Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, 2002 SCC 85

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 20, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2002 SCC 85;(2002), 297 N.R. 331 (SCC)

Prud'homme v. Prud'homme (2002), 297 N.R. 331 (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: [2002] N.R. TBEd. DE.038

André Prud'homme, Gilles Prud'homme, Jean-Paul Fortin, André Fortin et Savino Cantatore (appelants) c. Fernand Prud'homme (intimé) et Société Radio-Canada, La Presse Ltée, 3834310 Canada Inc., Groupe Transcontinental G.T.C. Ltée et Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec (intervenantes)

(28117; 2002 CSC 85; 2002 SCC 85)

Indexed As: Prud'homme v. Prud'homme

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

December 20, 2002.

Summary:

Some municipal taxpayers sued a munici­pal councillor in defamation with respect to comments the councillor made at a regular council meeting.

The Quebec Superior Court allowed the action. The councillor appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2000] R.R.A. 607, allowed the appeal. The taxpayers appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 602

Council members - General - Liability of -[See Municipal Law - Topic 1982 and Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4602 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 620

Council members - Status - General - [See Municipal Law - Topic 631 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 631

Council members - Duties - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the legal status and duties of elected municipal officials in Quebec and stated: "Generally speaking, elected municipal officials are officials of the municipal corporation [...] In that capacity, their rights and duties are those of a mandatary. As well, in the course of their participation in the legislat­ive or administrative activities of the coun­cil, they are not personally liable for the council's acts, unless they acted fraudulent­ly or with gross negligence amounting to gross fault. Nor are they liable for the ultra vires acts of the municipality, unless they acted maliciously or in bad faith [...] How­ever, in the case of the collegial acts of the council, elected municipal officials are, as a rule, personally liable for their wrongful individual acts" - See paragraphs 18 to 23.

Municipal Law - Topic 1982

Liability of municipalities - Quebec res­ponsibility - Basis of liability - In a Que­bec action for defamation against a munici­pal councillor, the Supreme Court of Canada held: "In short, when the new provisions of the Civil Code of Québec, and more particularly art. 1376, came into force, they no longer allowed the use of the method laid down by Laurentide Motels [S.C.C.], insofar as that decision imposed an obligation on the individual to identify a public common law rule that made the private law applicable to his or her action in liability against the govern­mental body. The civil law principles of civil liability now apply, as a rule, to wrongful acts by such bodies. It therefore belongs to the party which intends to rely on the public law in order to avoid or to limit the application of the general rules of civil liability to establish, where the need arises, that there are relevant public law principles that prevail over the civil law rules" - The court added that any public law rule that deviated from the jus com­mune of civil liability would necessarily derive from the public common law - See paragraphs 24 to 31, 46 to 48.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 67

General principles - Application of civil law - Governmental bodies - [See Munici­pal Law - Topic 1982 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4601

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the Quebec Civil Law rules of liability with respect to defamation - See paragraphs 32 to 45.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4602

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - What constitutes defamation - A bylaw of the City of Repentigny, Que­bec, imposed taxes and levies for the ex­tension of a road and municipal services to a school to be constructed - The taxes and levies were imposed only on the taxpayers who resided in the extension area - The project also involved the dezoning of protected agricultural land and the expro­priation of land belonging to some taxpayers (the plaintiffs) - The bylaw was quashed at first instance at the request of the plaintiffs and other taxpayers - A mun­icipal councillor who disagreed with the court decision sought to convince his fellow councillors to bring an appeal - At a regular council meeting, the councillor criticized the decision and accused the plaintiffs of trying to have it both ways: as real estate speculators for part of their lands, and as farmers for the rest - The plaintiffs sued the councillor in defamation - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the councillor did not commit fault - Overall, the councillor acted in good faith, with the aim of performing his duties as an elected municipal official - While his comments about the subject taxpayers were some­times harsh, they were made in the public interest - The respondent did not abuse his right to comment on and discuss public affairs that affected the municipality - See paragraphs 2 to 8, 64 to 84.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4664

Particular examples - Defamation - Defen­ces - Qualified privilege - In a Quebec action for defamation against a municipal councillor, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law defence of qualified privilege had an equivalent in Quebec Civil Law - Since fault was deter­mined from the context and there was a presumption of good faith, it could be concluded that the application of the rules of the law of civil liability would protect the interests and values that the law respec­ting public authorities sought to protect when it defined the status of an elected municipal official - In Quebec Civil Law, the criteria for the defence of qualified privilege were circumstances that had to be considered in assessing fault - See para­graphs 49 to 60.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4665

Particular examples - Defamation - Defen­ces - Fair comment - In a Quebec action for defamation against a municipal council­lor, the Supreme Court of Canada held: "It is not only unjustified, but pointless, to import [the common law defence of fair comment] into the civil law. The rules of civil liability already provide that a defend­ant may rely on all the circumstances that tend to demonstrate the non-existence of fault. Because the criteria for the defence of fair comment are precisely the circum­stances to be taken into consideration in determining whether a fault has been com­mitted, those criteria are already an inte­gral part of Quebec civil law. It therefore serves no purpose to mechanically apply the criteria for the defence of fair com­ment. At the risk of repetition, the rules of civil liability are flexible and require that whether a fault has been committed be determined by examining all of the circum­stances" - See paragraphs 61 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

Vigneault v. Steenhaut et autres, [1986] R.R.A. 548; 8 Q.A.C. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, not folld. [para. 17].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728, refd to. [para. 25].

Doré v. Verdun (Ville), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862; 215 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 30].

Houde v. Benoit, [1943] B.R. 713 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Société Radio-Canada v. Radio Sept-Îles Inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1811 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Hervieux-Payette v. Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, [1998] R.J.Q. 131 (Sup. Ct.), revd., Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal v. Hervieux-Pa­yette, [2002] R.J.Q. 1669 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Beaudoin v. La Presse Ltée, [1998] R.J.Q. 204 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 34].

Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, consd. [para. 38].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, consd. [para. 39].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 39].

Ford v. Québec (Procureur général) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 39].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

Comité pour la République du Canada - see Committee for the Common­wealth of Canada.

R. v. Comité pour la République du Canada - see Committee for the Com­monwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada.

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; 218 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

Thomson Newspaper Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Guignard (R.) (2002), 282 N.R. 365 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, consd. [para. 43].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135, consd. [para. 49].

Shaw v. Morgan (1888), 15 R. 865 (Ct. of Sess.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ward v. McBride (1911), 24 O.L.R. 555 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Edwards v. Gattmann (1928), 40 B.C.R. 122 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Savidant v. Day (1933), 5 M.P.R. 554 (P.E.I.S.C.), affd. [1933] 4 D.L.R. 456 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Peckham v. Mount Pearl (City) (1995), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 142; 379 A.P.R. 142 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Johnson v. Jolliffe (1981), 26 B.C.L.R. 176 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Lamy v. Pagé (1910), 16 R. de J. 456 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Belley v. Labrecque (1911), 20 B.R. 79 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Clearihue (1911), 20 B.R. 529 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Pichette v. Giroux (1914), 20 R. de J. 595, refd to. [para. 49].

Joannette v. Jasmin (1915), 21 R.L. 78 (C. Rev.), refd to. [para. 49].

Anjou 80 v. Simard, [1987] R.R.A. 805 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Revelin v. Boutin, [1991] R.R.A. 507 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 49].

Rouillard v. Malacort, [1993] R.R.A. 486 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 49].

129675 Canada Inc. v. Caron, [1996] R.R.A. 1175 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 311; 26 N.R. 242, refd to. [para. 50].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 50].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Rubis v. Gray Rocks Inn Ltd., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 452; 41 N.R. 108, refd to. [para. 54].

L. v. Éditions de la Cité Inc., [1960] C.S. 485 (Qué.), refd to. [para. 61].

Chernesky v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 61].

Paquet v. Rousseau, [1996] R.R.A. 1156 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Conseil de la Nation huronne v. Lainé, [1998] R.R.A. 495 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Drouin v. La Presse Ltée, [1999] R.R.A. 714 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Guitouni v. Société Radio-Canada, [2001] R.R.A. 67 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Picard v. Gros-Louis, [2000] R.R.A. 62 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Dhawan v. Kenniff, [2001] R.R.A. 53 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Maison du Parc inc. v. Chayer, [2001] Q.J. No. 2663 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Repentigny (Ville) v. Domaine Ti-Bo inc., J.E. 96-2062 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Domaine Repentigny inc. v. Repentigny (Ville), [1998] T.A.Q. 453, refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 44, sect. 49 [para. 9].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, Preliminary Provision, art. 3, art. 35, art. 300, art. 1376, art. 1457 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, et Deslauriers, Patrice Deslauriers, La responsabilité civile, 5e éd., 1998, pp. 301 to 302 [para. 35].

Bisson, Alain-François, La Disposition préliminaire du Code civil du Québec (1999), 44 McGill L.J. 539, generally [para. 29].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), vol. 1, (loose-leaf updated 2002, rel. 2), pp. 1-26 [para. 56]; 12-20, 12-21 and 13-4 [para. 49]; 13-15 to 13-20 [para. 57].

Colas, Émile, Le droit à la vérité et le libelle diffamatoire, (1984), 44 R. du B. 637, pp. 652 to 654 [para. 57].

Côté, Pierre-André, La détermination du domaine du droit civil en matière de responsabilité civile de l'Administration québécoise -- Commentaire de l'arrêt Laurentide Motels, dans Mélanges Jean Beetz, 1995, pp. 397 [para. 27]; 398 [para. 54]; 401 [para. 52].

David, René, English Law and French Law: A Comparison in Substance (1980), p. 150 [para. 55].

Gaudreault-Desbiens, Jean-François, Le traitement juridique de l'acte individuel fautif de l'élu municipal, source d'obli­gations délictuelles ou quasi délictuelles. Un essai de systématisation critique du droit positif québécois (1993), 24 R.G.D. 469, pp. 475 to 482 [para. 19]; 484 [para. 20]; 484 to 485 [para. 22]; 486 [para. 42]; 500 [paras. 57, 58].

Hétu, Jean, Duplessis, Yvon, et Pakenham, Dennis, Droit municipal: principes géné­raux et contentieux, 1998, p. 177 [para. 49].

Jean, Claude, Responsabilité civile délic­tuelle: la chasse aux élus et aux officiers municipaux est-elle ouverte?, dans Déve­loppements récents en droit municipal, 1989, 183, pp. 210 [para. 19]; 211 [para. 21].

Klar, Lewis N. Tort Law (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 551 [para. 56].

Lemieux, Denis, L'impact du Code civil du Québec en droit administratif (1994), 15 Admin. L.R.(2d) 275, pp. 295 to 297 [para. 29].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (6th Ed. 1997), p. 695 [para. 56].

Rogers, Ian MacF., Municipal Councillors' Handbook (6th Ed. 1993), p. 3 [para. 20].

Rogers, Ian MacF., The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 2001), (loose-leaf updated 2002, rel. 3A), p. 214.16 [para. 21].

McLaren, John P. S., The Defamation Action and Municipal Politics (1980), 29 U.N.B.L.J. 123, pp. 134 to 135 [para. 49].

Pineau, Jean, et Ouellette, Monique, Thé­orie de la responsabilité civile, 2e éd., 1980, pp. 63 to 64 [para. 36].

Tremblay, Jacques, La responsabilité de l'élu municipal et sa protection contre certaines pertes financières: récents déve­loppements, dans Développements ré­cents en droit municipal, 1998, 155, pp. 157 [para. 18].

Trudel, Pierre, Poursuites en diffamation et censure des débats publics. Quand la participation aux débats démocratiques nous conduit en cour (1998), 5 B.D.M. 18, p. 18 [para. 42].

Vallières, Nicole, La presse et la diffama­tion, 1985, pp. 10 [para. 37]; 43 [para. 32].

Counsel:

William J. Atkinson, for the appellants, André Prud'homme, Gilles Prud'homme, Jean-Paul Fortin and Savino Cantatore;

Jean-Jacques Rainville and Réjean Rioux, for the respondent, Fernand Prud'hom­me;

Marc-André Blanchard and Sylvie Gadou­ry, for the interveners, Société Radio-Canada, La Presse Ltée, 3834310 Canada Inc., Groupe Transcontinental G.T.C. Ltée and Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellants, André Prud'homme, Gil­les Prud'homme, Jean-Paul Fortin and Savino Cantatore;

Dunton Rainville, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent, Fernand Prud'homme;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Montréal, Quebec, for the interveners, Société Radio-Canada, La Presse Ltée, 3834310 Canada Inc., Groupe Transcontinental G.T.C. Ltée and Fédération profession­nelle des journalistes du Québec.

This appeal was heard on March 13, 2002, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on De­cember 20, 2002, by L'Heureux-Dubé and LeBel, JJ.