2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, (1996) 205 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 21, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 205 N.R. 1 (SCC);1996 CanLII 153 (SCC);140 DLR (4th) 577;205 NR 1;42 Admin LR (2d) 1;[1996] CarswellQue 965;JE 96-2212;[1996] SCJ No 112 (QL);[1996] ACS no 112;66 ACWS (3d) 1012

2747-3174 Qué. v. Régie permis d'alcool (1996), 205 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Le Procureur général du Québec (appelant) et la Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (appelante) c. 2747-3174 Québec Inc. (intimée)

(24309)

Indexed As: 2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

November 21, 1996.

Summary:

2747-3174 Québec Inc. operated a bistro-bar and held a permit issued by the Régie des permis d'alcools du Québec (now the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux). The Régie cancelled 2747-3174's permit because of disturbance of public tranquility. Claiming to be a victim of institutional bias, 2747-3174 invoked s. 23 of Quebec's Char­ter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (right to a fair hearing "by an independent and impartial tribunal") and presented a motion in evocation to quash the Régie's decision and strike down s. 2 of the Act respecting Liquor Permits (Que.), the section that set up the Régie. In the alternative, 2747-3174 sought to have the Act's pro­visions dealing with cancellation and sus­pension of permits declared inoperative and invalid.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a judgment reported [1993] R.J.Q. 1877; 17 Admin. L.R.(2d) 69, allowed the motion. Section 2 was struck down. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Beauregard, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported [1994] R.J.Q. 2440; 65 Q.A.C. 245; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 553, allowed the appeal in part. The court declared s. 2 valid but declared invalid the Act's provisions dealing specifi­cally with cancellation of permits for dis­turbance of public tranquility. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal but left standing the quashing of the Régie's decision to cancel 2747-3174's per­mit.

Administrative Law - Topic 1207

Classification of power or function - Powers or functions classified as quasi-judicial - Licensing authority - Granting, suspension or cancellation - The Act respecting Liquor Permits empowered the Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec to cancel liquor permits for disturbance of public tranquility - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this decision-making power was the result of a quasi-judicial process because: (1) cancellation would seriously impact the permit-holder's live­lihood; (2) the Régie could only make its decision after a hearing at which witnesses were heard, exhibits filed and submissions made; (3) cancellation for disturbance of public tranquility resulted from the appli­cation of a pre-established standard to specific facts adduced in evidence and was a final judgment protected by a privative clause - See paragraphs 17 to 39.

Administrative Law - Topic 2085

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (incl. bias) - Acting in multiple roles or capacities - Lawyers employed by the Régie des alcools du Québec were involved at every stage of a liquor permit cancellation process that included request for information, inspection, seizure, inves­tigation, summoning the permit holder to a hearing, hearing and decision with written reasons - The lawyers advised the Régie on the action to be taken, prepared files, drafted notices of summons, presented arguments to the decision-making direc­tors and drafted opinions - The same lawyer could perform these various func­tions in the same matter - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "... an informed person having thought the matter through would in this regard have a reasonable apprehension of bias in a substantial num­ber of cases." - See paragraphs 44 to 56.

Administrative Law - Topic 2085

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (incl. bias) - Acting in multiple roles or capacities - The Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec requested information and performed investigation, summoning, hearing and adjudication functions with respect to cancellation of liquor permits - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this was not in itself problematic - How­ever, a Régie director could, following the investigation, decide to hold a hearing and then participate in the decision-making process - The court held that this "would cause an informed person to have a rea­sonable apprehension of bias in a substan­tial number of cases." - See paragraphs 44 to 53, 57 to 60.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (incl. bias) - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - [See both Administra­tive Law - Topic 2085 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process - Fundamental jus­tice and fair hearings - Administrative and non-criminal proceedings - Right to inde­pendent and impartial tribunal - Inde­pendence - A liquor permit holder dis­pleased with the cancellation of his permit by the Régie des permis d'alcool du Qué­bec complained that he had not been given a fair hearing "by an independent and impartial tribunal" contrary to s. 23 of Quebec's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the part of the complaint dealing with independence because the Régie's directors' conditions of employ­ment met the minimum requirements of independence, hence sufficient security of tenure, and because the Régie's links with the Minister of Public Security to which it reported were not sufficient to raise con­cerns - See paragraphs 61 to 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process - Fundamental jus­tice and fair hearings - Administrative and non-criminal proceedings - Right to inde­pendent and impartial tribunal - Im­partiality - A liquor permit holder dis­pleased with the cancellation of his permit by the Régie des permis d'alcool du Qué­bec complained that he had not been given a fair hearing "by an independent and impartial tribunal" contrary to s. 23 of Quebec's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the part of the complaint dealing with impartiality and quashed the Régie's decision because individual Régie directors and lawyers could perform at different stages of the cancellation pro­cedure hence apprehension of bias - The court however did not consider it neces­sary to declare the relevant legislative provisions inconsistent with the Charter - See paragraphs 1 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 7004

Federal or provincial legislation - General - Application of legislation - Section 23 of Quebec's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms provided a right to a fair hearing "by an independent and impartial tribunal" - Section 56 provided that the word "tribunal" included "any person or agency exercising quasi-judicial functions" - The Act respecting Liquor Permits empowered the Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec to cancel liquor per­mits for disturbance of public tranquility - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this decision-making power was the result of a quasi-judicial process and hence s. 23 applied - See paragraphs 17 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 7004

Federal or provincial legislation - General - Application of legislation - Section 23 of Quebec's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms provided a right to a fair hearing "by an independent and impartial tribunal" - Section 56 provided that the word "tribunal" included "any person or agency exercising quasi-judicial functions" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 23 and 56 of the Charter clearly expressed the legislature's intention that the requirements of s. 23 applied to both courts and quasi-judicial tribunals (as they are expressly worded), and to both penal and civil matters, as can be seen from the specific reference in s. 23 to both the determination of a person's "rights and obligations" (civil concept) and the "merits of any charge brought against him" (penal concept) - See paragraph 26.

Civil Rights - Topic 7186

Federal or provincial legislation - Reme­dies - Judicial review - A liquor permit holder displeased with the cancellation of his permit by the Régie des permis d'al­cool du Québec complained that he had not been given a fair hearing "by an inde­pendent and impartial tribunal" contrary to s. 23 of Quebec's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the part of the complaint dealing with impartiality and quashed the Régie's decision because in­dividual Régie directors and lawyers could perform at different stages of the cancel­lation procedure hence apprehension of bias - See paragraphs 1 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 7187

Federal or provincial legislation - Reme­dies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See the second Civil Rights - Topic 3187 ].

Liquor Control - Topic 4284

Licensing - Suspension or termination of licence - Hearing - Requirement of - Fairness - [See the second Civil Rights - Topic 3187 ].

Practice - Topic 8602

Costs - Supreme Court of Canada - Court's discretion respecting awards - Appeal allowed but respondent successful in argumentation - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "The respondent is also seeking costs calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. Although I am proposing to allow the appeal, I would award costs to the respondent in light in particular of the fact that the issue is one of general interest and the success of the respondent's arguments in this court. My award is limited to the usual tariff, how­ever." - See paragraph 72.

Cases Noticed:

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 6].

Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique et autres c. Conseil des services es­sentiels et autres, [1989] R.J.Q. 2648; 26 Q.A.C. 45 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 22].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Dis­ciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 22].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 22].

Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495; 24 N.R. 163, consd. [para. 24].

Jacob et Bar Le Morency Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres (1988), 16 Q.A.C. 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Taverne Le Relais Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec, [1989] R.J.Q. 2490 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Alliance des professeurs catholiques de Montréal v. Labour Relations Board - see Québec (Commission des relations ouvrières) v. Alliance des professeurs catholiques de Montréal.

Québec (Commission des relations ouvrières) v. Alliance des professeurs catholiques de Montréal, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140; 4 D.L.R. 161, refd to. [para. 38].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 39].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, consd. [para. 41].

Ruffo (Juge) v. Conseil de la Magistrature et autres, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267; 190 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 44].

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 45].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241, consd. [para. 47].

Sawyer v. Ontario (Racing Commission) (1979), 24 O.R.(2d) 673 (C.A.), consd. [para. 55].

Després v. Association des arpenteurs-géomètres du Nouveau-Brunswick (1992), 130 N.B.R.(2d) 210; 328 A.P.R. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 61].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, consd. [para. 62].

Coffin v. Bolduc, [1988] R.J.Q. 1307 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Nantais v. Bolduc, [1988] R.J.Q. 2465 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Services Asbestos Canadien (Québec) Ltée v. Commission de la construction du Québec, [1989] R.J.Q. 1564 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Hamel (G.E.) Ltée v. Cournoyer, [1989] R.J.Q. 2767 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Société de vin internationale Ltée v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec (1991), J.E. 91-853 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Bisaillon v. Keable, [1980] C.A. 316; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 368 (Que.), consd. [para. 77].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 80].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al. (1986), 3 Q.A.C. 163 (C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. c. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 82].

Maska Auto Spring Ltée v. Ste-Rosalie (Corporation municipale), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 3; 127 N.R. 309; 38 Q.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 84].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and Winnipeg Teachers' Association No. 1 of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 89].

Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103; 141 N.R. 1; 127 A.R. 241; 20 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 89].

Uniacke v. Dickson (1848), 2 N.S.R. 287 (C.A.), consd. [para. 95].

Smith v. National Trust Co. (1912), 45 S.C.R. 618, consd. [para. 95].

Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City) (1990), 36 O.A.C. 384; 71 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), consd. [para. 96].

Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 593; 129 N.R. 227; 50 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 97].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College (1979), 37 N.R. 468; 27 O.R.(2d) 142 (C.A.), consd. [para. 98].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455, consd. [para. 99].

Canada Trust Co. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission - see Leonard Foundation Trust, Re.

Leonard Foundation Trust, Re (1990), 37 O.A.C. 191; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, consd. [para. 106].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Attorney General of Canada , [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 120].

National Anti-Poverty Organization et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1989] 3 F.C. 684; 99 N.R. 181 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1989] 2 S.C.R. ix; 105 N.R. 160, refd to. [para. 120].

H.K. (Infant), Re, [1967] 2 Q.B. 617 (D.C.), consd. [para. 122].

Energy Probe v. Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario Hydro, [1985] 1 F.C. 563; 56 N.R. 135 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. viii; 58 N.R. 316, consd. [para. 123].

Saumur v. Québec (Procureur général), [1964] S.C.R. 252, refd to. [para. 137].

Taylor v. Attorney General (1837), 8 Sim. 413; 59 E.R. 164 (H.C. Ch.), refd to. [para. 138].

British Railways Board v. Pickin, [1974] A.C. 765 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 141].

Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 152].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 159].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 161].

Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Association et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724; 160 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 161].

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; 178 N.R. 241; 79 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 161].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 165].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Larkin (1942), 29 Cr. App. R. 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 166].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Lewis (A.J.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 921; 196 N.R. 165; 75 B.C.A.C. 1; 123 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 167].

Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1996), 203 N.R. 60 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 169].

Judges of the Provincial Court (Man.) v. Manitoba (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 51; 93 W.A.C. 51 (C.A.), consd. [para. 170].

Roynat Inc. v. Ja-Sha Trucking & Leasing Ltd. (Receivership)(No. 1) (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 211; 10 W.A.C. 211; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 405 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Bodnar et al. v. Real Estate Council (B.C.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 188; 87 W.A.C. 188; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Minister of National Revenue v. Alberta (Treasury Branches) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 963; 196 N.R. 105; 184 A.R. 1; 122 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 177].

Québec (Communauté urbaine) et autres v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3; 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 178].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 178].

Attorney General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, [1957] A.C. 436 (H.L.), consd. [para. 206].

Lincoln College's Case (1595), 3 Co. Rep. 58b; 76 E.R. 764, consd. [para. 206].

Chamberlain's Case (1611), Lane 117; 145 E.R. 346, consd. [para. 207].

Victoria (City) v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, [1921] 2 A.C. 384 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Assessors of Sunny Brae (Town), [1952] 2 S.C.R. 76, consd. [para. 208].

Cutler v. Québec (Commission des droits de la personne) (1986), 7 C.H.R.R. D/3610 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 211].

Gravel v. St-Leonard (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, consd. [para. 223].

Peralta et al. v. Ontario (1985), 7 O.A.C. 283; 49 O.R.(2d) 705 (C.A.), affd. [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1045; 89 N.R. 323; 31 O.A.C. 319, consd. [para. 224].

R. v. Watford (Inhabitants) (1846), 9 Q.B. 626; 115 E.R. 1413, refd to. [para. 237].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202, refd to. [para. 253].

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 253].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, sect. 2(f) sect. [para. 238].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, S.Q. 1975, c. 6, sect. 23 [para. 26].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 23, sect. 56(1) [para. 5]; sect. 57, sect. 71, para. 2(1), sect. 77(2) [para. 211].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Regulations (Que.), Regulation respect­ing the Handling of Complaints and the Procedure Applicable to the Investi­gations of the Commission des droits de la personne, (1991) 123 G.O.Q. II 1097, generally [para. 214].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Regulations (Que.), Rules of Practice of the Human Rights Tribunal, (1993) 125 G.O.Q. II 6031, sect. 51 [para. 214].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 4(j) [para. 249]; art. 13 [para. 27]; art. 22 [para. 249]; art. 453 [para. 132]; art. 456 [para. 141]; art. 834, art. 835, art. 836, art. 837, art. 844, art. 845, art. 846 [para. 132].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. T-16, sect. 1 [para. 249].

European Convention on Human Rights, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, art. 6(1) [para. 238].

Handling of Complaints and the Procedure Applicable to the Investigations of the Commission des droits de la personne, Regulation respecting the - see Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Regu­lations (Que.).

International Covenant on Civil and Po­litical Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 172, art. 14(1) [para. 238].

Liquor Permits, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-9.1, sect. 2 [para. 5]; sect. 4, sect. 5 [para. 49]; sect. 8 [para. 50]; sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12 [para. 49]; sect. 15, sect. 16 [para. 53]; sect. 21, sect. 22, sect. 24 [para. 69]; sect. 24.1 [para. 33]; sect. 25, sect. 36, sect. 39, sect. 40, sect. 41, sect. 42, sect. 42.1, sect. 42.2 [para. 31]; sect. 51, sect. 53, sect. 54, sect. 55, sect. 56, sect. 57, sect, sect. 58, sect. 59, sect. 60, sect. 61, sect. 62, sect. 63, sect. 64, sect. 65, sect. 66, sect. 67, sect. 68 [para. 32]; sect. 75, sect. 85, sect. 86(8 o ) [para. 5]; sect. 93 [para. 34]; sect. 96, sect. 99, sect. 101, sect. 102 [para. 31]; sect. 103, sect. 104, sect. 104.1, sect. 107 [para. 33]; sect. 110, sect. 111 [para. 57]; sect. 116, sect. 175 [para. 69].

Liquor Permits, Act respecting, Regu­lations (Que.), Règles de régie interne de la Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-9.1, rule 9, sect. 15 [para. 58].

Liquor Permits, Act respecting, Regu­lations (Que.), Regulation respecting the Procedure Applicable before the Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-9.1, rule 7, sect. 22 [para. 33]; sect. 26 [para. 52]; sect. 36 [para. 33].

Procedure Applicable before the Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec, Regulation respecting - see Liquor Permits, Act respecting, Regulations (Que.).

Règles de régie interne de la Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec - see Liquor Permits, Act respecting, Regulations (Que.).

Rules of Practice of the Human Rights Tribunal - see Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Regulations (Que.).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71, art. 10 [para. 238].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Belkaoui, A., Linguistic Relativism in Accounting, Working Paper 76-7 (1976), pp. 1, 9 to 11 [para. 179].

Bennion, Francis Alan Roscoe, Statutory Interpretation: A Code (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 427 to 429 [para. 159].

Bennion, Francis Alan Roscoe, Statutory Interpretation: Codified, with a critical Commentary (1984), pp. 261 to 263, 557 [para. 159].

Brault, Bernard, et al., Guide de la saine gestion des entreprises et des or­ganisations (Principes d'administration et de gestion généralement reconnus)(2nd Ed. 1992)(Looseleaf), c. I, s. 1.1-1 [para. 180].

Brierley, John E.C. and Macdonald, Roderick A., Quebec Civil Law: An Introduction to Quebec Private Law (1993), pp. 100, 105 [para. 86]; 116 [para. 90]; 137 [para. 86].

Brun, Henri and Tremblay, Guy, Droit constitutionnel (2nd Ed. 1990), pp. 9 to 37 [para. 91]; 936 to 937 [para. 187]; 937 [para. 108].

Canadian Institute of Chartered Ac­countants, Accountant's Manual (1995)(Looseleaf), generally [para. 180].

Canadian Institute of Chartered Ac­countants, CICA Handbook (1968)(Looseleaf), generally [para. 180].

Copi, Irving and Cohen, Carl, Introduction to Logic (8th Ed. 1990), pp. 142 to 143, 480 et seq. [para. 199].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois, 2 e éd., 1990, pp. 9 [para. 151, French version]; 260 to 261 [para. 162, French version]; 268 [para. 154, French ver­sion]; 270 [para. 153, French version]; 351 [para. 89, French version].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 8 to 9 [para. 151, English version]; 234 [para. 162, English version]; 240 [para. 154, English version]; 241, 242 [para. 153, English version]; 311 [para. 89, English version].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 152].

Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 131 [para. 164]; 142 et seq. [para. 199]; 156 to 157 [para. 237]; 176 [para. 209]; 247 to 248 [para. 201].

Du Plessis, Lourens Marthinus, Interpreta­tion of Statutes (1986), pp. 55, 57 [para. 163].

Dussault, René and Borgeat, Louis, Ad­ministrative Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1984), vol. 1, pp. 19 to 21 [para. 76, English version]; 240 to 256 [para. 116, English version]; 247 to 249 [para. 119, English version].

Dussault, René and Borgeat, Louis, Ad­ministrative Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1990), vol. 4, p. 296 [para. 122, English version].

Dussault, René et Louis Borgeat, Traité de droit administratif, 2 e éd., 1984, t. 1, pp. 26 to 28 [para. 76, French version]; 304 to 325 [para. 116, French version]; 314 to 315 [para. 119].

Dussault, René et Louis Borgeat, Traité de droit administratif, 2 e éd, 1990, t. 3, p. 418 [para. 122, French version].

Eskridge, William N., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation (1994), pp. 6 to 8 [para. 148]; 38 to 41 [para. 157]; 50 [para. 173].

Garant, Patrice, Droit administratif (3rd Ed. 1991), vol. 1, p. 204 [para. 37].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1961), vol. 36, p. 412, para. 625 [para. 95].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1995), vol. 44(1), p. 876, para. 1438 [para. 95].

Institut canadien des comptables agréés, Manuel de l'ICCA, 1969 (feuilles mobiles), generally [para. 180].

Jackett, W.R., Foundations of Canadian Law in History and Theory, in Con­temporary Problems of Public Law in Canada (1968), 3, p. 28 [para. 95].

Jones, David Phillip and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (2nd Ed. 1994), pp. 229 to 369 [para. 254].

Keable, Jean, F., Les tribunaux ad­ministratifs et organismes de régulation et les exigences de la Charte en matière d'indépendance et d'impartialité (art. 23, 56.1 de la Charte québécoise), in Appli­cation des Chartes des droits et libertés en matière civile (1988), 251, pp. 61 [para. 189]; 261 [para. 188].

Maitland, Frederic William, Constitutional History of England (1908), pp. 22 to 23 [para. 95]

Mitchell, Paul, Just Do It! Eskridge's Critical Pragmatic Theory of Statutory Interpretation (1996), 41 McGill L.J. 713, p. 731 [para. 174].

Nobes, Christopher, True and Fair View Requirement: Impact on and of the Fourth Directive (1993), 24 Accounting and Business Research 35, generally [para. 181].

Nussbaum, Martha C., Platonic Love and Colorado Law: The Relevance of Ancient Greek Norms to Modern Sexual Controversies (1994), 80 Va. L. Rev. 1515, generally [para. 175].

Nussbaum, Martha C., Use and Abuse of Philosophy in Legal Education (1993), 45 Stan. L. Rev. 1627, pp. 1637 to 1638 [para. 176].

Québec, Régie des permis d'alcool, Rap­port annuel 1991-1992 (1992), pp. 21 [para. 50]; 22 [para. 51]; 23 [para. 58].

Sarna, Lazar, Law of Declaratory Judg­ments (2nd Ed. 1988), generally [para. 136].

Singer, Norman J., Statutes and Statutory Construction (5th Ed. 1992), vol. 2A, pp. 5 to 6 [para. 156].

Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma, Canadian Bill of Rights (2nd Rev. Ed. 1975), pp. 259 to 260 [para. 241].

Zamir, Itzhak, Declaratory Judgment (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 212 to 216 [para. 139].

Zander, Michael, Law-Making Process (4th Ed. 1994), pp. 121 to 127 [para. 155].

Counsel:

Jean-Yves Bernard and Benoît Belleau, for the appellants;

Simon Venne and Marie Paré, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Que­bec, for the appellant;

Simon Venne and Marie Paré, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 27, 1996, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux- Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on No­vember 21, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

Gonthier, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 73;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 74 to 264.