THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
AND ITS IMPACT ON THE EXPRESSION
OF BIJURALISM

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Endnotes

• ^*  General Counsel—Comparative Law, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice, Canada. I would like to thank Ms. Nathalie Lacroix of the Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice, for her invaluable assistance with research and Louise Lavallée, drafter, Regulations Section, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice, for our frequent exchange of ideas. The opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not necessarily correspond to the Department of Justice position on any of the issues.

• ^[1]  See e.g. Derrickson v. Derrickson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997]
  3 S.C.R. 1010.

• ^[2]  On this period, see G. Wynn, "Aux confins de l'empire 1760-1840" in C. Brown and P.-A. Linteau, eds., Histoire générale du Canada (Montreal: Éditions du Boréal, 1990) 223.

• ^[3]  M. Brunet, G. Frégault and M. Trudel, Histoire du Canada par les textes (Montreal: Fides, 1952) at 112-13 [translated by author]. The original text from the collection of texts reads: "dans toute cause ou action civile entre sujets-nés britanniques, le jury devra se composer de sujets-nés britanniques seulement; que dans toute cause ou action entre Canadiens le jury devra se composer de Canadiens seulement; et que dans toute cause ou action entre sujets-nés britanniques et Canadiens, le jury devra se composer d'un nombre égal de chaque nationalité si l'une ou l'autre partie en fait la demande […]"

• ^[4]  For a singular example of the co-existence of traditions in Quebec, see J.E.C. Brierley, "The Co-existence of Legal Systems in Quebec: ‘Free and Common Soccage' in Canada's ‘pays de droit civil'" (1979) 20 C. de D. 277.

• ^[5]  Ss. 91 and 92, Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3. See especially subs. 92(13) of this Act which confers residual jurisdiction over property and civil rights on the provinces.

• ^[6]  S. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads as follows: "The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from Time to Time provide for the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of a General Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the Establishment of any additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada."

• ^[7]  On the evolution of the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, see F. Bélanger, Les cours de justice et la magistrature du Québec (Quebec: Direction des communications du ministère de la Justice, 1999) at 9ff. The current composition of the Court (nine judges, three of who are from Quebec) was only established in 1949 with the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council.

• ^[8]  Appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters were abolished in 1933.

• ^[9]  See H.P. Glenn, "Le droit comparé et la Cour suprême du Canada" in E. Caparros et al., eds., Mélanges Louis-Philippe Pigeon (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1989) 197 at 205.

• ^[10]  This initial role of the Supreme Court of Canada is generally recognized. See e.g. P.H. Russell, The Supreme Court of Canada as a Bilingual and Bicultural Institution in Canada, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Document 1 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1969) at 6; J.G. Snell and F. Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada. History of the Institution (Toronto: The Osgoode Society, 1985) at xii.

• ^[11]  On the context of codification and the work of the Codifiers, see J.E.C. Brierley, "Quebec's Civil Law Codification Viewed and Reviewed" (1968) 14 McGill L.J. 521.

• ^[12] See the wording of the Act to provide for the Codification of the Laws of Lower Canada relative to Civil matters and Procedure, L.C. 1857, c. 43.

• ^[13] (1887), 14 S.C.R. 105.

• ^[14]  D. Howes, "From Polyjurality to Monojurality: The Transformation of Quebec Law, 1875-1929" (1987) 32 McGill L.J. 523 at 527-28.

• ^[15]  J.-L. Baudouin, "L'interprétation du code civil québécois par la Cour suprême du Canada" (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 715 at 732ff.

• ^[16]  On the foundations of freedom of willing in Quebec, see A. Morel, Les limites de la liberté testamentaire dans le droit civil de la province de Québec (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1960).

• ^[17]  For an overview of the evolution of freedom of willing and its scope in Quebec, see especially J.-M. Brisson, "Entre le devoir et le sentiment : la liberté testamentaire en droit québécois (1774-1990)" in Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, vol. LXII, Actes à cause de mort — Acts of Last Will (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1994) 277.

• ^[18] (1902), 32 S.C.R. 357.

• ^[19] Ibid. at 366.

• ^[20] (1874), 6 R.S. 55 (P.C.).

• ^[21]  Supra note 18 at 365.

• ^[22] See e.g. Baudouin, supra note 15; R. Boult, "Aspects des rapports entre le droit civil et la common law dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada" (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 738; Glenn, supra note 9 and the texts cited thereof. See also P.-G. Jobin, "La Cour suprême et la réforme du Code civil" (2000) 79 Can. Bar Rev. 27.

• ^[23] See the case law referred to in Baudouin, supra note 15 at 719ff. and the conclusion he reaches on page 722, resumed by Glenn, supra note 9 at 207. See also, Howes, supra note 14 at 526. But see T. Rinfret, "Reciprocal Influences of the French and English Laws" (1926) 4 Can. Bar Rev. 69, who saw a community of spirit between the two legal traditions and a true reciprocity of influences between both traditions, more often in the adoption of reformed laws.

• ^[24] Glenn, supra note 9 at 207.

• ^[25] (1922), 64 S.C.R. 106.

• ^[26] (1863) 122 E.R. 309.

• ^[27] Ibid. at 313.

• ^[28] No systematic search of all of Privy Council decisions on Quebec law was done to determine whether any such decision was ever used as a precedent in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a common law case.

• ^[29] See H.P. Glenn, "Persuasive Authority" (1987) 32 McGill L.J. 261, on the reception of French law into English law in the nineteenth century.

• ^[30] We note with interest the proposition made by David Howes on the dialogue and reciprocity between traditions during the period preceding the creation of the Supreme Court of Canada and the texts referred to in: "From Polyjurality to Monojurality: The Transformation of Quebec Law, 1875-1929", supra note 14 at 557. In general, doctrinal writers however suggest that uniformity of law was an essential part of the role to be played by the Supreme Court of Canada. In this regard, the dialogue between traditions may be better described as a monologue, at least until the 1950s.

• ^[31] Baudouin, supra note 15 at 719.

• ^[32] See e.g. P.-B. Mignault, "Les rapports entre le droit civil et la ‘common law' au Canada, spécialement dans la province de Québec" (1932) 11 R. du D. 201. For a discussion of this movement against the contamination of civil law by common law and the need to preserve the integrity of civil law, see S. Normand, "Un thème dominant de la pensée juridique traditionnelle au Québec : La sauvegarde de l'intégrité du droit civil" (1987) 32 McGill L.J. 559. Other authors would later follow and promote the defence of civil law against common law: P. Azard, "La Cour suprême du Canada et l'application du droit civil de la province de Québec" (1965) 43 Can. Bar Rev. 553; J.-L. Baudouin, "Le Code civil du Québec : crise de croissance ou crise de vieillesse" (1966) 44 Can. Bar Rev. 391; P.‑A. Crépeau, "Les lendemains de la réforme du Code civil" (1981) 59 Can. Bar Rev. 625.

• ^[33] Baudouin, supra note 15 at 716-17.

• ^[34]  A.-J. Arnaud et al., eds., Dictionnaire encyclopédique de théorie et de sociologie du droit, 2nd ed. (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1993) s.v. "Code", by D. Carzo, at 67. The definition reads: "corps plus ou moins organique de normes explicites ou implicites qui servent à régler la conduite humaine." For another definition see Editorial Committee, Private Law Dictionary, 3rd ed. [forthcoming] s.v. "code": "Corpus of fundamental provisions designed to present the different subject matters of an important branch of law in a systematic and coherent manner."

• ^[35]  See G. Cornu, Vocabulaire juridique, 8th ed. (Paris: P.U.F., 2000) s.v. "Code civil" and the proposed definition in Private Law Dictionary, ibid. s.v. "Civil Code": "Code the purpose of which is to regulate generally all matters within the purview of the civil law."

• ^[36]  For a general description of the specific nature of codes and their method of interpretation, see J.-L. Bergel, "Spécificités des codes et autonomie de leur interprétation" in Journées Maximilien-Caron 1992, Le Nouveau Code civil : interprétation et application (Montreal: Thémis, 1993) 3; A.-F. Bisson, "Effet de codification et interprétation" (1986) 17 R.G.D. 359; P.-A. Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2000) at 28ff.

• ^[37]  See A.-F. Bisson, ibid. at 361; J.E.C. Brierley, "Quebec's ‘Common Laws' (droits communs): How Many Are There?" in Caparros et al., supra note 9, 109 at 122ff. and, especially, J.-M. Brisson, "Le Code civil, droit commun?" in Le Nouveau Code civil : interprétation et application, supra note 36, 293 at 296ff.

• ^[38]  On the difference between interpretation under a civil law system and a common law system, see A.-F. Bisson, "Nouveau Code civil et jalons pour l'interprétation : traditions et transitions" (1992) 23 R.D.U.S. 1 at 8ff. But see Côté, supra note 36 at 27-28.

• ^[39]  On how doctrinal writers reacted to the "interpretation" by courts of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, see Normand, supra note 32; S. Parent, La doctrine et l'interprétation du Code civil (Montreal: Thémis, 1997) at 114ff.

• ^[40]  [1920] A.C. 662.

• ^[41] Ibid. at 671-72.

• ^[42]  [1931] S.C.R. 113 at 121. The finding establishing the "statutory" character of the Civil Code was not novel. See e.g. Lamontagne v. Quebec Railway Light, Heat and Power Co. (1915), 50 S.C.R. 423 at 427.

• ^[43]  It should be noted that the terms "père, mère et enfants" used in the French text of article 1056 C.C.L.C. were replaced in 1930 (S.Q. 1930, c. 98, s. 1) by the terms "ascendants et descendants". These terms correspond to terms "ascendant and descendant relations" already used in the English text. It is interesting to note that this section was further amended in 1970 (S.Q. 1970, c. 62, s. 11), to add a paragraph to include natural children.

• ^[44]  Many consider that the origin of article 1056 is unclear. The introduction of English law in interpreting this article gave rise to an interpretation that fundamentally contradicted the openness of the civil law to recognize moral prejudice in circumstances of death. See the comments made by Baudouin, supra note 15 at 732-34. For a detailed presentation and critique of the case law and doctrine in connection with this article, see J.-S. Poirier, "Autopsie d'une disposition disparue; l'article 1056 du Code civil du Bas Canada et le solatium doloris" (1995) 29 R.J.T. 657.

• ^[45]  On the authority of precedents and the problem relating to the characterisation of authorities in respect of both traditions,
  see A Mayrand, "L'autorité du précédent au Québec" in J.-L. Baudouin et al., eds., Mélanges Jean Beetz (Montreal: Thémis, 1995) 259 at 261; Parent, supra note 39 at 163-64.

• ^[46]  The interpretation of the Civil Code by reference to authorities used in the legal system from which a provision was derived was suggested by F.P. Walton as the twelfth rule of interpretation in The Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower Canada (Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 1907) at 130. The rule was stated as follows: "When a provision is derived from the French law it is to be interpreted by reference to French authorities, and when it is derived from the English law by reference to English authorities."

• ^[47]  [1931] S.C.R. 113.

• ^[48]  Supra note 18.

• ^[49]  See e.g. the authorities cited by Strong J. in Drysdale v. Dugas (1895), 26 S.C.R. 20 at 21ff.; those cited by Anglin J. in Colonial Real Estate Co. v. Communauté des Sœurs de la Charité de l'Hôpital Général de Montréal (1918), 57 S.C.R. 585 at 590ff. [hereinafter Colonial Real Estate].

• ^[50]  See Baudouin, supra note 15 at 726.

• ^[51]  On the essential character of language in the development of the human being and the latter's relationship with the community, see Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721 at 744.

• ^[52]  See for a description of the main motivations and concerns that made the preservation of the integrity of the civil law a dominant issue in the doctrine of the period 1922-1939, Normand, supra note 32.

• ^[53]  See Howes, supra note 14, for a description of Mignault's position on the relationship between legal traditions while he was justice at the Supreme Court of Canada.

• ^[54] See e.g. Colonial Real Estate Co., supra note 49 at 603; Mile End Milling Co. v. Peterborough Cereal Co., [1924] S.C.R. 120 at 129.

• ^[55]  (1920), 60 S.C.R. 105. It is interesting to note two of the key words under which the case is classified: civil law cases and English decisions. They give a good indication of the importance of the issue of usage of English precedents in the interpretation of Quebec civil law.

• ^[56] Ibid. at 126. In giving his reasons for judgment, Mignault used civil law sources and expressly stated that common law precedents should not be introduced as authority in civil law. Anglin and Brodeur JJ. were of the same view.

• ^[57]  Colonial Real Estate, supra note 49 at 603.

• ^[58] Supra note 54 at 129.

• ^[59] Mignault, supra note 32 at 206; P.-B. Mignault, "Le Code civil de la province de Québec et son interprétation" (1936) 14 R. du D. 583.

• ^[60] See e.g. Howes, supra note 14 at 546ff.

• ^[61] Mignault, supra note 32 at 206. The original text reads as follows: "Une solution de la common law qui ne peut se concilier avec le texte du Code est condamnée d'avance. De ce côté, la porte est close contre toute pénétration."

• ^[62] J.-G. Castel, "Le juge Mignault défenseur de l'intégrité du droit civil québécois" (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 544 at 544.

• ^[63]  See e.g. the use of precedent in Porteous v. Reynar (1887), 9 A.C. 356. Even Mignault J. felt bound by the decisions of the Privy Council. See e.g. Canadian Vickers Ltd. v. Smith, [1923] S.C.R. 203.

• ^[64] See Mayrand, supra note 45 at 264ff.

• ^[65] Supra note 63 at 211ff.

• ^[66]  Supra note 40.

• ^[67] [1922] 2 A.C. 555.

• ^[68]  Supra note 63 at 211-12.

• ^[69]  Supra note 40.

• ^[70] Mayrand, supra note 45 at 264.

• ^[71] On the binding authority of precedents from the Privy Council and the House of Lords on colonies applying English law, see Robins v. National Trust Company Ltd., [1927] A.C. 515. See also Trimble v. Hill (1879), 5 A.C. 342 at 344.

• ^[72]  S.C. 1949, c. 37, s. 3. On the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and the circumstances that led to the empowerment of the Supreme Court of Canada, see B. Laskin, "The Supreme Court of Canada: A Final Court of and for Canadians" (1951) 29 Can. Bar Rev. 1038; Snell and Vaughan, supra note 10 at 171ff.

• ^[73]  See G.A. Beaudoin, "La Cour suprême et la protection des droits fondamentaux" (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 675; D. Gibson, "And One Step Backwards: The Supreme Court and Constitutional Law in the Sixties" (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 621; W.S. Tarnapolsky, "The Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Bill of Rights" (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 649.

• ^[74]  See e.g. Chaput c. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834; Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; Lamb v. Benoît, [1959] S.C.R. 321.

• ^[75]  See the references in Glenn, supra note 9 at 210.

• ^[76]  P.-A. Crépeau, "Foreword" in Civil Code Revision Office, Report on the Quebec Civil Code, vol. 1, Draft Civil Code (Quebec: Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1978) xxiii at xxiii.

• ^[77]  Ibid. at xxv.

• ^[78]  Ibid. at xxviii.

• ^[79]  Ibid. at xxvi.

• ^[80]  Ibid. at xxxviii.

• ^[81]  On the different periods of influence of common law and French doctrine on Quebec civil law, see P.-G. Jobin, "Le droit comparé dans la réforme du Code civil du Québec et sa première interprétation" (1997) 38 C. de D. 475.

• ^[82]  Glenn, supra note 9 at 211.

• ^[83]  On the influence of French doctrine in Quebec, see P.-G. Jobin, "L'influence de la doctrine française sur le droit civil québécois : le rapprochement et l'éloignement de deux continents" in H.P. Glenn, ed., Droit québécois et droit français : communauté, autonomie et concordance (Cowansville: Yvon Blais, 1993) 91.

• ^[84]  Baudouin, supra note 15 at 723.

• ^[85]  See e.g. Lamontagne v. Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co. (1915), 50 S.C.R. 423 at 427; Robert v. Montreal Trust Co. (1917), 56 S.C.R. 342 at 363; Town of Montreal West v. Hough, [1931] S.C.R. 113 at 120-21.

• ^[86]  See e.g. Parent v. Lapointe, [1952] S.C.R. 376; Chaput v. Romain, supra note 74; Griéco v. Externat Classique Ste-Croix, [1962] S.C.R 519.

• ^[87]  See e.g. Eaton v. Moore, [1951] S.C.R. 470.

• ^[88]  Supra note 13.

• ^[89]  Ibid. at 116.

• ^[90]  Canadian Pacific Railway v. Robinson, [1892] A.C. 481 (P.C.).

• ^[91]  Ibid. at 487.

• ^[92]  [1906] A.C. 187 (P.C.) at 195.

• ^[93]  See the cases cited by Poirier, supra note 44 at 670-72.

• ^[94]  See A. Mayrand, "Les chefs d'indemnité en cas d'accident mortel" (1967-68) 9 C. de D. 639 at 663-64; J.-L. Baudouin, La responsabilité civile 5th ed. (Cowansville (QC): Yvon Blais, 1998) no. 394 at 259.

• ^[95]  [1975] 1 S.C.R. 472 [hereinafter Pantel].

• ^[96]  Supra note 90.

• ^[97]  Supra note 92.

• ^[98]  Pantel, supra note95 at 478.

• ^[99]  Poirier, supra note 44 at 666.

• ^[100]  [1996] 3 S.C.R. 268.

• ^[101]  Ibid. at 288.

• ^[102]  See Crépeau, supra note 32 at 633-34.

• ^[103]  Note that the decision in Pantel, supra note 95, dates back to 1975.

• ^[104]  See the decisions cited in A. Mayrand, "À quand le trépas du ‘trespasser'?" (1961) 21 R. du B. 1.

• ^[105]  Ibid. at 17.

• ^[106]  The cases cited by A.Mayrand, ibid. at 20 are: Verdun (City) v. Yeoman, [1925] S.C.R. 177; Canadian National Railways v. Lepage, [1927] S.C.R. 575; Ouellet v. Cloutier, [1947] S.C.R. 521; and Canadian National Railways v. Lancia, [1949] S.C.R. 177.

• ^[107]  [1976] 2 S.C.R. 680.

• ^[108]  Ibid.at 688.

• ^[109]  [1982] 1 S.C.R. 452.

• ^[110]  Ibid. at 468.

• ^[111]  Ibid. at 469.

• ^[112]  Desrosiers, supra note 55.

• ^[113]  See the discussion on Renaud v. Lamothe, infra note 18.

• ^[114]  [1979] 2 S.C.R. 172.

• ^[115]  Ibid. at 204. See also Drouin-Dalpé v. Langlois, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 621 at 624.

• ^[116]  Walton, supra note 46 at 130.

• ^[117]  [1982] 1 S.C.R. 250.

• ^[118]  Arts 1260ff C.C.Q. govern the trust and relate it to the theory of patrimonies by appropriation, which was not part of the Civil Code of Lower Canada.

• ^[119]  Supra note 117 at 261.

• ^[120]  One need only read the Supreme Court's decision in National Bank v. Soucisse, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 339, to observe this trend. For a description of this period when French doctrine had a predominant place in the interpretation of Quebec civil law, see P.-G. Jobin, "Les réactions de la doctrine à la création du droit civil québécois par les juges : les débuts d'une affaire de famille" (1980) 21 C. de D. 257.

• ^[121]  Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.

• ^[122]  See e.g. Zodiak International Productions Inc. v. Polish People's Republic, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 529 on the validity of an arbitration clause; Lapierre v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 531 on delictual liability in which the theory of risk was rejected; C. (G.) v. F. (T.), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 244 on child custody and the exercise of parental authority; Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 531 on the legal personality of the fetus; Venne v. Québec (CPTA), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 880 on conditional obligation; Bank of Montreal v. Kuet Leong Ng, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 429 on mandate; National Bank of Canada v. Houle, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 429 on abuse of contractual rights; Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 541 on civil liability in which the loss of chance theory was rejected in medical liability; Garcia Transport Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 499 on the extinction of obligations; P. (D.) v. S. (C.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141, once again on custody and the exercise of parental authority.

• ^[123]  [1990] 2 S.C.R. 995.

• ^[124]  Ibid. at 1004.

• ^[125]  On the renewed popularity of comparative legal analysis, see Jobin, supra note 81 at 489ff.

• ^[126]  See e.g. Béliveau St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics Inc., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; Quebec (Public Curator) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St‑Ferdinand, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; Godbout v. City of Longueuil, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591.

• ^[127]  See C.D. Gonthier, "L'influence d'une cour suprême nationale sur la tradition civiliste québécoise" in Journées Maximilien-Caron 1990, Enjeux et valeurs d'un code civil moderne (Montreal: Thémis 1991) 3 at 8.

• ^[128]  [1974] S.C.R. 1189.

• ^[129]  (1921), 62 S.C.R. 393.

• ^[130]  [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38.

• ^[131]  [1977] 2 S.C.R. 67.

• ^[132]  [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539 at 565.

• ^[133]  Supra note 122.

• ^[134]  [1996] 2S.C.R. 27 at 69ff.

• ^[135]  Supra note 122 at 285.

• ^[136]  [1996] 2 S.C.R. 108 at 146ff.

• ^[137]  See e.g. Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. D.F.G., [2000] C.S.J. No. 48, in which Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. City of Montreal, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665 is cited on the concept of handicap with respect to the protection of the right to equality.

• ^[138]  [1933] S.C.R. 456.

• ^[139]  Supra note 122.

• ^[140]  [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753.

• ^[141]  [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925.

• ^[142]  See J.-M. Brisson, "L'impact du Code civil du Québec sur le droit fédéral" (1992) 52 R. du B. 345; J.‑M. Brisson and A. Morel, "Droit fédéral et droit civil : complémentarité, dissociation" (1996) 75 Can. Bar Rev. 197, revised version of the text "Federal Law and Civil Law" in The Harmonization of Federal Legislation with Quebec Civil Law and Canadian Bijuralism. Collection of Studies (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1997) 213.

• ^[143]  See P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law in Canada, 4th ed. (Scarborough (Ont.): Carswell, 1997) at 181.

• ^[144]  Section 101, Constitution Act, 1867, supra note 5.

• ^[145]  [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054 [hereinafter Quebec North Shore].

• ^[146]  [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654 [hereinafter McNamara].

• ^[147]  [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695 [hereinafter Fuller].

• ^[148]  Quebec North Shore, supra note 145 at 1065.

• ^[149]  McNamara, supra note 146 at 658.

• ^[150]  Ibid. at 711.

• ^[151]  Quebec North Shore, supra note 145 at 1066 and McNamara, ibid. at 659 and 713.

• ^[152]  See e.g, ITO—International Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 752.

• ^[153]  See e.g, Roberts v. Canada, [1989] 1 R.C.S. 322.

• ^[154]  McNamara, supra note 146 at 662 and 663.

• ^[155]  See e.g. G. Faggiolo, "La Loi C-38, la nouvelle compétence de la Cour fédérale et ses relations avec la Cour supérieure" in Développements récents en droit administratif (1990), Service de la formation permanente, Barreau du Québec (Cowansville (QC): Yvon Blais, 1990) 85; L.J. Townsend and H. Olson, "Les recours judiciaires exercés par et contre l'État" in La Couronne en droit canadien (Cowansville (Qc): Ministère de la Justice / Yvon Blais, 1992) 189.

• ^[156]  See comments by Hogg, supra note 143 at 182-3 as well as the references mentioned by the author.

• ^[157]  Cie immobilière Viger Ltd. v. Lauréat Giguère Inc., supra note 131 at 76, repeated in Vidéotron Ltd. v. Industries Microlec, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065 at 1080.

• ^[158]  Brierley, supra note 37; Brisson, supra note 37.

• ^[159]  Brisson, supra note 142; Brisson and Morel, supra note 142.

• ^[160]  R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3.

• ^[161]  See e.g. on bankruptcy and insolvency, Robinson v. Countrywide Factors Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 753 and (Quebec) Deputy Minister of Revenue v. Rainville, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 35.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page