← Cases

Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General)

2005 SCC 59 [2005] 3 SCR 41 Court SCC Decision date 2005-10-27 Docket 30477 English

PartiesAttorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec Appellants

Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise

Delivered by Reasons

On appeal from New Brunswick

Subjects Action

Contents

Court or an order for a re‑hearing of the appeal Reasons for judgment

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.
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.
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.
For these reasons, the motions are dismissed without costs.

Cases cited