Appeal of Quebec Concerning the Constitution of Canada

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Heading of the case
Facts held during the court trial
Issue
Judgment
Holding
Ratio Decidendi
Reasoning
Dissenting/Concurring Opinion
Reference
Footnotes

Heading of the case

The case was provided between the Attorney General of Quebec – an appellant v. the Attorney General of Canada – a respondent with Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson J.J. present. It was devoted to appeal to the court about regarding unconstitutional the veto set on the agreement between Canada and nine other provinces.

Facts held during the court trial

The case began on April 7, 1982. The appeal was directed at considering the veto set on the First Reference, by the Quebec Court of Appeal. The appeal is considered to be legal according to “s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act and s. 1 of An Act respecting a reference of the court of appeal”.¹ The reason for the appeal was the agreement that took place on November 5, 1981, between the Government of Canada and eight other provinces. On November 18, 1981, the draft of the agreement was ready. The Government of Quebec expressed its formal disagreement with the proposed draft of the resolution. It means that the Government of Quebec formally vetoed the Resolution.²

Issue

The question which was presented in the Court of Appeal is whether the consent of the Province of Quebec constitutionally required by convention for the adoption by the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada of

Resolution the purpose of which is to cause the Canadian Constitution to be amended in such manner as to affect

the legislative competence of the Legislature of the Province of Quebec in virtue of the Canadian Constitution
the status or role of the Legislature or Government of the Province of Quebec within the Canadian federation and does the objection of the Province of Quebec render the adoption of such resolution unconstitutional in the conventional sense.³

Judgment

The answer of the Court of Appeal to the question was negative. The notions used in the decision were similar to those which were used when the decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal was provided.

Holding

Under the Canada Act 1982, two additional submissions (law), and the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, the negative answer to the appeal was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi

It was concluded that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not the subject matter for the discussion in another Court of Appeal.

Reasoning

The court made a resolve because of a number of reasons. First, when the decision was made by the Quebec Court of Appeal, not one person but a number of people did it. There were two submissions that directed the Court’s decision. The first one was “convention requiring the unanimous consent of the ten provinces to any constitutional amendment of the type in issue”⁴ and the second one was the fact that Quebec had a right to veto any constitutional amendment which was aimed at affecting the legislative side of the Province.⁵

Dissenting/Concurring Opinion

According to the opposite opinion, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms presented in the Canada Act 1982 (one of the arguments in the court) is not identical to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why it may be concluded that the amendments of the Constitution of Canada differ greatly from the amending of the First Reference.

Reference

Reference re: Amendment to the Canadian Constitution, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 791.

Footnotes

Reference re: Amendment to the Canadian Constitution, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 791, p. 795.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 798.
Ibid., 800.
Ibid.

Click Here To Order Now!