Udeco Inc. v. Quebec, (1984) 55 N.R. 360 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1984), 55 N.R. 360 (SCC)

Udeco Inc. v. Que. (1984), 55 N.R. 360 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Udeco Inc. and Desmeuls v. Attorney General of Quebec (defendant) and Pret Hypothecaire, Jaron and Parizeau (mis en cause) and Attorney General of Canada and Deputy Attorney General of Ontario (intervenors)

Indexed As: Udeco Inc. v. Quebec

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

November 22, 1984.

Summary:

The Quebec Minister of Consumer Affairs on the recommendation of the Quebec Securities Commission suspended pursuant to s. 112 of the Quebec Securities Act the power of the board of directors of Pret Hypothecaire and appointed an administrator. The respondents brought an action in nullity to quash the Minister's order.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the action. The respondents appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal in a judgment reported at [1983] C.A. 43 allowed the appeal and held that s. 112 was ultra vires. The Province and the administrator appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, upheld the Minister's order and held that s. 112 was intra vires and did not violate the federal judicial power under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Administrative Law - Topic 1006

Classification of power or function - General principles - Determination of - Method - The Supreme Court of Canada generally discussed the criteria for classifying a power as administrative or judicial - See paragraphs 19 to 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 1042

Classification of power or function - Administrative - Securities trading regulation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the suspension of the powers of the board of directors of a securities trading firm and the appointment of an administrator by the Quebec Minister of Consumer Affairs under s. 112 of the Quebec Securities Act was an administrative act - See paragraphs 19 to 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 1101

Classification of power or function - Judicial - General - The Supreme Court of Canada generally discussed the criteria for determining whether a power is judicial or administrative - See paragraphs 19 to 47.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8601

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - General - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96 - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the three step test to be applied in determining whether powers conferred on a tribunal by provincial legislation constitute an invasion of the federal power to appoint judges - Firstly, the power conferred must be considered in the historical context of s. 96 courts - Secondly, it must be determined whether the power exercised is a judicial function - Thirdly, the function must be appraised in its institutional context to determine whether it is in essence adjudicative in nature - See paragraphs 19 to 47.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8621

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - Provincial legislation respecting securities regulation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the power of the Quebec Minister of Consumer Affairs to suspend the powers of the board of directors of a securities trading firm and appoint an administrator under s. 112 of the Quebec Securities Act was intra vires the province and did not violate the federal judicial power under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - The court held that the Minister's power was an administrative and not judicial one - See paragraphs 19 to 47 - The court held that in any event the Minister's power was not one exercised by the Quebec Superior Court in 1867 - See paragraphs 59 to 67.

Statutes - Topic 1622

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Similar statutes - The Supreme Court of Canada in considering the constitutional validity of s. 112 of the Quebec Securities Act considered similar statutes of Quebec - See paragraphs 56 to 58.

Statutes - Topic 1626

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Similar statutes in other jurisdictions - The Supreme Court of Canada in considering the constitutional validity of s. 112 of the Quebec Securities Act considered similar statutes in other jurisdictions - See paragraphs 48 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Residential Tenancies Act (Ont.), Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158, consd. [para. 14].

Massey-Ferguson v. Saskatchewan, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 413; 39 N.R. 308, consd. [para. 14].

Attorney General of Quebec and Régie du logement v. Grondin et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 364; 50 N.R. 50, consd. [para. 16].

Coopers and Lybrand v. M.N.R., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495; 24 N.R. 163, consd. [para. 25].

Giroux v. Maheux, [1947] Q.B. 163, consd. [para. 26].

Re Ashby, [1934] 3 D.L.R. 565, consd. [para. 27].

Re Davisville Investment Co. Ltd. and City of Toronto et al. (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 553, consd. [para. 28].

Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, consd. [para. 29].

Hébert v. School Commissioners of St. Felicien (1921), 62 S.C.R. 174, consd. [para. 61].

Burland v. Earle, [1902] A.C. 83, consd. [para. 63].

Crevier v. Paquin, [1975] C.S. 260, refd to. [para. 65].

Lagacé v. Lagacé, [1966] C.S. 489, refd to. [para. 65].

Blitt v. Congregation Ajudath Acham of Sherbrooke (1926), 64 C.S. 303, refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 96.

Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, art. 33 [para. 60].

Securities Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. V-1, sect. 53 [para. 3]; sect. 112 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dussault, R., Traité de droit administratif canadien et québécois (1974), tome II, p. 1236 [para. 19].

Gordon, D.M., Administrative Tribunals and the Courts (1933), 49 L.Q. Rev. 94, 106-108 [para. 27].

Pépin, G., and Ouellette, Y., Principes de contentieux administratif (2nd Ed. 1982) [para. 20].

Smith, James, Droit québécois des corporations commerciales (Judico 1977), vol. 3, p. 1771 [para. 62].

Wegenast, F.W., The Law of Canadian Companies (1931), p. 775 [para. 64].

Counsel:

Jean-K. Samson and Jean Bouchard, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Pierre Delisle and Jacques Paquet, for Laliberté, Lanctôt, Morin & Associates;

Jean-Claude Ruelland, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada;

Lorraine E. Weinrib, for the Deputy Attorney General for Ontario.

This case was heard on May 23 and 24, 1984, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 22, 1984, Chouinard, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: