Houde v. Quebec Catholic School Commission, (1977) 17 N.R. 451 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 17, 1977
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1977), 17 N.R. 451 (SCC);[1978] 1 SCR 937;17 NR 451;80 DLR (3d) 542;1977 CanLII 181 (SCC)

Houde v. Que. Catholic School Comm. (1977), 17 N.R. 451 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Houde v. Quebec Catholic School Commission

Indexed As: Houde v. Quebec Catholic School Commission

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

October 17, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of the election of the president of the Quebec Catholic School Commission. The president was elected by secret ballot. The secret ballot was conducted pursuant to a resolution adopted by the commission. A member of the commission commenced an action to challenge the validity of such a secret ballot. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the member's action.

On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Quebec Superior Court was affirmed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the Quebec Education Act and held that the resolution which authorized the secret ballot was valid. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a school commission is free to adopt any reasonable mode or method of balloting which is not expressly forbidden by law - see paragraph 4. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether a statutory form constitutes a part of the text of the law depends upon the terms of the statute - see paragraphs 8 and 22. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the member's argument that a form of the Education Act precluded a secret ballot - see paragraphs 7 and 20.

Spence, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have allowed the appeal, would have set aside the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal and would have declared invalid the resolution authorizing the secret ballot. Pigeon, J., stated that the resolution authorizing the secret ballot. Pigeon, J., stated that the resolution authorizing the secret ballot was in conflict with s. 197 and Form 10 of the Quebec Education Act - see paragraphs 40 and 53.

Education - Topic 930

Education authorities - Internal affairs of commissions or boards - Election of officers - Manner of balloting, secret ballot - The Quebec Catholic School Commission elected its president by secret ballot - A member of the commission challenged the validity of such a secret ballot - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the Quebec Education Act and held that the balloting was valid - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a school commission is free to adopt any reasonable mode or method of balloting for elections which is not expressly forbidden by law - See paragraph 4.

Education - Topic 923

Education authorities - Internal affairs of commissions and boards - Extent of power of commissions and boards to regulate their own affairs - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that school commissions have a broad discretion as to the regulation of their own procedures - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in the absence of statutory obligation or misconduct, a school commission may regulate its own affairs as it sees fit - See paragraph 3.

Statutes - Topic 1864

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Schedules, appendices and forms - Effect of - Whether a form was a part of the text of the law - The Quebec Catholic School Commission elected its president by secret ballot - A member of the commission in challenging the secret ballot relied on the wording of a form of the Quebec Education Act - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether such a form constitutes a part of the text of the law depends upon the terms of the statute - See paragraphs 8 and 22.

Cases Noticed:

Re Howard and the City of Toronto, [1928] 1 D.L.R. 952, folld. [paras. 3, 17].

Attorney General v. Lamplough (1878), 3 Ex. D. 214, refd to. [paras. 8, 22]; folld [paras. 35, 48].

Canadian Northern Pacific Railway v. New Westminster Corporation, [1917] A.C. 602, folld. [paras. 34, 47].

General Motors of Canada v. Brunet, 13 N.R. 233, folld. [paras. 35, 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Education Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 235, sect. 5 [paras. 9, 23]; sect. 197 [para. 30].

Interpretation Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 1, sect. 48 [paras. 9, 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (1968 Rev. Vol.) Vol. 4, page 555 [paras. 4, 18].

Rogers, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, 2nd Ed., page 250 [paras. 4, 18].

Driedger, The Construction of Statutes, page 117 [paras. 8, 22].

Counsel:

Roger Pothier, for the appellant;

Roger Thibaudeau, Q.C. and Guy Des Rivieres, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., at Ottawa, Ontario on February 3, 1977.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on October 17, 1977 and the following opinions were filed:

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 14 (English language) and paragraphs 15 to 28 (French language).

PIGEON, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 29 to 42 (English language) and paragraphs 43 to 55 (French language).

LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON and RITCHIE, JJ. concurred with DICKSON, J.

SPENCE, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ. concurred with PIGEON, J.