Hus v. The School Commissioners of the Parrish of Ste. Victoire

OF'

THE PARISH OF STE. VICTOIRE , RESPONDENTS. Nov. (DEFENDANTS)........................J

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE).

Vic. ch. 22 s. (P.Q.)-R. S. Q. art. 2055.

Upon an application by appellant for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to establish a new school district in the Parish of Ste. Victoire in accordance with the ternis of a sentence rendered on appeal by the Superintendent of Education under 40 Vic, ch. 22 s. (P.Q.), the respondents pleaded inter alia that the superintendent had no jurisdiction to make the order, the petition in appeal not having been approved of by three qualified school visitors.

The decree of the superintendent alleged that the petition was approved of by one L., inspector of schools, as well as by three visitors.

Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side), that the petition in appeal must have the approval of three visitors qualified for the municipality where the appeal to the superintendent originated, and as one of the three visitors who had signed the petition in appeal was parish priest of an adjoining parish, and not a qualified school visitor for the municipality of Ste. Victoire, the sentence rendered by the superintendent was -null and void.

on the ground that as the decree of the superintendent stated that L., the inspector of schools, was a visitor, it was prima facie evidence that the formalities required to give the superintendent jurisdiction had been complied with. C.S.L.C. ch. 15 s. 25 ; arts. 1863, 1864, R. S. Q.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen's :-Sir W.

Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) reversing the s judgment of the Superior Court.

In October, 1888, the appellant, with other ini erested parties, having been refused by the respondents the establishment of a new school district in a certain part of the municipality of the parish of Ste. Victoire, appealed to the Superintendent of Education for the province of Quebec, mentioning the refusal of the respondents and asking redress; their petition to the superintendent was approved by three school visitors, viz.: The Reverends J. Noiseux and 0. Desorcy, both priests of the Roman Catholic church, and the Honourable J. A. Dorion, ex-member of the legislative council, residing in the parish of St. Ours.

On the 20th October, 1888, the superintendent rendered a sentence, by which he allowed the demand of appellant and others, and ordered the respondents to form the new district demanded, to be know as "District No. 7"; to erect a school house in the same; and awaiting the erection of such school house to open the school in a temporary building to be furnished by the interested parties.

The sentence of the superintendent alleged that the petition in appeal was approved of by one B. Lippens, inspector of schools.

The sentence was served upon the respondents, and a convenient place offered by the interested school ratepayers for the temporary school.

The respondents formally refused to obey the order of the superintendent.

The appellant then applied for a mandamus to force the respondents to obey and execute the sentence. The respondents pleaded in substance that the sentence of the 20th October, 1888, was illegal, informal, null and void in law for the following reasons

1st. Because the respondents had not been summoned to appear before the superintendent to oppose the appeal, and because the appeal had been heard and decided ec parle, without proof.

2nd. Because such appeal had not been approved of by three qualified school visitors of the municipality of Ste. Victoire, it being falsely alleged in the sentence, that the Reverend 0. Desorcy (one of the three approvers) resided in Ste. Victoire, whereas in fact, he was a resident of St. Ours.

3rd. Because the resolution of the respondents of the 1st of October, 1888, was not subject to appeal to the superintendent ; that the superintendent was not invested by law with the authority of hearing and determining such appeal, and of establishing the new school district No. 7 ; and had no authority to order the respondents to establish a school in such proposed district.

The appellant replied that the superintendent had acted within the limits of his powers.; that his sentence was conclusive and final to all intents and purposes, and had to be obeyed without discussion by his subordinates, the respondents.

By a written admission filed of record the respondents confessed the truth of all the allegations of facts contained in the petition for mandamus, and upon which the appellant based his demand.

The respondents examined as their witnesses, to prove the allegations of their plea, oe A. P. Bouchard, who deposed to the following facts, viz. : 1. that the -respondents had never been notified of the appeal to the superintendent ; that they got knowledge of it only by the reception of the sentence ; that the Rev. 0. Desorcy (one of the approvers), had never resided in Ste. Victoire, but had always been and still was the parish priest of St.Ours, and had always resided there 4. that there was no model school in Ste. Victoire.

The Superior Court granted a peremptory mandamus, and ordered the respondents to obey the sentence of the 20th October, 1888, and in default thereof condemned them to pay appellant a fine of $2,000.00, and of suit, according to art. 1025 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but on appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada that judgment was reversed. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the principal question which arose was: Whether an appeal to the superintendent has any legal value unless approved of in writing by three qualified school visitors for the municipality where it has originated. Lacoste Q.C. and Germain for appellant cited and relied on 40 Vic. ch. 22 s. 11 (P.Q.); arts. 1943, 1945, 1947, 1951, 1952, 1976, 2118, 2119; .1863, 1864, R. S. Q.; arts. 1211, 1244 C. C., and Tremblay v. The School Commissioners of St. Valentin

Geoffrion Q.C. cited and relied on arts. 2055, 1951, 5775, s. 16, R. Q. ; Trudelle v. The School Commissioners of Charlesbourg and arts. 1022, P. C.

Sir W. J.

J.-Article 2055 Revised Statutes of Quebec, 1888, provides for approbation of three visitors, and art. 1951 of the same statute, s. provides that the priests are visitors of the schools the municipality only where they reside. It appears from the evidence that the Rev. 0. Desorcy, one of the signers of the act of approbation at the bottom of the petition of the plaintiff to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, has never resided in the parish of Ste. Victoire, and therefore was not, and could not be, a visitor. Consequently any approbation given by him was invalid and of no effect, and the appeal made by the plaintiff to the superintendent was not according to the formalities prescribed by law; the judgment of THE the Court of Queen's Bench reversing the judgment of the Superior Court for the district of Richelieu the 4th CONmof April, 1889, was correct therefore, and should be affirmed, and this appeal dismissed with costs.

PARISH STRONG J.-I have read the judgment which will be delivered by brother Fournier, and I entirely con- Ritchie C.J. cur in the reasons he will state for dismissing this appeal.

FOURNIER .T.-L'appelant t quelques autres contribuables de la municipalite de Ste-Victoire, s'6tant adress~s par requte aux commissaires d'6coles pour en obtenir la cr6ation d'un nouvel arrondissement d'6cole, ces derniers, par une resolution, adoptbe le ler octobre

1888, refus~rent la demande de l'appelant et de ceux qui s'6taient joints A lui.

L'appelant en appela an Surintendant de 1'Education, de la dcision rejetant sa demande.

L'appel 6tait alors accord6 par 40 Vict. ch. 22, sec.

11, en ces termes:

La Se sois-section de la 64e section du chapitre 15 des Statuts

Refondus pour le Bas-Canada, est retranchie, et ]a suivante lui est substitude:

" 8. Lorsque 'eiplacement d'une maison d'dcole est choisi par les commissaires on syndics d'6coles, on qu'un changement est fait dans les limites d'un arrondisseient d'cole, on qu'un nouvel arrondisseient est 6tabli dans une municipalit6 scolaire, on qu'un on plusieurs arrondissements 6tablis sont changds ou subdivisds, on lorsque les commissaires on syndics d'6coles refusent ou n~gligent d'exercer ou rem.

plir que1qu'une des attributions ou devoirs que leur confbre cette section, les contribuables int6ress6s pourront en appeler en tout temps, au surintendant, par requete sommaire ; mais cet appel n'aura lieu qu'avec 1'approbation par dcrit de trois visiteurs autres que les commissaires on syndies d'4coles de la dite municipalit; la sentence

481I tout Depuis, cette section a 6t amend6e et remplac6e par 1'article 2055 Statuts Revis6s (P.Q.), qui en est la r6p6tition textuelle avec la diclaration qu'il y aura aussi appel pour refus ou n6gligence d'exercer les fonctions et devoirs impos~s par les articles 2082,

2049, 2050, Fournier J- 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054.

Aucun de ces articles n'affectent la question souleve en cette cause.

Toutefois, il est important de faire observer que les Statuts Revis6s n'eaieut pas en force lors de la sentence du surintendant et que cet art. 2055 n'est devenu loi que le ler janvier 1889, tandis que la dite sentence avait ta rendue le 20 octobre 1888.

C'est done sur la sec. 11 de la 40 Vict. ch. 22, qu'il faut s'appuyer pour la d6cision de cette cause.

Cet appel, quoique sommaire, ne peut cependant 6tre obtenu & moins que l'appelant ne se soit conform6 A une formalit6 indispensable pour donner juridiction an surintendaxt, c'est celle de faire approuver sa requste d'appel par trois visiteurs d'6cole.

La loi s'exprime ainsi, " les contribuables int&ress6s pourront en appeler en tout temps, au surintendant par requ~te sommaire; mais cet appel n'aura lieu qu'avec l'approbation par dcrit de trois visiteurs autres que les commissaires ou syndics d'ecoles de la due municipalild.".

La sentence ayant t6 signifi6e aux commissaires d'6cole, et ceux-ci s'6tant refus6s de s'y conformer, I'appelant a demand6 et obtenu un bref de mandamus pour les faire contraindre 6 la mettre & ex6cution. Devant la Cour Sup6rieure, 'appelant a eu gain de cause, mais en appel & la cour du Banc de la Reine le jugement qu'il avait obtenu a t6 cass6. C'est de ce dernier jugement qu'il y a appel a cette cour.

Les moyens oppos6s par les intim6s a la demande du mandamus et donn6s au soutien du jugement de la

Has Cour du Bane de la Reine, sont les suivants:

& pinaliti

~PARISH jugenent

La loi qui 6tablit cet appel (1) prescrit formellement que cel appel n'a lieu qu'avec l'approbation, par 6crit, de Fournier J. trois visiteurs.

La requte sur laquelle a t rendue la sentence attaqu6e, a t6 approuv~e et sign6e par MM. Jos. Noiseux, Ptre Cur6, 0. Desorcy, Ptre Cur6, et J. A. Dorion,

M. C. L., comme visiteurs d'6coles. Les deux premiers sont qualifibs pr~tres, tous deux r6sidant A Ste-Victoire, et 1'honorable J. A. Dorion, comme conseiller 16gislatif.

Il est aussi fait mention de 'approbation de I. B. Lippens, inspecteur d'&coles, tous d6clards visiteurs d'&oles et approuvant la dite requate.

D'apris Particle 1951, S. R. (P.Q.) ss. 2, les pritres catholiques sont visiteurs des 6coles de la municipalit6 oi ils r6sident seulement.

II est en preuve que 1'un de ceux qui ont sign6 et approuv6 ]a requte, le R6v.

M. Desorcy, d6clar6 dans la sentence comme 6tant de

Ste-Victoire, n'y a jamais r~sid6; qu'il est depuis plusieurs annees cur6 de St-Ours, paroisse voisine. Evidemment, il n'avait pas la qualit6 de visiteur pour Ste- Victoire.

O'est par erreur que cette qualit6 lii a t donn6e, et le surintendant a sans doute 6t6 tromp6 sur ce fait de toute importance, par la partie qui y avait int~r~t.

La requate ne portant I'approbation que de deux visiteurs, le R~v&rend M. Noiseux et 1'honorable Conseiller 16gislatif, J. A. Dorion, se trouvait ill6gale et ne pouvait conf6rer aucune juridiction au surintendant, TE parce que la loi dit positivement que cet appel n'aura lieu qu'avec l'approbation par 6crit de trois visiteurs, etc., etc.

Sans l'accomplissement de cette condition, ii ne peut pas y avoir d'appel,-il est positivement d1ni&

Est-ce pour remedier an dfant de qualification du rVrend M. Desorcy que la sentence fait aussi mention de l'approbation de M. B. Lippens, inspecteur d'6coles, qmi y est d6clar aussi comme visiteur d'6coles. Le nom de M. Lippens n'6tait pas appos6 & la requbte et rien ne prouve dans le dossier pourquoi et de quelle manibre il a 6t6 ajout6 dans la sentence.

Si ce M. Lippens 6tait qualifi6 visiteur d'6coles, son approbation aurait pu remplacer celle du r6v6rend Desorcy qui ne '6tait pas. et alors la requite serait en Trgle. En vertu de Particle 1953des Statuts Refondus, P.Q., les inspecteurs d'6coles sont ex officio visiteurs d'acad6mies et d'6coles moddles sous le contr6le des commissaires d'6coles dans leur district d'inspection.

Mais il est prouv~qu'il n'y en a pasdans la paroisse de Ste-Victoire. Les pouvoirs des inspecteurs sont limit~s A ces institutions.

Il ne sont pas visiteurs des 6coles el6mentaires sous le contrle des commissaires et, par cons6quent, M. Lippens n'avait pas la qualit6 de visiteur pour donner l'approbation voulue.

Si cette approbation a 6t donn~e elle 'a 6 verbalenent, tandis que la loi exige qu'elle soit par 6crit.

n'est pas non plus prouv6 que Ste-Victoire est dans son district d'inspection. La sentence en le qualifiant de visiteur, ne pent lui en donner la qualit6 ni en faire preuve contre Particle 1953, qui ne donne aux inspecteurs d'6coles, la qualit6 de visiteurs d'acad6mies et d'6coles modbles que dans les limites de leur district d'inspection et nullement dans les 6coles communes. Son approbation est en consequence nulle et d'aucun effet. Comme il ne reste que deux visiteurs qualifi6s pour approuver la requbte, an lieu de trois que la loi exige, cette requte 6tait insuffisante pour donner juridiction au surintendant. Sa sentence. pour ce seul motif, doit

Atre consid6r6e nulle. En cons6quence, il est inutile de s'occuper des deux autres moyens invoqu6s par intim~s.

La cause de Tremblay v. Les Commissaires, etc., de St- Valentin invoqube par 1'appelant, ne s'applique aucunement . la cause actuelle.

La pr6tention des commissaires d'6coles dans cette cause tait que, s'6tant sonmis A la sentence du surintendant en d6cr& tant l'arrondissement qu'il avait ordonn6 d'6tablir, ils avaient ensuite le pouvoir d'en annuler les effets en r6unissant de nouveau les arrondissements s~par~s.

ne s'agissait d'aucune informalit6 ni de d6faut de juridiction du surintendant apparaissant A la face de sa sentence. en est tout autrement dans le cas actuel, les requ6rants n'ayant pas accompli la formalit6 qui dounait juridiction an surintendant, il ne pouvait 16galement agir.

En cons6quence l'appel doit tre renvoy6.

J.-The appellant with other interested parties applied by petition to the respondents for the establishment of a new school.

Upon the rejection of that petition, the appellant then appealed to the Superintendent of Education, who granted it, and rendered a decree ordering the respondents to establish the new school demanded.

The respondents refusing to submit to the decree of the superintendent the appellant asked for a writ of mandamus to force them to do so. The Superior Court granted the appellant's conclusion, but the Court of Appeal, Church and Boss6

, reversed that judgment and dismissed Tiithe petition. Hence the present appeal. Three objec- TE tions are urged by the respondents against the decree of the superintendent: 1st. That no notice of the application to him, and of his proceedings, was given to the respondents.

2nd. That under the statute, the superintendent had no power to order the establishment of a new school district.

3rd. That the petition in appeal to the superintendent was not accompanied with the approbation in writing of three school visitors, .

as required by the statute, as Mr. D6sorcy, one of those who gave the approbation to the appellant's petition, was not a school visitor for the locality. The two first points were dismissed at the hearing, and we reserved judgment only upon the third one. This reduces the case to a narrow compass.

The proceedings in question originated before the Revised Statutes came into force, so that the contestation has to be determined under ch. 15, C. S. L. as amended and in force in October, 1888.

At the foot of the petition to the superintendent, the following approbation of three school visitors appears:- Visiteurs. And the decree of the superintendent begins with the following recital:- The respondents have proved that Rev. Mr. Disorcy was not a resident of the parish of Ste. Victoire, the municipality within which this new school was to be erected, and contend that consequently, under sec. 21, ch. 36, 51-52 Vic., he was not a visitor duly qualified to sign the approbation of the appellant's petition, and it is upon this contention that they obtained the quashing of the mandamus in the Court of Appeal.

The appellant contends, however, that, even if the Rev. Mr.

was not qualified to give the required approbation to this petition, yet he had the approbation of three visitors, because it appears by the decree of the superintendent that Lippens, a school inspector, anid also a school visitor, as stated in the decree, gave his

. approbation to it. I think that contention well founded.

By sec. 25 of ch. O.S.L.O.:

Now, the superintendent having stated in his decree that Lippens was a school visitor, and there being no plea or evidence to the contrary, we must take that fact as conclusively established. The respondent's contention that a school inspector is not a school visitor, whether founded in law or not, cannot affect this conclusion, as it is clear that Lippens may have been a school visitor independently of his position as inspector, under sec. 21, ch. 36. 51-52 Vic.

The respondent is in error when he says that the decree states that Lippens is a visitor because he is an inspector.

The decree merely states that he is both. The respondent further contends that Lippens's approbation should have been in writing. But, assuming this to be required (the English version of sec. 11,

40 Vic. ch. 22 does not require it,) there is no issue on that point between the parties.

If the respondents had pleaded that Lippens's approbation was not in writing the appellant would have been called upon to bring evidence of the fact. As the record stands they had not to do so.

There is nothing in the decree W by which it could be -inferred that it was merely a parol approbation. Why should we presume it to have been so? The presumption is all the other way, and in Co"'m8- favour of the regularity of the superintendent's proceedings.

I would allow the appeal with costs in all the courts against the respondent and restore the judgment of the Superior Court, less the condemnation to $2,000 which is admitted was illegal.

concurred with Fournier J. that the appeal should be dismissed

Appeal dismissed woith costs.