Que. v. Therrien, 2001 SCC 35

• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2001 SCC 35;(2001), 270 N.R. 1 (SCC);EYB 2001-24493;270 NR 1;30 Admin LR (3d) 171;84 CRR (2d) 1;[2001] SCJ No 36 (QL);JE 2001-1178;[2001] 2 SCR 3;155 CCC (3d) 1;43 CR (5th) 1;AZ-50086978;200 DLR (4th) 1

Que. v. Therrien, J. (2001), 270 N.R. 1 (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: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JN.006

Le Juge Richard Therrien, J.C.Q. (appelant) v. La ministre de la Justice (intimée) et La procureur générale du Québec (intimée) et Le procureur général de l'Ontario, Le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick, l'Office des droits des détenus et l'Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec (intervenants)

(27004; 2001 SCC 35)

Indexed As: Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Therrien, J.

Supreme Court of Canada

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

June 7, 2001.

Summary:

Therrien was convicted of certain offences in the early 1970s. In 1987, he received an administrative pardon under s. 5(b) of the Criminal Records Act. Subsequently, during a selection committee interview for a prov­incial court judgeship, he denied ever being in trouble with the law. Upon learning of the conviction, the Quebec Min­ister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature (Conseil). A committee of inquiry, Judge Rivet dissent­ing, recommended that the Minister initiate pro­cedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) (C.J.A.). The Conseil made the rec­ommendation to the Minister. The Minister made a request to the Court of Appeal under s. 95 of the C.J.A. Therrien applied for judicial review in the Superior Court. He sought to have the com­mittee's inquiry report and recommendation, and the Conseil's order suspending him, declared void and of no effect, and to have the request to the Court of Appeal dismissed. At the same time, he filed a motion for declaratory judgment challenging the consti­tutionality of s. 95 of the C.J.A. The Minis­ter filed motions to dismiss.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motions to dismiss. The Minister appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Beauregard, J.A., dissenting, allowed the first appeal and dismissed Judge Therrien's judicial review application. The court unanimously allowed the second appeal, and dismissed Judge Therrien's motion for declaratory judgment. Following their inquiry, the court submitted a report to the Minister recommending that the Government revoke Therrien's commis­sion (see [1998] R.J.Q. 2956). Therrien appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 222

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - When available - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "compliance with the rules of natural justice, which was required of the courts, has been extended to all administrative bodies acting under statutory authority, where they are expressed as the rules of procedural fair­ness ('duty to act fairly'). The fact that a decision is administrative and affects 'the rights, privileges or interests of an individ­ual' is sufficient to trigger the application of the duty of fairness ... Essentially, the duty to act fairly has two components: the right to be heard (the audi alteram partem rule) and the right to an impartial hearing (the nemo iudex in sua causa rule). The nature and extent of the duty may vary with the specific context and the various fact situations dealt with by the adminis­trative body, as well as the nature of the disputes it must resolve" - See paragraphs 81 to 82.

Administrative Law - Topic 271

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - Re penalty - Therrien received an administrative pardon under the Crimi­nal Records Act - During a selection commit­tee interview for a provincial court judge­ship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his con­viction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A commit­tee of inquiry recommended that the Min­ister initiate procedures for Therri­en's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the rec­ommen­dation to the Minister - Therrien submitted that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not granted a supplemen­tary hearing, separate from the first, to state his views regarding appropri­ate sanc­tions for his conduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Ther­rien did not have a right to a separate hearing on the ques­tion of sanctions - See paragraphs 83, 84 and 87 to 91.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - The Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien, a provincial court judge, with the Conseil de la magistrature - A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) (C.J.A.) - The Conseil made the recom­mendation to the Minister - The Minister made a request to the Court of Appeal under s. 95 of the C.J.A. - Therrien sub­mitted that there was an appearance of institutional bias because the committee used the services of counsel who acted as both judge and party - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - Under s. 281 of the C.J.A., the Conseil could retain the services of an advocate or of another expert to assist the committee in conducting its inquiry - The committee's purpose was not to act as a judge or even as a decision-maker responsible for settl­ing a dispute; on the contrary, it was to gather the facts and evidence in order, ultimately, to make a recommendation to the Conseil -When there was no judge or parties, coun­sel for the committee could not have been in a conflict of interest - See para­graphs 102 to 104.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2088 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 222 , Administrative Law - Topic 271 and Administrative Law - Topic 7565 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7565

Delegated powers - Subdelegation of powers - Prohibition against delegation by delegate (delegatus non potest delegare) - Therrien received an administrative pardon under the Criminal Records Act - During a selection committee interview for a provincial court judgeship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his conviction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recommendation to the Minister - Therrien alleged that he did not receive an impartial hearing because, inter alia, the Conseil was bound to follow the recommendations of its committee of inquiry; although the Conseil could del­egate its power of inquiry it still had to be the ultimate decision-maker - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation reflected a clear intention by the legislature to authorize delegation of the powers of inquiry and decision regarding the justifi­cation for a complaint - The process was more efficient and in no way compromised procedural fairness - See paragraphs 93 to 96.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 5182

Discipline - Disciplinary powers - Juris­diction of disciplinary body - [See Courts - Topic 453 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 983

Discrimination - Employment - What constitutes discrimination - [See second and third Criminal Law - Topic 5752 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5752 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1004

Interpretation of Constitution Act - Pre­amble - [See first Courts - Topic 314 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 8657

Judges (incl. justices of the peace) - Removal - [See second Courts - Topic 478 ].

Courts - Topic 202

Judges - General - Role of judge - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the role of judges in Canadian society - See paragraphs 108 to 113.

Courts - Topic 314

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Insti­tutional independence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule of law allowing the government to remove a judge without an address of the legislature (Courts of Justice Act (Que.), s. 95) did not infringe the structural principle of the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 - See paragraphs 59 to 71.

Courts - Topic 314

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Insti­tutional independence - [See Courts - Topic 452.1 ].

Courts - Topic 452.1

Judges - Discipline - Inquiry - Members of - Therrien received an administrative par­don under the Criminal Records Act - During a selection committee interview for a provincial court judgeship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law -Upon learning of his conviction, the Que­bec Minister of Justice lodged a com­plaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature (Conseil) - A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recommendation to the Minister - Therrien submitted that the involvement of one of the four persons who were not members of the judiciary in the decision-making process violated the rules of procedural fairness and the collec­tive or institutional dimension of the struc­tural principle of judicial independence, in that only a body composed of judges may recommend the removal of a judge - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - See paragraphs 97 to 101.

Courts - Topic 453

Judges - Discipline - Inquiry - Jurisdic­tion - Therrien received an administrative par­don under the Criminal Records Act - During a selection committee interview for a provincial court judgeship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law -Upon learning of his conviction, the Que­bec Minister of Justice lodged a com­plaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) (C.J.A.) - The Conseil made the recommendation to the Minister - Therrien submitted that the Conseil had no jurisdiction to review his conduct since the ethical breach occurred before he was appointed; rather, the disci­pline committee of the Barreau du Québec had exclusive jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - Whether or not the actions were prior to Therrien's appointment was not relevant under the C.J.A. - Further, the Barreau had no jurisdiction over the actions in question; in the interests of judicial inde­pendence, it was important that discipline be dealt with in the first place by peers; and the process of selecting persons qual­ified for appoint­ment as judges was so closely related to the exercise of the judi­cial function itself that it could not be dissociated from it - See paragraphs 53 to 58.

Courts - Topic 453.1

Judges - Discipline - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 271 and Administrative Law - Topic 7565 ].

Courts - Topic 476

Judges - Removal - By reason of inability - Therrien received an administrative par­don under s. 5(b) of the Criminal Records Act - During a selection commit­tee inter­view for a provincial court judge­ship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his con­viction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A com­mittee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recom­mendation to the Minister - The Quebec Court of Appeal submitted a report to the Minister recom­mending that the Govern­ment revoke Therrien's commission - Therrien appealed - He submitted, inter alia, that his conduct had not been so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the justice system that the confidence of the public in his capacity to carry out his functions would be under­mined - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Ther­rien's appeal - See para­graphs 146 to 151.

Courts - Topic 478

Judges - Removal - Conditions precedent - Section 95 of the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) provided that "The Government may remove a judge only upon a report of the Court of Appeal made after inquiry at the request of the Minister of Justice" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 95 indicated a real intention by the legislature that the Executive be bound by a finding of the Court of Appeal exonerat­ing the judge - See paragraphs 72 to 78.

Courts - Topic 478

Judges - Removal - Conditions precedent - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that, for purposes of s. 11(d) of the Char­ter, it was not necessary that the procedure to remove a provincial court judge include an address of Parliament - Nor did the Pre­amble to the Constitution Act, 1867, impose such a requirement - See para­graphs 63 to 71.

Courts - Topic 479

Judges - Removal - Judicial review - The Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a com­plaint against Therrien, a provincial court judge, with the Conseil de la magistrature -A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) (C.J.A.) - The Conseil made the recommendation to the Minister -The Minister made a request to the Court of Appeal under s. 95 of the C.J.A. - Therrien subsequently applied for judi­cial review in the Superior Court, seeking to have the committee's inquiry report and recommendation, and the Conseil's order suspending him, declared void and of no effect, and to have the request to the Court of Appeal dismissed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where Therrien's case had been properly referred by the Minister to the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to act - See paragraphs 47 to 52.

Courts - Topic 3029

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - What constitutes a "final judg­ment" - An inquiry panel of the Quebec Court of Appeal, in a report made pursuant to s. 95 of the Courts of Justice Act (Que.), recommended to the Government that a provincial court judge be removed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the decision was a "final or other judg­ment" within the meaning of ss. 2(1) and 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and thus it had jurisdiction under s. 40(1) to hear an appeal from the report - The court con­sidered that the Court of Appeal was not restricted to gathering information and making recommendations, the report was essential to the process of removing a judge, and the report was judicial and in the nature of a decision - See paragraphs 30 to 46.

Criminal Law - Topic 5752

Punishments (sentence) - Pardon - Effect of - Therrien received an administrative pardon under s. 5 of the Criminal Records Act - During a selection committee inter­view for a provincial court judgeship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his conviction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recommendation to the Minister - The Court of Appeal sub­mitted a report to the Minister recom­mending that the Government revoke Therrien's commission - Therrien appealed - He submitted that he was discriminated against on the basis of a criminal record, contrary to, inter alia, s. 15 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada found that the Minister's decision was based pri­marily, if not exclusively, on Therrien's failure to disclose to the selection commit­tee that he had been in trouble with the law - If the decision was also related to the fact that he had a criminal record, Therrien's equality rights were not infringed because the Minister's decision was not discriminatory - See paragraphs 128 to 132.

Criminal Law - Topic 5752

Punishments (sentence) - Pardon - Effect of - Therrien received an administrative pardon under s. 5(b) of the Criminal Records Act - During a selection commit­tee interview for a provincial court judge­ship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his con­viction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A com­mittee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recom­men­dation to the Minister - The Court of Appeal submitted a report to the Minister recommending that the Government revoke Therrien's commission - Therrien appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the selection committee could legally, and without discriminating, ask a question concerning Therrien's trouble with the law - Even if judicial office was included in the expression "employment" in s. 18.1 of the Quebec Charter, the information did not relate to any of the prohibited grounds in s. 10 - Alternatively, the question was permissible since the distinction was based on the aptitudes or qualifications required for judicial office, which was deemed non-discriminatory by s. 20 - See para­graphs 134 to 139.

Criminal Law - Topic 5752

Punishments (sentence) - Pardon - Effect of - Therrien received an administrative pardon under s. 5(b) of the Criminal Records Act - During a selection commit­tee interview for a provincial court judge­ship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his con­viction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A com­mittee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recom­men­dation to the Minister - The Court of Appeal submitted a report to the Minister recommending that the Government revoke Therrien's commission - Therrien appealed - He claimed that he was dismissed or otherwise penalized in his employment owing to the mere fact that he was granted a pardon, contrary to s. 18.2 of the Quebec Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 18.2 did not apply to the judi­ciary - Further, the recommendations made by the Conseil and the Court of Appeal were not made because Therrien had been convicted of a criminal offence; rather, they were made solely because he had failed to disclose his criminal record to the selection committee - See para­graphs 140 to 145.

Criminal Law - Topic 5752

Punishments (sentence) - Pardon - Effect of - Therrien received an administrative pardon under s. 5 of the Criminal Records Act - During a selection committee inter­view for a provincial court judgeship, Therrien denied ever being in trouble with the law - Upon learning of his conviction, the Quebec Minister of Justice lodged a complaint against Therrien with the Conseil de la magistrature - A committee of inquiry recommended that the Minister initiate procedures for Therrien's removal under the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) - The Conseil made the recommendation to the Minister - The Court of Appeal sub­mitted a report to the Minister recom­mending that the Government revoke Therrien's commission - Therrien appealed - He submitted that his pardon retroac­tively vacated his conviction, allowing him to deny its existence when asked whether he had "been in trouble with the law" - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - See paragraphs 106 to 146.

Criminal Law - Topic 5752

Punishments (sentence) - Pardon - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada dis­cussed the effect of a pardon granted under s. 5 of the Criminal Records Act - The court found that "while a pardon does not make the past go away, it expunges conse­quences for the future. The integrity of the pardoned person is restored, and he or she need not suffer the effects associated with the conviction in an arbitrary or discrimi­natory manner ... " - See paragraph 127.

Master and Servant - Topic 303

Nature of relationship - What constitutes an employer-employee relationship - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the judiciary was not included in the word "employment", as found in ss. 18.1 and 18.2 of the Quebec Charter - See para­graphs 140 to 142.

Statutes - Topic 1625

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Subsequent statutes respecting same subject matter - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the effect of an administrative pardon under s. 5 of the Criminal Records Act - The court stated that while amendments in a subsequent version of the Act could not be set up against a pardoned individual, the changes embodied the meaning that Parliament had always intended the Act to have - See paragraph 119.

Statutes - Topic 1806

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of one version by reference to the other - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the French version of s. 5 of the Criminal Records Act (Can.) when interpreting the English version of s. 5 - See paragraph 117.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, appld. [para. 20].

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) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 31].

L.L.A. v. Beharriell, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536; 190 N.R. 329; 88 O.A.C. 241; 103 C.C.C.(2d) 92; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 44 C.R.(4th) 91, refd to. [para. 33].

Davis v. Royal Trust Co., [1932] S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 33].

Wartime Housing Ltd. v. Madden, [1945] S.C.R. 169, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139; 178 D.L.R.(4th) 76, refd to. [para. 34].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 577, consd. [para. 39].

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 218; 3 Admin. L.R.(2d) 242, dist. [para. 42].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443, dist. [para. 44].

Canada (Secretary of State) v. Luitjens (1992), 142 N.R. 173; 9 C.R.R.(2d) 149 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Kelly (P.) (2001), 268 N.R. 149; 145 O.A.C. 168 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 45].

Thomas v. R., [1980] A.C. 125 (P.C.), dist. [para. 45].

St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 86 C.L.L.C. 14,037, refd to. [para. 49].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-027; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1; 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217, refd to. [para. 49].

Ruffo (Juge) v. Conseil de la magistrature et autres, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267; 190 N.R. 1; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 52].

Maurice v. Priel, McKeague and Walker, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1023; 96 N.R. 178; 77 Sask.R. 22, refd to. [para. 55].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 481, consd. [para. 60].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110, consd. [para. 60].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Qué­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 78 C.L.L.C. 14,181, refd to. [para. 81].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 118; 49 C.R.(3d) 35; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 577; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 44, refd to. [para. 81].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 81].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 82].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 82].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 1, dist. [para. 85].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1; 92 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 14 B.C.R.(2d) 217; 22 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 87].

Superintendent of Brokers v. Pezim - see Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al.

Peralta et al. v. Ontario, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1045; 89 N.R. 323; 31 O.A.C. 319 aff­ing. (1985), 7 O.A.C. 283; 49 O.R.(2d) 705 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

Reference Re the Effect of the Exercise by the Governor General of the Royal Pre­rogative of Mercy upon Deportation Proceedings, [1933] S.C.R. 269, refd to. [para. 113].

Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Que.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 18 C.R.R. 1; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 120].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 131].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Cie Price ltée, J.E. 81-866 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 137].

Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne du Québec) v. Beauport (Ville), [1981] C.P. 292, refd to. [para. 137].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [para. 59]; sect. 15(1) [para. 105].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 10, sect. 18.1, sect. 18.2, sect. 20 [para. 105].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, sect. 25, sect. 31, sect. 33, sect. 46 [para. 29].

Constitution Act, 1867, Preamble, sect. 96, sect. 99 [para. 59].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. T-16, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 95, sect. 256, sect. 260 [para. 29]; sect. 262 [para. 105]; sect. 263 [paras. 29, 105]; sect. 268, sect. 269, sect. 272, sect. 275, sect. 277, sect. 278 [para. 80]; sect. 279 [paras. 29, 80, 105]; sect. 281 [para. 80].

Courts of Justice Act Regulations (Que.), Judicial Code of Ethics, R.R.Q. 1981, Reg. 4.1, sect. 2, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 10 [paras. 54, 105].

Courts of Justice Act Regulations (Que.), Regulation respecting the procedure for the selection of persons apt for appoint­ment as judges, R.R.Q. 1981, Reg. 5, sect. 7, sect. 18 [para. 105].

Criminal Records Act, R.S.C. 1970 (1st Supp.), c. 12, sect. 5 [paras. 105, 117].

Criminal Records Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 8 [para. 105].

Interpretation Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. I-16, sect. 57 [para. 29].

Judicial Code of Ethics - see Courts of Justice Act Regulations (Que.), Judicial Code of Ethics.

Professional Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-26, sect. 45(1) [para. 105]; sect. 116 [para. 56].

Regulation respecting the procedure for the selection of persons apt for appointment as judges - see Courts of Justice Act Regulations (Can.).

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 2(1), sect. 40(1) [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beetz, Jean, Présentation du premier conférencier de la Conférence du 10é anniversaire de l'Institut canadien d'administration de la justice, propos recueillis dans Mélanges Jean Beetz (1995), pp. 70, 71 [para. 109].

Brunelle, Christian, La Charte québécoise et les santions de l'employeur contre les auteurs d'actes criminels oeuvrant en milieu éducatif (1995), 29 R.J.T. 313, pp. 336, 337 [para. 145].

Canada, Proposal for Reform of the Crim­inal Records Act - Explanatory Docu­ment by the Solicitor General of Canada, Recommendation No. 7 (July 20, 1991), pp. 10, 11 [para. 118].

Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Prin­ciples for Judges (1998), p. 14 [para. 110].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 308 [para. 120]; 342 et seq. [para. 121].

Dumont, Hélène, Le casier judiciaire: crim­inel un jour, criminel toujours? in Les Journées Maximilien-Caron 1995, Le respect de la vie privée dans l'entreprise: de l'affirmation à l'exercice d'un droit (1995), pp. 115 [para. 119]; 132 [para. 122]; 134 et seq. [para. 142].

Dumont, Hélène, Pénologie - Le droit canadien relatif aux peines et aux sen­tences (1993), pp. 539 to 570 [para. 113].

Friedland, Martin L., A Place Apart: Judi­cial Independence and Accountability in Canada (1995), pp. 80, 81 [para. 147]; 130 [para. 38]; 137 [para. 99].

Gall, Gerald L., The Canadian Legal Sys­tem (1977), p. 167 [para. 111].

Glenn, H. Patrick, Indépendance et déon­tologie judiciaires (1995), 55 R. du B. 295, p. 308 [para. 57].

Morissette, Yves-Marie, Figure actuelle du juge dans la cité (1999), 30 R.D.U.S. 1, pp. 11, 12 [para. 111].

Nadin-Davis, R. Paul, Canada's Criminal Records Act: Notes on How Not to Expunge Criminal Convictions (1980-81), 45 Sask. L. Rev. 221, p. 221 [para. 120].

Ouellette, Yves, Les Tribunaux adminis­tratifs au Canada: Procédure et preuve (1997), p. 92 [para. 88].

Quebec, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Lignes directrices pour l'application de l'article 18.2 (May 12, 1988), p. 4 [para. 145].

Russell, Peter H., The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government (1987), p. 181 [para. 38].

Singleton, Thomas J., La discrimination fondée sur le motif des antécédents judi­ciaires et les instruments anti-discrimina­toires canadiens (1993), 72 Can. Bar Rev. 456, pp. 463 [para. 118]; 472 [para. 137]; 473 [para. 145]; 474 [para. 142].

Counsel:

Jean-Claude Hébert, Sophie Bourque and Christian Brunelle, for the appellant;

Benoît Belleau, Robert Mongeon and Monique Rousseau, for the respondents;

Lori Sterling and Sean Hanley, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Cedric L. Haines, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Bruns­wick;

Julius H. Grey and Elisabeth Goodwin, for the interveners, the Office des droits des détenus and the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec.

Solicitors of Record:

Hébert, Bourque & Downs, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent, Minister of Justice;

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montréal, Que­bec, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Grey Casgrain, Montréal, Quebec, for the interveners, the Office des droits des détenus and the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec.

This appeal was heard on October 10, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Gonthier, J., delivered the following judg­ment for the court in both official languages on June 7, 2001.