The Queen v. J. Alepin Frères Ltée (No. 2)

APPEL d'un jugement de la Cour du banc de le reine, province de Qubbec', cassant un verdict de culpabilit6. Appel rejet6.

APPEAL by the Crown from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, province of Quebec', quashing the conviction of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.

J.:-In May respondents were found guilty, under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, by Judge T. A. Fontaine of the Court of the Sessions of the Peace for the District of Montreal, of having, in Montreal, in violation of the provisions of s.367(a) Cr.C., on or about October 14, 1960,wrongfully and without lawful authority, dismissed from their employment four employees of the respondent company, to wit, Jean-Guy Chastenais, Rom6o Goulet, Armand Langlois and Jean-Pierre Cyr, for the reason only that they were members of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, a lawful trade union. Prior to the date eventually fixed for sentence, respondents appealed from their conviction to the Superior Court pursuant to ss. 719 et seq. Cr. C. Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet, who presided at the trial de novo, dismissed these appeals on November 26, 1962, and, on November 30, 1962, sentenced both respondents.

Respondents then sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)I pursuant to s. 743 Cr.C., on the ground that there was no legal evidence supporting their conviction. The appeal of C16ment Alepin and the appeal of J. Alepin Frbres Lt6e bear respectively

No. 1838 and No. 1840 of the records of the latter Court. The Court of Queen's Bench (Hyde, Rinfret and Montal. gomery JJ.A.) maintained these appeals, quashed the con- J. victions, acquitted the respondents and ordered the complainant, Genevibve Boss6, to pay each of the respondents one-quarter of the costs of the transcription of the evidence and the preparation of the joint case in appeal.

Appellant then sought and obtained leave to appeal from these judgments to this Court pursuant to s. 41(3) of the

Supreme Court Act, on the ground that the Court of

Queen's Bench (Appeal Side) concluded in error that there was no evidence to sustain the convictions.

As accurately reviewed in the reasons for judgment of

Montgomery J.A., the material facts giving rise to this case can be summarized as follows. At the relevant time, respondent company was manufacturing women's clothing, respondent Cl6ment Alepin, the company's Secretary- Treasurer, appearing to have been in sole charge of the operations. The work was carried out on two floors of the building, the larger number of employees working on the upper floor and the four above mentioned employees, on the floor below. The company's employees were not organized into a labour union before the Spring of 1960, at about which time the International Ladies Garment

Workers Union established a local in the plant and was certified as bargaining agent for the employees. While conciliation and arbitration proceedings, which started in the

Fall, were pending, the President of the local, one Mrs.

Latour, was dismissed by respondents. This dismissal also lead to other charges against respondents which are the object of a separate appeal to this Court. On the morning following the dismissal of Mrs. Latour, Genevi&ve Boss6, working on the upper floor, there tried to force respondent

Cl6ment Alepin to state in front of other employees his reasons for dismissing Mrs. Latour. Upon his refusal to do so, other employees intervened and a noisy demonstration then ensued. Being unable to cope with the situation, the management called the police. Upon arrival, the police, in order to restore the order, enjoined the demonstrators to leave, suggesting to them to go to their union hall. A number of employees, eventually followed by the four above J.

iN mentioned who had taken no part in the demonstration, then left. Members of the union started to picket the plant that afternoon.

his reasons for judgment, Montgomery J.A., with the concurrence of Hyde J.A., found that it was clear from the evidence of the four employees alleged to have been dismissed that, while they were also enjoined by an unidentified constable to vacate the employers' premises, there was no dismissal, within the meaning of the section, by the management, either directly or indirectly, through instructions it might have given but did not actually give to the police. Rinfret J.A., who wrote separate reasons, fully agreed with these views. At the hearing before us, counsel for the appellant strongly relied on certain statements made by Camille Alepin to some of the employees, during the demonstration. Camille Alepin had been jointly charged of the same offences with the two respondents but was acquitted in first instance by Judge T.A. Fontaine. From that acquittal, there was no appeal.

I would dismiss this appeal with costs.