| |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
Citation: Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 41, 2005 SCC 59 |
Date: 20051027 Docket: 30477 |
Between:
Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec
Appellants
and
Conférence des juges du Québec, Maurice Abud, Claude C. Boulanger, Marc Vanasse, Gilles Gagnon, Jacques R. Roy, Gérald LaForest, Jean-François Gosselin, Hubert Couture, Michael Sheehan, Yvan Mayrand, Dominique Slater, Guy Gagnon, Mireille Allaire, Anne Laberge, Armando Aznar, Jean-Pierre Lortie, Guy Lecompte, Huguette St-Louis, Rémi Bouchard, Michel Jasmin, Jacques Lachapelle, Louise Provost, Michèle Rivet, Paule Lafontaine, Rosaire Larouche, Réal R. Lapointe, Claude Chicoine, Céline Pelletier, René de La Sablonnière, Gabriel de Pokomandy, Jean R. Beaulieu, Michel Beauchemin, Jacques Trudel, Denis Bouchard, Ruth Veillet, Gilson Lachance, Claude Parent, Michel L. Auger, Lise Gaboury and Jean Alarie
Respondents
- and -
Attorney General of New Brunswick and
Federation of Law Societies of Canada
Interveners
and between:
Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec
Appellants
and
Morton S. Minc, Denis Boisvert, Antonio Discepola, Yves Fournier, Gilles Gaumond, Louise Baribeau, Jean‑Pierre Bessette, Pierre D. Denault, René Déry, Gérard Duguay, Pierre Fontaine, Pierre Gaston, Denis Laliberté, Louis‑Jacques Léger, Jean Massé, Evasio Massignani, Ronald Schachter, Bernard Caron, Jean Charbonneau and Raymonde Verreault
Respondents
- and -
Attorney General of New Brunswick and
Federation of Law Societies of Canada
Interveners
and between:
Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec
Appellant
and
Conférence des juges du Québec and Attorney General of Quebec
Respondents
- and -
Attorney General of New Brunswick and
Federation of Law Societies of Canada
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
|
Motions seeking an order to amend a judgment rendered by the Court or an order for a re‑hearing of the appeal
Reasons for judgment: (paras. 1 to 4) |
|
The Court |
______________________________
Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 41, 2005 SCC 59
Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec Appellants
v.
Conférence des juges du Québec, Maurice Abud,
Claude C. Boulanger, Marc Vanasse, Gilles Gagnon,
Jacques R. Roy, Gérald Laforest, Jean‑François Gosselin,
Hubert Couture, Michael Sheehan, Yvan Mayrand,
Dominique Slater, Guy Gagnon, Mireille Allaire,
Anne Laberge, Armando Aznar, Jean‑Pierre Lortie,
Guy Lecompte, Huguette St‑Louis, Rémi Bouchard,
Michel Jasmin, Jacques Lachapelle, Louise Provost,
Michèle Rivet, Paule Lafontaine, Rosaire Larouche,
Réal R. Lapointe, Claude Chicoine, Céline Pelletier,
René de la Sablonnière, Gabriel de Pokomandy,
Jean-R. Beaulieu, Michel Beauchemin,
Jacques Trudel, Denis Bouchard, Ruth Veillet,
Gilson Lachance, Claude Parent, Michel L. Auger,
Lise Gaboury and Jean Alarie Respondents
and
Attorney General of New Brunswick and
Federation of Law Societies of Canada Interveners
- and -
Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec Appellants
v.
Morton S. Minc, Denis Boisvert, Antonio Discepola,
Yves Fournier, Gilles Gaumond, Louise Baribeau,
Jean‑Pierre Bessette, Pierre D. Denault, René Déry,
Gérard Duguay, Pierre Fontaine, Pierre Gaston,
Denis Laliberté, Louis‑Jacques Léger, Jean Massé,
Evasio Massignani, Ronald Schachter, Bernard Caron,
Jean Charbonneau and Raymonde Verreault Respondents
and
Attorney General of New Brunswick and
Federation of Law Societies of Canada Interveners
- and -
Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec Appellant
v.
Conférence des juges du Québec et al. and
Attorney General of Quebec Respondents
and
Attorney General of New Brunswick and
Federation of Law Societies of Canada Interveners
Indexed as: Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General)
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 59.
File No.: 30477.
2005: October 27.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
motions to amend a judgment or for a re-hearing of appeal
Practice – Supreme Court of Canada – Motions seeking order to amend judgment or order for re-hearing of appeal – Motions dismissed – Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, Rules 76, 81(1)(a).
Cases Cited
Referred to: H. (D.) v. M. (H.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 761; Greater Montreal Protestant School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 167; Roberts v. The Queen, S.C.C., No. 27641, March 13, 2003 (revised March 26, 2003) (reproduced in Bulletin of Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada, March 28, 2003, p. 542).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, rr. 76, 81(1)(a).
MOTIONS seeking an order to amend a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286, 2005 SCC 44, or an order for a re-hearing of the appeal. Motions dismissed.
Written submissions by Raynold Langlois, Q.C., and Chantal Chatelain, for the applicants Conférence des juges du Québec et al.
Written submissions by André Gauthier, for the applicant Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec.
Written submissions by Claude-Armand Sheppard and Annick Bergeron, for the respondents on the motions the Attorney General of Quebec and the Minister of Justice of Quebec.
JUDGMENT
1 The Court has before it two motions seeking an order to amend a judgment rendered by the Court on July 22, 2005, or an order for a re‑hearing of the appeal in order to clarify and explain the disposition of the Court’s judgment. One of the motions was filed by the Conférence des juges du Québec et al., and the other, by the Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec.
2 The motions do not meet the criteria for applying Rule 81(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, which is limited to errors arising from an accidental slip or omission: Roberts v. The Queen, S.C.C., No. 27641, March 13, 2003 (reproduced in Bulletin of Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada, March 28, 2003, at p. 542). Nor do they meet the criteria for Rule 76, which is limited to exceptional cases involving a failure of justice or an error regarding the nature of the issues: H. (D.) v. M. (H.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 761, and Greater Montreal Protestant School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 167.
3 The Court’s judgment, and more specifically paras. 44 and 171 (as corrected on July 28, 2005), provides a clear expression of this Court’s opinion. According to para. 44, “[c]ourts should avoid issuing specific orders to make the recommendations binding unless the governing statutory scheme gives them that option.” According to para. 171, the matter must be remitted to the Government and the National Assembly for reconsideration in accordance with the reasons of the Court, and the Government must consequently table a new reply that meets constitutional standards.
4 For these reasons, the motions are dismissed without costs.
Motions dismissed.
Solicitors for the applicants Conférence des juges du Québec et al.: Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Montréal.
Solicitors for the applicant Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec: Cain, Lamarre, Casgrain, Wells, Sept-Îles.
Solicitors for the respondents on the motions the Attorney General of Quebec and the Minister of Justice of Quebec: Robinson Sheppard Shapiro, Montréal.