Nissan Automobile Co. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Pelletier et al., [1981] 1 SCR 67

Supreme Court of Canada

Nissan Automobile Co. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Pelletier et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 67

Date: 1981-02-04

Nissan Automobile Company (Canada) Ltd. and Elegant Motors Inc. (Applicants) Appellants;

and

Serge Pelletier Respondent;

and

Provincial Court, Access to Justice Division, City of Longueuil

and

Mr. Justice Gérard P. Laganière

and

Clerk of the Provincial Court, Access to Justice Division

and

The Bar of Quebec

and

The Attorney General of the Province of Quebec Mis en cause.

1981: February 4.

Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Mclntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC

Constitutional law—Procedure—Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court—Whether constitutional to exclude representation by Counsel—Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 955, 956, 985.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec[1], dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court[2] which had dismissed a motion for revision under s. 846 C.C.P. from a judgment of the presiding judge of the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court. Appeal dismissed.

[Page 68]

Kelvin J. MacDougall, Q.C., for the applicants, appellants.

David Appel, for the respondent.

Henri Brun and Odette Laverdière, for the mis en cause, the Provincial Court, Mr. Justice Laganière, the Clerk of the Provincial Court and the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec.

Viateur Bergeron, Q.C., and Richard Gaudreau, for the mis en cause, the Bar of Quebec.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal fails. The respondent was not called upon to answer the appeal with respect to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court of Quebec. As to the constitutional question reading as follows:

Is it competent for the National Assembly of Quebec to exclude representation by Counsel before the Small Claims Division of the Quebec Provincial Court pursuant to articles 955, 956 and 985 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, S.Q. 1965, c. 80, as amended by L.Q. 1971, c. 86, L.Q. 1975, c. 83, art. 57 and L.Q. 1977, c. 73, art. 36?

we do not accept the contentions of counsel for the appellants and counsel for the Bar of Quebec. Accordingly, we answer the constitutional question in the affirmative.

The respondent is entitled to his costs throughout. There will be no costs to or against the Bar of Quebec or the Attorney General of Quebec.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellants: Bronstetter, Wilkie, Penhale, Donovan, Giroux & Charbonneau, Montréal.

Solicitors for the respondent: Appel, Golfman, Lehrer & Castonguay, Montréal.

Solicitors for the Attorney General for Quebec: Henri Brun, Louis Crête and Odette Laverdière, Quebec.

Solicitors for the Bar of Quebec: Bergeron & Gaudreau, Hull, and Bergeron, Cain, Lamarre, Casgrain & Wells, Chicoutimi.