Hyperlawhypertext legal database Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. v. Quebec (Régie des télécommunications) [1994] 1 SCR 878

← Cases

Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. v. Quebec (Régie des télécommunications)

[1994] 1 SCR 878 Court SCC Decision date 1994-04-26 Docket 23345 English

PartiesThe Attorney General of Quebec Appellant·Régie des télécommunications du Québec Appellants·André Dufour and Jean‑Marc Demers Appellants·Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. Respondent·The Attorney General of Canada Interveners·the Attorney General for Saskatchewan Interveners·Edmonton Telephones Corporation Interveners·the Public Utilities Commission of Cochrane Interveners·the Corporation of the Town of Dryden Interveners·the Corporation of the Town of Keewatin and the Corporation of the Town of Kenora Interveners

Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.

Decision 8–1 Rousseau-Houle J. (8) · Lamer C.J. (1)

On appeal from Quebec

Subjects Constitutional law

Contents

Rousseau-Houle J.

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

Lamer C.J.

Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. is an interprovincial work and undertaking within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada by virtue of ss. 92(10) (a) and 91(29) of the Constitution Act, 1867 by reason of the nature of the services provided and the mode of operation of the undertaking, which provides a telecommunication signal carrier service whereby its subscribers send and receive interprovincial and international communications as set out in the reasons of Rousseau-Houle J.A. The constitutional question is answered as follows:
Question 1:Is Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. a work and undertaking within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada by virtue of ss. 92(10)(a) and 91(29), of the opening words of s. 91 or otherwise of the Constitution Act, 1867 ?
Answer: Yes.
The appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross-appeal is dismissed since it is unfounded in view of the outcome of the appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellants: The Department of Justice, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitors for the respondent: Joli‑C{oe}ur, Lacasse, Lemieux, Simard, St‑Pierre, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan: W. Brent Cotter, Regina.
Solicitors for the intervener Edmonton Telephones Corporation: Brownlee Fryett, Edmonton.
Solicitors for the interveners the Public Utilities Commission of Cochrane et al.: Miller Thomson, Toronto.

Statutes and regulations cited