Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Citation: (1997), 218 N.R. 241 (SCC),74 ACWS (3d) 42,1997 CanLII 326 (SCC),218 NR 241,46 CRR (2d) 234,JE 97-1912,[1997] 3 SCR 569,151 DLR (4th) 385,[1997] SCJ No 85 (QL)
• Date: 22 April 1997

Libman v. Que. (A.G.) (1997), 218 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [1997] N.R. TBEd. OC.002

Robert Libman, Equality Party (appellant) v. The Attorney General of Quebec (respondent)

(File No. 24960)

Indexed As: Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

October 9, 1997.

Summary:

Libman was the president of the Equality Party and a member of the National As­sembly. In 1992 Libman and the Equality Party moved for a declaratory judgment in anticipation of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord to have numerous sections of the Referendum Act (Que.) declared invalid and of no force and effect. The impugned provisions placed limits on the expenses that could be incurred during a referendum campaign by setting out, inter alia, what types of expenses were allowed and who could incur them. Libman and the Equality Party argued that the impugned provisions infringed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Char­ter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [1992] R.J.Q. 2141; [1992] Q.J. No. 1206, dismissed the motion. The court held that while the impugned provisions infringed the freedom of expression, the infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Libman ap­pealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Brossard, J.A., dissenting in part, dismissed the appeal. Libman appealed, arguing that the impugned provisions violated the freedom of political expression and freedom of as­sociation guaranteed by the Canadian Char­ter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that the impugned provisions were contrary to the freedom of expression and freedom of association guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be sustained under s. 1 of the Charter. As a remedy the court declared the impugned provisions to be of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Freedom of expression - Scope of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it favoured a very broad interpretation of freedom of expression in order to extend the guarantee under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to as many ex­pressive activities as possible - See para­graph 31.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.03

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Regulation of election or referendum advertising and spending - The Referendum Act (Que.) placed limits on the expenses that could be incurred during a referendum campaign (Appendix 2, ss. 402, 403, 404, 406 para. 3, 413, 414, 416 and 417) - The Act required that to incur regulated expenses, a person had to belong either to one of the national com­mittees or to a group affiliated with one of those committees - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the above listed pro­visions infringed the freedom of political expression and the freedom of association as guaranteed by ss. 2(b) and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The provisions could not be sustained under s. 1 of the Charter because they did not meet the requirements of the minimal impairment test - The court declared the provisions to be of no force and effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Civil Rights - Topic 2160.3

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Regulation of election or referendum ad­vertising and spending - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.03 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.03 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.03 ].

Elections - Topic 8408

Plebiscites and referendums - Regulation of advertising and spending - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.03 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Alberta Legislation, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 28].

Boucher v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 28].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 28].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 28].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Attorney General).

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 28].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 28].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 367; 112 N.R. 269, refd to. [para. 36].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 284, refd to. [para. 38].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 46].

National Citizens' Coalition Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1984), 11 D.L.R.(4th) 481 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].

Somerville v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 184 A.R. 241; 122 W.A.C. 241; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 205 (C.A.), disapproved [para. 55].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 59].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 60].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 62].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416, refd to. [para. 67].

Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 75].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 86].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 38]; sect. 2(b), sect. 2(d) [para. 1].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 86].

Election Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. E-3.3, sect. 402, sect. 403, sect. 404, sect. 406 para. 3, sect. 413, sect. 414, sect. 416, sect. 417 [para. 6].

Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, sect. 259.1, sect. 259.2 [para. 79].

Referendum Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-64.1, sect. 24 [para. 9]; sect. 44 [para. 4]; sect. 45 [para. 5]; Appendix, sect. 402, sect. 403, sect. 404, sect. 406 para. 3, sect. 413, sect. 414, sect. 416, sect. 417 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, Reforming Electoral Democracy (Lortie Commis­sion): Final Report (1991), vol. 1, pp. 323, 324 [para. 47]; 327 [para. 52]; 328 [para. 51]; 334 [para. 47]; 337 [paras. 50, 51, 52]; 338 [paras. 50, 51]; 339 [paras. 47, 48, 49]; 340 [para. 49]; 341 [para. 48]; 350 [para. 78]; 351 [paras. 50, 78]; 352, 353 [para. 78]; 354 [paras. 49, 78]; 355, 356 [para. 78].

Lortie Commission - see Canada, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, Reforming Electoral Democracy (Lortie Commission): Final Report (1991).

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats, vol. 20, No. 17, April 5, 1978, pp. 708, 710 [para. 64].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats: Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente de la prési­dence du conseil de la constitution et des affaires intergouvernementales, Étude du livre blanc sur la consultation populaire (November and December 1977), generally [para. 64].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats: Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente de la prési­dence du conseil de la constitution, Étude de projet de loi No. 92 -- Loi sur la consultation populaire, No. 114 (June 7, 1978), pp. B-4505, B-4507, B-4508, B-4509 [para. 65].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats: Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente de la prési­dence du conseil de la constitution, Étude de projet de loi No. 92 -- Loi sur la consultation populaire, No. 126 (June 12, 1978), pp. B-4930, B-4941 [para. 65].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats: Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente de la prési­dence du conseil de la constitution, Etude de projet de loi No. 92 -- Loi sur la consultation populaire, No. 139 (June 16, 1978), pp. B-5506, B-5520 [para. 65].

Quebec, Government of Quebec, Con­sulting the People of Quebec (1977), p. 7 [para. 63].

Counsel:

Julius H. Grey, Kim Mancini and Simon Ruel, for the appellant;

Benoît Belleau and Jean-Yves Bernard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Grey Casgrain, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Que­bec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 22, 1997, before 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 of Canada, was delivered by the court, in both official languages on Oc­tober 9, 1997.