Attorney General of Quebec v. Labrecque, Prothonotary of the Provincial Court, Beaudet and Provincial Court

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Lamer, JJ.
• Citation: (1980), 38 N.R. 1 (SCC),1980 CanLII 24 (SCC),38 NR 1,125 DLR (3d) 545,[1980] 2 SCR 1057,AZ-80113151
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 12 November 1980

Que. (A.G.) v. Labrecque (1980), 38 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Attorney General of Quebec v. Labrecque Prothonotary of the Provincial Court, Beaudet and Provincial Court

Indexed As: Attorney General of Quebec v. Labrecque, Prothonotary of the Provincial Court, Beaudet and Provincial Court

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Lamer, JJ.

November 12, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim by an ex-employee of the Quebec Provincial Government for vacation, holiday and sick leave pay. The action brought under the small claims procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the Quebec Provincial Court. The Attorney General of Quebec applied for a writ of evocation from the judgment, but the application was dismissed by the Quebec Superior Court and on appeal by the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Attorney General appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 1420

Finality - Privative clauses - Effect of - Art. 997 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure protected judgments by the Quebec Provincial Court on small claims from evocation and Art. 980 provided that such judgments were final and without appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that consequently, while the Provincial Court could not by an erroneous interpretation of the law arrogate to itself a jurisdiction it did not have, it could err in the exercise of its jurisdiction with impunity - See paragraphs 6, 121.

Administrative Law - Topic 6354

Judicial review - Evocation - Circumstances where writ available - The Supreme Court of Canada held that pursuant to Articles 980 and 997 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure an error on the merits in a judgment by the Provincial Court on a small claim was not reviewable on evocation - See paragraphs 63 to 72, 178 to 187.

Courts - Topic 2381

Jurisdiction - Evidence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the total absence of evidence may be a question of jurisdiction - See paragraphs 84, 199.

Courts - Topic 7305

Provincial Courts - Quebec - Provincial court - Jurisdiction - Small claims - The Supreme Court of Canada held that pursuant to Articles 980 and 997 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure an error on the merits in a judgment by the Provincial Court on a small claim was not reviewable on evocation - See paragraphs 63 to 72, 178 to 187.

Crown - Topic 1081

Contracts with Crown - Employment contracts - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held the employment of a casual employee by the Government of the Province of Quebec was based on contract - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the nature of the relationship between the Crown and an employee and refused to apply the general theory of government employment as found in French administrative law to the effect that such a relationship is not governed by contract - See paragraphs 16 to 23, 90 to 113, 131 to 138, 205 to 228.

Labour Law - Topic 9004

Public service labour relations - General principles - Applicable legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that pursuant to ss. 3 and 16 of the Quebec Civil Service Act casual employees of the government were removed from total application of the Act by a regulation - See paragraphs 30 to 40, 145 to 155.

Labour Law - Topic 9101

Public service labour relations - Grievances - Grievance defined - Section 88 of the Quebec Labour Code defined grievance as "any disagreement respecting the . . . application of a collective agreement" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a dispute respecting the applicability of a collective agreement was not a dispute respecting the application of a collective agreement and did not constitute a grievance - See paragraphs 46 to 56, 161 to 171.

Cases Noticed:

South East Asia Bricks Sdn. Bhd. v. Non Metalic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union, [1980] 3 W.L.R. (P.C.) 318, appld. [paras. 6, 121].

Le Procureur general de la province de Quebec v. Tribunal du Travail et Syndicat des Fonctionnaires provinciaux du Quebec Inc., [1975] C.A. 8, consd. [paras. 9, 33, 41, 124, 148, 156].

Brunet v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 537; 13 N.R. 233, dist. [paras. 12, 127].

Maluorni v. Ville Mont-Royal, [1969] Q.B. 922, dist. [paras. 12, 127].

Re Grottoli v. Lock and Sons Ltd. (1963), 39 D.L.R. 128, ref'd to. [paras. 58, 173].

Cahoon v. Le Conseil de la corporation des ingenieurs [1972] R.P. 209 (C.A.), appld. [paras. 84, 199].

Docteur Lefebvre v. Docteur Ledoux, [1973] C.A. 645, appld. [paras. 84, 199].

Amyot v. Leonard, [1974] C.A. 302, appld. [paras. 84, 199].

Bey v. Laliberte, [1976] C.A. 142, appld. [paras. 84, 199].

University of Saskatchewan v. C.U.P.E., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 834; 22 N.R. 314, appld. [paras. 84, 199].

Verreault & Fils v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 41, [paras. 103, 218].

Shenton v. Smith, [1895] A.C. 299 (P.C.), appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Dunn v. R., [1896] 1 Q.B. 116, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Gould v. Stuart, [1896] A.C. 557, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Balderson v. R. (1898), 28 S.C.R. 261, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

R. v. Fisher, [1903] A.C. 158 (H.L.), appld. [paras. 108, 223].

McLean v. Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, [1936] 3 W.W.R. 657, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India, [1937] A.C. 248 (P.C.), appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Genois v. R., [1937] Ex. C.R. 176, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Lucas v. Lucas and Commissioner for India, [1943] 2 All E.R. 110, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Rodwell v. Thomas, [1944] L.R. 1 K.B. 596, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Samson v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 832, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Riordan v. War Office, [1959] 1 W.L.R. 1046, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Vautrin v. Le ministre des Finances, [1969] C.S. 390, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Chelliah Kodeeswaran v. Attorney General of Ceylon, [1970] A.C. 1111, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Syndicat des fontionnaires provinciaux du Quebec v. Berube, [1971] C.S. 249, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Procureur general de la Province de Quebec v. Tribunal du travail, [1978] C.A. 103, appld. [paras. 108, 223].

Zamulinski v. R. (1957), 10 D.L.R.(2d) 685, consd. [paras. 110, 225].

Peck v. R., [1964] Ex. C.R. 966, consd. [paras. 110, 225].

Reilly v. R., [1932] Ex. C.R. 966, revd. [1932] S.C.R. 597; [1934] A.C. 176, not folld. [paras. 111, 226].

Terrell v. Secretary of State for the Colonies, [1953] 2 Q.B. 482, consd. [paras. 111, 226].

A.G. of New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustees C. Ltd., [1955] A.C. 457, consd. [paras. 111, 226].

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hambrook, [1956] 2 Q.B. 641, dist. [paras. 112, 227].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, s. 9 [paras. 103, 218].

Civil Service Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. F-3, ss. 3 [paras. 29, 144]; 16 [paras. 30, 145]; 69-70 [paras. 27, 142].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, ss. 1(g) [paras. 6, 121]; 88 [paras. 46, 161].

Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 953 [paras. 10, 125]; 980, 997 [paras. 6, 121].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blair, Leo, The Civil Servant - A Status Relationship? (1958), 21 M.L.R. 265 [paras. 113, 228].

De Laubade; re, Andre, Manuel de droit administratif (10th Ed. 1976) [paras. 95, 210].

De Smith, Constitutional and Administration Law (3rd Ed. 1977) [paras. 113, 228].

Dussault, Rene, Traite de droit administratif canadien et quebecois (1974) [paras. 96, 211].

Garant, Patrice, La fonction publique canadienne et quebecois (1977) [paras. 96, 211].

Griffith and Street, The Principles of Administrative Law (5th Ed. 1973) [paras. 103, 113, 208, 228].

Ouellette, Yves, La Fonction publique (1970) [paras. 96, 211].

Ouellette, Yves, La responsabilite extra contractuelle de l'Etat federal au Canada (1965) [paras. 96, 211].

Ouellette, Yves, and Cardin, J.R., Le regime syndical et les unites de negociation dans les secteurs hospitalier et scolaire (1970), 25 R.I. 445 [paras. 96, 211].

Richardson, Ivan C.M., Incidents of the Crown Servant Relationship (1955), 33 Can. B. Rev. 427 [paras. 113, 228].

Counsel:

Jacques Clement, Q.C., for the appellant;

Andre Joli-Coeur and Claude Verge, for the respondent, Labrecque.

This case was heard on May 6, 1980, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 12, 1980, BEETZ, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada (English version - see paragraphs 1 to 115; French version - see paragraphs 116 to 230):