A bid to overturn Quebec’s sign law by a group of anglophone merchants suffered yet another setback after the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld two lower court rulings that held that the French language is still vulnerable in Quebec and continues to need protection even though it has made “modest progress” in recent decades.
Montreal’s transit authority has been ordered by Quebec Superior Court to pay two former paramedics more than $1.2 million for a scare that left them unable to work in their profession.
The ruling highlights one of the singular situations where an injured worker can bring a civil suit even though one of the cardinal principles behind Quebec’s occupational health and safety regime is that workers cannot bring a civil liability suit against their employer because of the injury.
“This is an interesting ruling because civil actions for damages to recuperate losses that exceeds the benefits received under the Act are very rare,” remarked Laurence Bourgeois-Hatto, a Montreal labour and employment lawyer specializing occupational health and safety matters.
The Quebec Bar and the Quebec Ombudsman want to make it easier for alleged victims of sexual assault to gain access to the legal system and are calling on the provincial government to follow in the footsteps of the overwhelming majority of Canadian provinces and eliminate the prescription period for civil actions in cases of sexual assault.
A Quebec woman, who was found guilty of first degree murder of her two young daughters in 2013, will face a new trial after the Quebec Court of Appeal found the trial judge made a series of glaring errors when instructing the jury, partly because of language differences.
In a ruling that was warmly embraced by criminal defense lawyers, the appeal court reiterated the importance of vigorously applying the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt, provided guidance over the use of video interrogations, highlighted the importance of judges responding to queries by juries, and chastised the trial judge over the confusing directives she gave over the mental state of the accused. All of which prompted more than one criminal lawyer to wonder why Quebec Superior Court Justice Carol Cohen, who usually handles civil cases, was handed such a high-profile criminal case.
Dominic Lacroix, a Quebec City businessman believed by Quebec’s financial watchdog and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to be behind PlexCorps, a controversial cryptocurrency start-up accused of fraudulently selling up to $15 million of tokens, was sentenced to two-month jail term and fined $10,000 for contempt of court.
“The defendants fully understood the orders but intentionally and voluntarily disrgarded them,” said Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc Lesage in a 15-page ruling dated December 8th. “The Court finds that this is a case of exteme case of contempt and bad faith by the defendants.”
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has obtained an emergency asset freeze against PlexCoin, a controversial “fast-moving” and “purported” initial coin offering (ICO) that has raised up to $15 million from thousands of investors since August 2017.
Employers are disappointed that the Quebec government failed to provide new rules and guidance under its recently unveiled legal framework for the consumption, sale and distribution of marijuana, according to employment and labour lawyers.
Carleton University won the right to reclaim nearly $500,000 in pension benefits made to a former political science professor who was missing for years before his remains were found in the woods near his Quebec home after the Quebec Court of Appeal held that the pension plan plainly states that the benefits ceased when the beneficiary died.
The ruling, which essentially upheld a lower court ruling but not for the same reasons, appears to have broadened the scope of several Civil Code of Quebec provisions by applying a “generous and liberal interpretation” to unjust enrichment and the legal presumption surrounding absentees, according to legal experts.
The fallout from the arrest of a well-respected former high-profile officer by Quebec’s anti-corruption squad continues unabated.
Questions linger more than a week after the bombshell that has been described as an “unprecedented attempt at intimidation.” Quebec Premier admitted that “we are faced with many more questions and answers of course and that includes me…It’s not trivial. We haven’t seen this very often. An elected parliamentarian being arrested without any true motives being been given.”
The National Firearms Association and a Quebec-based pro-gun lobby group failed to put a stop to Quebec’s provincial long-gun registry after Quebec Superior Court held that the registry was constitutionally valid.
In a 26-page ruling that did not take any constitutional experts by surprise, Quebec Superior Court Justice Lukasz Granosik held that Bill 64, Firearms Registration Act, does not infringe on federal jurisdiction because it essentially is about public safety, which is related to provincial jurisdiction on issues of property and civil law as well as the administration of justice.
“The Supreme Court of Canada held (in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 693) that the federal government has the jurisdiction to have its own gun registry,” noted Stéphane Beaulac, a constitutional law professor at the Université de Montréal. “But it also held that there is nothing to prevent provinces, by virtue of its jurisdiction on property and civil law, to legislate such matters which includes having a provincial registry.”
The Quebec government began plans to establish its own long-gun registry after the federal Conservative government abolished the federal database for non-restricted guns in 2012. The province was embroiled in a legal battle against Ottawa in a bid to preserve Quebec data from the federal registry, but it lost its case before the SCC in March 2015. In the so-called long-gun registry decision, Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 693, the SCC held that the Quebec government had no right to insist that the federal government hand over — before destroying all data in the now defunct federal long gun registry –to it data relating to Quebec resident long-gun owners. In the meantime, the Quebec government enacted Bill 64, which is still not in force.
The gun lobby sought an injunction against Bill 64, arguing that it was ultra vires because it infringed on the federal jurisdiction on criminal matters, as per s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. They also maintained that article 13 of the Quebec Firearms Registration Act should be declared void because it runs into conflict with the federal Firearms Information Regulations (Non-restricted Firearms).
Justice Granosik dismissed both arguments. Following guidance by the SCC in a couple of decisions, notably in Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3, Justice Granosik began his analysis of the constitutionality of Bill 64 by considering its purpose and its effects to determine whether it is a “colourable,” that is, whether the law may say that it intends to do one thing and actually does something else.
Justice Granosik notes that the SCC held in Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 SCR 783 that the regulation of guns as dangerous products is a “valid purpose within the criminal law power.” But, he adds, that in order for a law to be classified as a criminal law, it must possess three perquisites: a valid criminal law purpose backed by a prohibition and a penalty.
Justice Granosik found that Bill 64 does not prohibit the possession of firearms but rather seeks to provide the Quebec Minister of Public Security with information over the existence of firearms and allow public authorities to know where they are located.
“There is reason therefore to conclude that the Act seeks to make the work of law enforcement safer and the implementation of court orders more effectively,” held Justice Granosik in Association canadienne pour les armes à feu c. Procureure générale du Québec 2017 QCCS 4690. “There is no compelling evidence, neither intrinsic or extrinsic, to conclude that the law is colourable.”
He also highlighted that the Attorney General of Canada did not intervene in the case, suggesting that it does not contest Quebec’s powers to adopt its own long-gun registry.
“I am hugely disappointed and am in disagreement with the judge’s reasons,” remarked Guy Lavergne, a Montreal lawyer who plead the case for the gun lobby. “I argued that the registration of firearms has always been viewed as falling under criminal law jurisdiction in Canadian constitutional law. Although there are aspects of firearms that may fall under provincial jurisdiction, this is not one.”
After heeding guidance from the SCC’s Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, [2015] 3 SCR 327 to determine whether the “operational effects” of provincial legislation are incompatible with federal legislation, Justice Granosik Justice Granosik held that article 13 of the Quebec Firearms Registration Act does not run into “real conflict” with federal legislation. He found that federal legislation targets the “obtainment and maintenance of firearm permits” while the Quebec law deals with registration and management of stocks.
According to constitutional law professor Maxime St-Hilaire, the gun lobby was doomed to fail in its bid to stop Quebec from establishing its own gun registry. He points out that the SCC already dealt with the issue, the federal government is not opposed to provincial governments enacting its own gun registry laws, and arguments that rely on the doctrine of federal paramountcy were destined to fail in this case.
“I am not at all surprised by the decision,” said St-Hilaire. “The federal government never held that the Quebec government could not create its own firearm registry. Then there’s the long-gun registry decision by the SCC which held that provinces could establish their own firearm registry.”
The gun lobby is considering filing an application for leave to appeal.
“This decision could open the door for other provinces to follow suit but so far no other province has expressed a willingness to go ahead with a provincial registry,” said Lavergne. “But political landscapes do change, and this is a highly political matter. That is one of the fears that it could give rise to additional legislation emanating from the provinces.”
This story was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily.
Dominic Lacroix, a Quebec City businessman believed by Quebec’s financial watchdog to be behind the virtual currency PlexCoin, was found guilty of contempt of court.
A lower court ruling that awarded $5.6 million to a vessel fleet operator was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal after it held that the trial judge erred by applying the Civil Code of Quebec to settle a dispute instead of Canadian maritime law.
In a majority decision, the appeal court held that disputes concerning the repair and supply of engine parts to a ship is subject to Canadian maritime law, and therefore common law rules apply rather than civil law rules of delictual liability. As Canadian maritime law applies, the appeal court reaffirms it is the common law of contract and tort that applies to these cases.
Quebec Superior Court overturned a ruling that held that the investigative methods used by federal and provincial tax authorities to investigate corruption in the Quebec construction industry were “highly reprehensible,” paving the way for Canada Revenue Agency and Revenue Quebec to once again pursue tax evasion inquiries that were put on hold for the past two years.
Quebec’s financial watchdog is putting the squeeze on Dominic Lacroix.
He is a Quebec City resident who is thought to be behind an initial coin offering, PlexCoin, that is set to launch on Friday, October 13th.
The Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) is working hard to prevent that from happening, and is ramping up the pressure.