justice. This section states clearly that the salaries and pensions of superior court judges shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.Further, Parliament's ability to implement a widely used and accepted latter-day pension model is not constrained by the words of s. 100. The word "pensions" is not limited to the type of pensions known and in existence for the judiciary in 1867 and the word "provided" does not impose on Parliament an obligation to pay the full cost of judicial pensions.Finally, although it might well be unconstitutional in most contexts for Parliament to direct how judges are to spend their salaries, the word "pensions" in s. 100 specifically authorizes Parliament to deal with this subject matte...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
