Blaikie v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
• Date: 13 December 1979
• Citation: (1979), 30 N.R. 225 (SCC),1979 CanLII 21 (SCC),49 CCC (2d) 359,[1979] 2 SCR 1016,101 DLR (3d) 394,30 NR 225
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)

Blaikie v. Que. (A.G.) (1979), 30 N.R. 225 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Blaikie v. Attorney General of Quebec et al.; Laurier v. Attorney General of Quebec et al.

Indexed As: Blaikie v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.

December 13, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application for a declaration that sections 7 to 13 of the Quebec Charter of The French Language was ultra vires the Legislature of Quebec. The Quebec Superior Court granted the application and declared that the impugned legislation was invalid. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Quebec Superior Court. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - British North America Act, s. 133 - Provincial legislation - Abridgment of language rights - The Province of Quebec enacted legislation which declared that French is the language of the legislature and of the courts in Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec legislation was invalid because the legislation conflicted with the language rights granted by s. 133 of the British North America Act (s. 133 declared that either French or English could be used in the Quebec legislature or the Quebec courts).

Constitutional Law - Topic 1005

Interpretation of British North America Act - Principle of flexibility - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a flexible interpretation must be given to the British North America Act when required by changing circumstances (see paragraphs 22 and 47).

Constitutional Law - Topic 7706

Language rights - In the courts - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that for purposes of s. 133 of the British North America Act, the meaning of the word "courts" should be extended to any tribunals exercising a judicial power (see paragraphs 20 and 45).

Constitutional Law - Topic 6774

Enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act - Amendment of provincial constitution - The Supreme Court of Canada held that language rights granted by s. 133 did not come within the ambit of the expression "amendment . . . of the Constitution of the Province" in s. 92(1) of the British North America Act (see paragraphs 9 to 17 and 34 to 42).

Words and Phrases

Courts - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "courts" as found in s. 96 of the British North America Act 1867 (see paragraphs 20 and 45).

Words and Phrases

Acts - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "acts" as found in s. 133 of the British North America Act 1867 (see paragraphs 18 and 43).

Cases Noticed:

Fielding v. Thomas, [1896] A.C. 600, refd to. [paras. 12 and 37].

Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick, 7 N.B.R.(2d) 526; [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182, refd to. [paras. 15 and 40].

Edwards v. Attorney General of Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, refd to. [paras. 21 and 46].

Attorney General of Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada, [1947] A.C. 124, refd to. [paras. 22 and 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of the French Language, S.Q. 1977, c. 5, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13 [paras. 4 and 29].

British North America Act 1867, sect. 92(1), sect. 133 [paras. 5 and 30].

Counsel:

K. Samson, Henri Brun and Louis Crete, for the appellant;

A. Kerr Twaddle, Q.C., and Eleanor R. Dawson, for the intervenant, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

D.J. Johnston, R.S. Litvack and A. Brossard, Q.C., for the respondents, Peter M. Blaikie et al.;

David Wood and William Aaron, for the respondent, Henri Wilfrid Laurier;

Raynold Langlois, James Mabbutt and Andre Asselin, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada;

Alan D. Reid, for the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Alain J.J. Hogue, M.B. Nepon and C.W. Sharp, for Georges Forest.

This case was heard by Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ., at Ottawa, Ontario on June 11 and 12, 1979.

The judgment of the Court was delivered on December 13, 1979 - see paragraphs 1 to 25 (English language judgment) and paragraphs 26 to 50 (French language judgment).