| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 388 2019 SLD 388 2019 SCMR 165 |
Supreme Court of Canada
Decision Dated: 5th October, 2018. (On appeal from the Courtof Appeal for Qu bec)
WAGNER, C.J., ABELLA, MOLDAVER, KARAKATSANIS, GASCON, C T, BROWN, ROWE AND MARTIN, JJ.
Petitioner(s) by: Fran ois LeBel, Siegfried Peters and Ariane Beauregard
Respondent(s) by: Genevi ve Baillargeon-Bouchard and Pascale RacicotSerge Joyal and David Taylor for the intervener the Honourable Serge Joyal, P.C.Catherine Beagan Flood, Emily
Decision Dated: 5th October, 2018. (On appeal from the Courtof Appeal for Qu bec)
WAGNER, C.J., ABELLA, MOLDAVER, KARAKATSANIS, GASCON, C T, BROWN, ROWE AND MARTIN, JJ.
Petitioner(s) by: Fran ois LeBel, Siegfried Peters and Ariane Beauregard
Respondent(s) by: Genevi ve Baillargeon-Bouchard and Pascale RacicotSerge Joyal and David Taylor for the intervener the Honourable Serge Joyal, P.C.Catherine Beagan Flood, Emily
JACQUES CHAGNON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QU BECVSSYNDICAT DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET PARAPUBLIQUE DU QU BEC AND HONOURABLE SERGE JOYAL, P.C., AND SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIOINTERVENERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Parliamentary privilege--- ----Scope and interpretation---Exercise of parliamentary privilege---Judicial review by Court---Scope---Legislative bodies, including Provincial legislative assemblies, had inherent Parliamentary privileges that flowed from their nature and function in a Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy---Inherent Parliamentary privileges helped preserve the separation of powers and promoted the proper functioning of representative democracy, by protecting some areas of legislative activity from external review---However, the inherent nature of Parliamentary privilege meant that its existence and scope must be strictly anchored to its rationale---Courts had the role of determining whether a category of Parliamentary privilege existed and to delimit its scope, whereas it was for the legislative assemblies to determine whether in a particular case the exercise of the privilege was necessary or appropriate---Scope of Parliamentary privilege was delimited by the purposes it served, and extended only so far as was necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly's work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country's business---Since the courts could not review the exercise of Parliamentary privileges, even on grounds of fundamental rights and freedoms, they must ensure that the protection provided by a privilege did not exceed its purpose---Purposive approach must therefore be taken when assessing Parliamentary privilege claims---Such an approach helped to reconcile the privilege with the fundamental rights and freedoms, by ensuring that it was only as broad as was necessary for the proper functioning of a constitutional democracy. (b) Parliamentary privilege--- ----Scope---Judicial review---Burden of proof---Party seeking to rely on theimmunity from external review conferred by Parliamentary privilege bore the burden of establishing its necessity, that was, to demonstrate that the scope of the protection it claimed was necessary in light of the purposes of Parliamentary privilege---Such necessity test demanded that the sphere of activity…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492