Hyperlawhypertext legal database Sinclair v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1991] 3 SCR 134

← Cases

Sinclair v. Quebec (Attorney General)

[1991] 3 SCR 134 Court SCC Decision date 1991-10-09 Docket 21762 English

PartiesThe Attorney General of Quebec Appellant·citoyens de Noranda Respondents·The Attorney General of Canada Interveners·the Attorney General of Manitoba Interveners·Alliance Quebec, Alliance for Language Communities in Quebec Interveners·City of Noranda, City of Rouyn Mis en cause·Réal Bordeleau and Daniel Samson Mis en cause

Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Stevenson, William

Decision 6–1 Majority (6) · Lamer C.J. (1)

On appeal from Quebec

Subjects Constitutional law

Contents

Majority

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

Lamer C.J.

Lamer C.J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Bernard. We are all of the view that the answer to questions 2 to 5 inclusive is no. If need be, we will deposit our reasons in support of this conclusion at a later date.
With regard to the first question, the appeal is in reserve.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Jean‑Yves Bernard, Louis Rochette and Marise Visocchi, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitors for the respondents: Bertrand, Larochelle, Québec.
Solicitors for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: Jean‑Marc Aubry, Martin Low and René LeBlanc, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the intervener Alliance Quebec: Stephen A. Scott, Montréal.
editor's note:
Constitutional questions 2 to 5 read as follows:
2.Does giving corporations the right to vote, with respect to municipal referenda pursuant to the Act respecting the cities of Rouyn and Noranda (ss. 6 and 11) contravene ss. 3 , 15 and 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
3.Does the procedure followed in enacting the Act respecting the cities of Rouyn and Noranda contravene the principles of natural justice or fundamental justice guaranteed by s. 23 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
4.Does the Act respecting the cities of Rouyn and Noranda contravene:
a)the right guaranteed to the appellants by s. 3 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as well as by s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ;
b)the right of every person "to peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property" guaranteed to the appellants by s. 6 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms;
5.Does the Act respecting the cities of Rouyn and Noranda contravene the principle of an individual's entitlement to equal protection of the law as declared in and guaranteed by the 2nd paragraph of the preamble to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and pursuant to s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Footnotes

  1. [1] Constitutional questions 2 to 5 appear at the end of text.
  2. [2] Judgment rendered ?????, 1992.