Roncarelli v Duplessis

Premier Maurice Duplessis directed the Quebec Liquor Commission to revoke Roncarelli's liquor licence in retaliation for posting bail for Jehovah's Witnesses. The SCC held that there is no such thing as absolute discretion. Duplessis was personally liable for his abuse of statutory power.

Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurateur, posted bail for hundreds of Jehovah's Witnesses arrested for distributing literature. Duplessis, then Premier and Attorney General, ordered the Liquor Commission to revoke Roncarelli's licence permanently.

(1) Can a statutory power be exercised for purposes unrelated to the statute? (2) Is the Premier personally liable for so directing it?

No to (1). Yes to (2). Damages awarded.

There is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion. Every statutory discretion must be exercised in good faith and for purposes consistent with the statute. Acting outside that envelope exposes the actor to civil liability, even if the actor is the Premier.

Rand J's opinion is among the most-cited Canadian opinions in constitutional and administrative law. Discretion is bounded by the rule of law. The Liquor Commission Act gave the Commission power to grant or revoke licences for purposes related to liquor regulation, not for political punishment. Duplessis's direction was outside the statute and an abuse of the Commission's power.

Foundational rule-of-law case. Establishes that all statutory discretion is bounded by purpose and good faith. Cited in every modern Charter and administrative-law analysis touching on abuse of power.

Roncarelli v Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC).

Kerwin CJ, Taschereau J, Rand J, Locke J, Cartwright J, Fauteux J, Abbott J, Martland J, Judson J