Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2015-04-24
Neutral citation
2015 SCC 22
Report
[2015] 2 SCR 179
Case number
36231
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 36231
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 22, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 179
Date: 20150424
Docket: 36231
Between:
Attorney General of Quebec, Rocco Galati
and Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
Appellants
and
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
and
Canadian Association of Provincial
Court Judges, Grand Council of
Cree (Eeyou Istchee), Cree Nation
Government, Association of the Tax
Court of Canada Judges and Attorney
General of Ontario
Interveners
Official English Translation
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 4)
Wagner J. (McLachlin C.J., Abella, Rothstein, Crowmwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté JJ. concurring)
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 22, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 179
Attorney General of Quebec, Rocco Galati
and Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. Appellants
v.
Attorney General of Canada Respondent
and
Canadian Association of Provincial
Court Judges, Grand Council of
Cree (Eeyou Istchee), Cree Nation
Government, Association of the Tax
Court of Canada Judges and Attorney
General of Ontario Interveners
Indexed as: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)
2015 SCC 22
File No.: 36231.
2015: April 24.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Constitutional law — Courts — Judges — Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal appointed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec — Reference by the Quebec government concerning s. 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867 — Opinion of the Court of Appeal that (1) the “Courts of Quebec” contemplated by s. 98 are those whose judges are appointed by the Governor General, that is, the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the Superior Court of Quebec, and that (2) s. 98 requires that a person appointed to one of the Courts of Quebec have previously been a member of the Barreau du Québec or be such a member when appointed.
Cases Cited
Distinguished: Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 98 .
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Duval Hesler C.J. and Thibault, Morissette, Hilton and Bouchard JJ.A.), 2014 QCCA 2365, [2014] AZ-51136664, [2014] Q.J. No. 14417 (QL), 2014 CarswellQue 14260 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed.
Jean-Yves Bernard and Marie-Catherine Bolduc, for the appellant the Attorney General of Quebec.
Rocco Galati, on his own behalf.
Paul Slansky, for the appellant the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
Bernard Letarte and Alexander Pless, for the respondent.
Sébastien Grammond, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges.
James A. O’Reilly, Patricia Ochman and Alex O’Reilly, for the interveners the Grand Council of Cree (Eeyou Istchee) and the Cree Nation Government.
François Baril and Guy Régimbald, for the intervener the Association of the Tax Court of Canada Judges.
Patrick J. Monahan and Padraic Ryan, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
[1] Wagner J. — We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, essentially for the reasons given by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
[2] The appellants have not persuaded us that the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s. 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .
[3] The arguments based on Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433, do not stand up to analysis. As the Court of Appeal mentioned in paras. 26-36 of its opinion, this appeal concerns different constitutional and statutory provisions, and the reasoning and conclusions from that reference do not apply to it.
[4] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant the Attorney General of Quebec: Attorney General of Quebec, Montréal.
Solicitor for the appellant Rocco Galati: Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corp., Toronto.
Solicitor for the appellant the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.: Slansky Law Professional Corp., Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Canada, Montréal.
Solicitor for the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges: Sébastien Grammond, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the interveners the Grand Council of Cree (Eeyou Istchee) and the Cree Nation Government: O’Reilly & Associés, Montréal.
Solicitors for the intervener the Association of the Tax Court of Canada Judges: Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.