Majority
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Dickson C.J.
The Chief Justice ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from the respondents, Canada, or New Brunswick. The Court is ready to render judgment. My colleague, Justice Lamer, will deliver the judgment of the Court.
Lamer J.
Lamer J. ‑‑ For the reasons given by Paré J.A. of the Quebec Court of Appeal, we affirm the judgments rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal in these cases. The appeals are dismissed with costs throughout. Costs will only be awarded to the respondents, however, the Attorney General of Canada having waived them and the Attorney General for New Brunswick not having asked for costs. The constitutional question stated by the Chief Justice is answered as follows:
Question:Are an Act respecting remuneration in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 35, and an Act respecting the conditions of employment in the public sector, S.Q. 1982, c. 45, including the sessional documents 350, 650, 651, 653 and 665, inconsistent with the provisions of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 , unconstitutional and of no force and effect to the extent of the inconsistency?
Answer:Yes, they are unconstitutional.
Judgments accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Department of Justice, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitors for the respondents Brunet and Albert: Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Cleary, Larivière & Associés, Québec.
Solicitors for the respondent Collier: Malo, Dansereau, Montréal.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick: The Department of Justice and Attorney General, Fredericton.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.