. ..

. .• ·�= . .. .. .. . .. \.- . ,•.. ..,. ·. ... � . .

... :·
• • .. . ...
....
•• . . �. :- ' •. 'i .• : z
.
... .,,_
..

. :'·:.";'·.:._;::/:�·.. .':·:···· :.·,· . ,·. . : :, . . .. . . ·. . .··

• i" ••

DE ·c ·1 AR AT 6 RY
QUEBEC ALTERNATIVES TO
"PREROGATIVE WRITS
AND OTHER PROCEDURES

Winnipeg, August 23, 1984

The Honourable Mr. Jlisticc John R. Ho11nan
Superior Court of (1ucb_c
 2

The C.I.A.J. meeting at Hontreal, November 10, 11

and 12, 1982 was dedicated to the topic of Judicial Review of

Administrative Rulings. The various papers presented there are

reproduced in a specia� edition of La R�vue du Barreau, Mars-Avril

1983, Tome 43, N ° 2, in French or English, according to their

language of pre;�n�ation. ( 1)

Our. colleague Hon. Jacques Dugas, then President,

.
. . . .,.
'..: . :. . :.:·,.. riotecl'··:;nat:. the�� .ha� �PJ?�ared: in· .Quebec in 1982. the very' u�eful .. : . : .:. ·.
-. ·: ,;, !

: <::��-ik�:··£i·.;�·a·r�"nt ,}iL: ������x; (· �) :::: �nd. Pepin

. -�·-.• . .
& ··auellette�4). This

present review of 'the declaratory judgment' owes much to all these

cited sources. Note should also be taken of the monograph produced

at Jasper, August 19811 by our colleague �on. Denis Levesque CS ) at

'the seminar held under the auspic�s of the Canadian Judicial Council

and liberally consulted for these purposes.

In Quebec, in civil matters, the traditional common

law writs of certiorari and prohibition were subsumed under the

provisions of the Code of Procedure adopted in the "new" Code of

Procedure in 1966, ( G) u,der the provisions of Article 846 c.p.

The "new" procedure is recognized as a writ of evocation.

(1) Revue du Barreau, 1 Notre-Dame Street East, Room 9.80, Montreal,

Quebec, H2Y 1B6-
(2) Patrice Garant - "Droit Administratif", 1981 ( Blais)
(3) Deni's Lemieux - "Le Controle Judiciaire de l'Action Gouverne­
mentale" 1981, 1983 (Centre d' edition C .E .J, Inc. (looseleaf))
(4) Pepin & Ouellette - "Principes de Contentieux Administratif",
2nd ed., 1982, Blais
(5) "Revision Judiciaire des Tribunaux Administratifs", Jasper,
August 1981
(6) 1965 S.Q. 1st session, a.846
 3

The recourse to a demand for a declaratory judgment

as an alternative to evocation, mandamus, quo warranto and rarely, if

ever,habeas corpus in civil matters., is sought in ever widening

circles.

In Quebec, generally spe.aking, the jurisdiction of

the.: SuJ?e�.iqr. Court .. to suf)erintend and: r�fonn administrative decisions .

(subject to validly enacted privative clauses) <7) has been recognized

· since the.Court was established: Three· Rivers Boatman ·Ltd. v. Conseil

. ,,, . . . '.
·. . ... ·�·-. . .
-:'-'
...
.
.• : .. - •• · .• -=-. · .... �· .
. · ,· canc1.dien .
• .-�
·
-.:•• ,....,.• :·
d�s: Re'.lations
. • •• : •.:•• .:- .., ••
. ·ouvrie.r::es ·(1969) s.c .R. 607. · Fauteux J. as . ... ' ··......·.- .
. :· .-� ""' ·. ? _,. . -. . ·.: ... . . .
•
'II,· •• ·- • • •• • ••• ••
;
o.; •
•
.
:was·,··
:• ••.:

.he"" then held;· for th·e Court. at pp . 615 et seq.:

"Au jour OU elle fut creee en 1849, la Cour

superieure acquit en plenitude la juridiction
civile de premiere instance et particulierement
la juridiction.de surveillance jusqu'alors
· e;x;e-.rcee. par· ·la -Coµx:-:.a.1-1 · _Ban� du Roi ! •. • · La
Cou� super'ieure devenait ainsi nantie du
pouvoir de surveillance, base sur la common
law qu'exer9ait en Angleterre la Court of
King's Bench sur laquelle la Cour du Banc du
Roi fut modelee. Cette loi du controle judi­
ciaire sur les tribunaux, corps politique ou
corporations exer9ant des pouvoirs judiciaires
ou quasi judiciaires, nous vient du droit
public anglais introduit au Qu&bec lors et
par suite de la cession."

It is generally accepted in Quebec that there lie

within the text of the Code of Procedure, all of the necessary

weapons of procedure to invoke and obtain judicial review of administrative

procedures. The declaratory judgment may be sought as an alternative

(7) See page 16.

 4

among other techniques. Prior to the amendments of 1983, L.Q. c. 28,

declared in force December 1, 1983, the writs of evocation, quo

warranto and mandamus, the Court accepted the allegations contained

in th� petition and often supported by the most laconic o.£ affidavits,

a� true. This procedure was widely criticized as having the effect

of, .?eciding the law (_ at least . until after the long-distant hearing

on the merits), before being in possession of the facts. (8) Since

the. i·ntroduction of the new articles· 834 · to 835. 5 C.CoP o at December·

• : '� .... _.. • ':, • l •
•
'\ I, •• o ' '" • •, • • •I " • •
; .
• • , , • ... ., . . . . -·
.···

• .· ::�....:·. · lt. ·19.83', the:·pe:tl.tion "must; : be ;sUJ?J?Or'ted _by elaborated affidavits

.
·, ,1_::1 ... .. . : .. '· . . '... .. . . '•
•• • - .
�.:
:after t'heii:' "service· d�. those �dv��seiy· interested together with the

documents invoked, whereupon, if the record is complete the matter

is heard on the merits. If the record is incomplete the Court may

_ im orders to safeguard tl:te .:right� _of the parties, ':'-nd. q.

m�.e ir.i.ter
.� .
time for hearing in the near future is thereupon fixed. The motion

for declaratory judgment follows this process except in respect of

interim orders.

It might be useful to briefly allude to the various

avenues of procedure found explicitly within the Code. (9)

I Direct A�tion:
Actions for declaratory judgment or in
nullity under Article 33 c.p. (superin­
tending and reforming power) or Article 20
c.p. and 110 c.p. where no proceeding is
provided for, any proceeding not incon­
sistent may be adopted, and every (such)
proceeding commences by writ in the name
of the Sovereign.

(8) Dugas J. - Reflexions sur les brefs de prerogative (1983) 43

Revue du Barreau, 503, 514.
(9) See Annex "A" for texts referred to herein. For a critique of the
various Quebec remedies see Dussault & Patenaude - "Le controle
judiciaire de l'Administration: Vers une meilleure synthese des
valeurs do liberte individuelle et de justice sociale?" 1983, 43
Revue du Bar ·au, p. 163.
 II Application by Motion;

a) Motions for declaratory judgment:

"Any person who has an interest in
having determined immediately, for
the solution of a genuine problem,
either.his status or any right, power
or obligation which he have under a
contract, will or any other written
instrument, statute, o�der in council, . ·\ .
·or re'solu.tion or by law of a municipal
corporation, may, by motion to the court,
ask for a declaratory judgment in that
·:i:::egard." . ·Art. 4.53 .c.P.;
.... ·-
'·�::: . .,.-:· ·-� �·�:.':··:- ;_··�·-;:·.. ;.. •b\··Mot;Lori .....for o,i�t��-\�>.case of usurpati'oti;-�� _:: . ...
: : •• : j
.
,; ·::

:
. ··. ...�. · ··. ··.· .. : :· .. ·.: .. ··....· _:. , ·'·'....·· . ·--:-... �� · o�f'ice:.or
fra11�h;lse, quo warranto; .
· ·· . Ar't. 83S:'· c.p.; -

c) Motion to obtain performance of a "public"

duty; mandamus Art. 844 c.p.;

d) Motion for judgment in evocation before

�r aft�:r·. judgment. of a · matter before a
·.. court subject to
the 'superintending and
reforming power. This motion lies only
where there is no appeal from the matter
under scrutiny, EXCEPT where there is
want or excess of jurisdiction, (Art. 846
c.p.);

e) Motion for writ of habeas corpus, Art.

851 C.P.;

f) Motion for injunction, issued with a

writ, contested orally, with exceptions,
but heard by the Practice Division as
though a motion. Often accompanied by a
motion for declaratory judgment; Art. 751 c.p.

The choice of appropriate remedy is left to the party

seeking it. Considerable energy and ingenuity had been devoted in Queoec

to the faintly liturgica_l-sounding debate of whether the declaratory

judgment was "curative" or "prev.entive", until the judgment by the

Supreme Court in Duquet v. Ville de Ste-Agathe (1977) 2 s.C.R. 1132.

•.• 4:'"
 6

The source of this debate lay in the report of the

Commissioners charged with the 1966 revision of the Code of

Procedure (lO)whose effect was to ra�se doubts as to whether the

"n1:w" pro�edure for declaratory judgment on petition

_ . (Art. 453 c.p.
supra p. · 4) lay so as to provide in the words of the Court of Appeal:.

"a.second system for instituting and

hearing cases, to a large extent parallel
to the first but more expeditious; if the
choice (of which) ••• were left to the
litigants disorder and chaos would result.·••
. . .... and the- administration of justice •••
.
M • .

. ....
. .. .. : '. : : :· = .: ::�-.:' "Woura:'s°uffer ,· ·for· jus'tice needs to be
' ,•
, •'
. ... ·-� ..
' •.
;· · ·, . ':··· ':/·. · ': a:d(!liniste•;-ed in an orderly manner. (11)
0

::.

' (T?:aduction) ..

('10)
Garon Pratt!;!.·J,A-., Albert Leblanc J.C.S., George Chailies J.C.S.::
Title VI - Chapter II - "This chapter is new law. The Corrunission_:
ers have already explained the reason which led them to propose the
declaratory action, as a means of preventive justice ••• ".
Title III - Chapter.!. - " ..• It is therefore extremely desirable
that there should be put at the disposal of the litigants a means
which permits them to determine in advance in certain conditions
the true nature of the juridical situation in which they find
themselves. But the means required for this are declaratory
procedures under which when two litigants are in disagreement as
to their reciprocal rights and obligations, one of them may demand
from the tribunal, a declaration as to what his rights are. This
declaration will not involve any condemnation, but, having the
force of chose jugee, it will compel the respect of the parties.
This declaratory procedure has
existed in Scotland for two centuries; it started developing in
England about 1828, and is now in use in all the English speaking
countries, as well as in Germany and Austria. In France the
doctrine is favorable to it, and jurisprudence admits it more and
more. (Salus et Perrot, Droit judiciaire prive, t.l, n. 233, p.
211). Everywhere beneficial effects are noticed".

(11) Duquet v. Ste-Agathe (1975) C.A. 764, 765.

 7

In the event Pigeon J. put the matter to rest when

he wrote in Duquet, for the Court at p. 1142:

"On the procedural que'stion therefore, I would say:

·I)· in order ·to decide whether a case can be·

dealt with by a motion for declaratory
judgment,' the Court is not required to
determine if the motion is preventive or
curative but merely whether it comes within
the terms of Art. 453�

2) as ·tlle..dis.tinctiq_n is not .a rule: of public: ...

. . . or.de·�-, . any party .who wishes to. complain .... ·'
:�.:.:';,: ,:.:::::"' .... ·. . ···: ·.
...... ··.._._:._.:;: .·.�·: . " _:.: .<. ·: : . · .· �· ;- :_ .... .'·. ·.
·.· ·.::. :;:-·.·:.:/:·::.tlial an\icdoif should'.hav�-:i:,een instituted ....
:� . ..
• •;· . t

.. . . 1t1ust.. -d� s_o when· the motion is presented,.

.

.
·": ": '. ·. ·; . and' .he ·shall be' ce>nsidered to have waived
this objection if he files a contestation
in writing.

I think I should add that I see no basis for fears

of an abuse of the procedure by motion. Firstly,
.
it �ust pe noted that no order for payment of .money
··c�n be. sought under Article 453 � however widely the
·article is interpreted. Furthermore, if the judge
considers that this procedure is being abused, there
is nothing to prevent him from ordering that the
case be proceed with as if it were an action.•. ".

This judgment is the cornerstone upon which hosts of liti-

gants rely to demc1nd the declaratory judgment as a recourse rather than

another of the available recourses in Quebec.

In Voghel v. Procureur General du Quebec (1977) C.A. 197,

the Court of Appeal per Rinfret, J.A., Bernier & Mayr.and J.J.A. con-

curring, reluctantly adopted the solution as to procedure enunciated in

Duquet. At page 201:

"Je me dois pourtant d'accepter cette decision

du Tribunal superieur; mais j'avoue le faire
avec reticence vu la profonde perturbation qu'elle
va surement cause� dans !'administration de la
justice."
 8

While the use of the declaratory judgment by motion is

clearly sanctified by Duquet in cases which fall equally within the

text of Article 453 c.c.p., there are still a number of cases that

indicate an unwillingness by our Courts to see a motio'n for .decla-

ratory judgment result in a successful "end-run" around other cases

commenced by writ, which, because of the delays in the roll of

contested· cases, are called less quickly. As the hearing of con-

. texted cases speeds up, the neeq for fine procedural distinctions •' ..... . •. ..:!·

. :·�;:����i�i��-->�-:·.:' ·.; � ·::',/:.:.-: ;_." :· ::. :�- . :.�.... :

The reluctance to view certain cases as properly

within the ambit of Art. 453 c.c.p. is bolstered by the view held

by certain judges that in many instances the declaratory judgment

. .. .
'sought; will• not provide the. "s'olution". to the ·problem and that th'e
. .. .
application is made with the silent assent of the complaisant defendant;

that the normal rules of examination and cross-examination are avoided

and the Court obliged to decide an artificial question; that there is

connivance to avoid c0llatural issues such as proceedings in warranty

in order to save t.i.:ne, a.nd that this is all fundamentally unfair to

the other litigants whose more orthodox cases await hearing on their

merits.

Since Duquet, the Supreme Court has given some guidance

to the Court as to restrictions on the availability of the proceeding

by motion for declaratory judgment.

Countervailing this sentiment of resistance is the

practical fact that once the matter has been heard on the merits,

(even when there is a motion of irrecevability usually taken under

advisement) the judge seized with the case is often reluctant to

 9

dispose of the matter by finding the use of the recourse abusive,

even when a complete �:nlution to a genuine problem cannot be

confidently seen to emerge. Often a decision to treat the case

or discharge it can only be reached after a number of hours of

troublesome reflection and a winnowing of principles from conflict-

ing authorities. The human side of the judicial personality cries

out against exercising discretionary power to abandon the effort

already expended. The juridical side of the personality rea.sons.

�) .- ::·.-� ..• :·:· :. ' ., ·:: ·,· .J'�.r����ive.�y. 1:=hat:._th�: pa�tie.s .' ha'ITing come this far, the n
ettle .. -: . . �..· .... ,." ..
� I :
' • •.

. ·
: . ,- .... ·:.���i��, b��,n··: :i:�Y.\�f�����-· _£�.··-'avoid t�� sting, the judgment should
.

be rendered.

In Les Terrasses Zarolega, Zappia et Al. v. La Regie

des Installations Olympiques (1981) 1 S.C.R. 94, the Supre�e Court

. .. .
·consid�red · a motion for declaratory judgment as to the effect of an

Act and agreements relating to expropriation of the Olurnpic Village

and the determining by an arbitration committee of sums due for it.

The Court referred to Duquet and concluded that in the circumstances

one question being put to it was not susceptible of being the object

of a declaratory judgment.

Per Chouinard J, for the Court, at p. 105:

"The case at bar does not concern

regulatory nullity nor the lack
or excess of jurisdiction of the
arbitration committee, all cases
recognized by art. 846 c.c.P. and
�y judicial authority as being
subject to the exercise of the
supervisory and controlling power
of the Superior C6urt.
Rather, the question is whether the
Superior Court may intervene when
the issue has been confided to an
arbitration conunittee.

..... . . .. ..... ...- ....

,
 10

... the House of Lords held in

Barraclough v. Brown (1897 A.C.
615) that there is no basis for a
declaratory judgment when the matter
has been confided to a lower court •.. ".

and at page 106:

"Finally, a declaratory judgment will
not be rendered when it will serve
little or no purpose."

However, in the earlier case of Vachon v. Pocureur

General de Quebec et al .(1979) l S.C.R. 555, the Court made

. �: . ·�· .-. ·.. . : ·:·. ·refe.re.ric�·. to ··the

proce:dural effect of applying to· the Court for a
.· .
. declaratqry; judgment ;hether �ominenced by direct action, -or by

motion, rather than making an application for evocation. Procedural

defences "of nullity for formal defects were to be dismissed as

tnconsis}ent with the rules of the. Code of Procedure.. Thus Pigeon

J. held, for the Court, at page 561:

"It is quite true that art. 834 prohibits

evocation without prior authorization
but nowhere does the Code prohibit a
declaratory action or a motion for a
declaratory judgment in respect of claims
that may be urged by an extraordinary
remedy contemplated in this article...
The onl�· consequence of resorting to an
action or to a motion for a declaration
rather than to an applic,1tion for evocation
in a case coming within art. 846 c.c.P. is
that the plaintiff does not obtain a
staying order."

Vachon has become the authority from which the proce-

dural limitations previously seen to exist in Art. 846 c.c.P. are

breached, as it illuminated the accessory nature, however important,

 11

of the proredural remedy. Thus in St-Hilaire v. Begin J.E.

82-258, the Court of Appeal viewed a municipal corrunission as

subject to the procedure of evocation, and, it is submitted,

had the parties wished it so, to the procedure of a petition

for dec_laratory judgment.

Pepin - Chroniques de Droit Adniinistratif (1982)

42 Revue du Barreau 269, wrote in respect of St-Hilaire:

"C'est. pourquoi nous souhait�ns que l'.arret ..

·: ,,: �= .
. . . . St-Hilail:'e aille bien dans le sens que
·- ..· ; ; . .:. . . . -... ·.... •... .-'. ·. ·····.... nous' avon's ·c:'ru raisonnable de percevoir •.. � :· ··,:

: :. ·. ·..: ·:... '

::
·. · · · ·;::,.· )'..: . < ..:: ;.> -·Defi..d�ns. le· pass1h. les expressions
. ' ..... ':.
.
: ... · · .
_

·-·· ·i•tribu:r1aii•. et i;Jugement•i ,· utilisees a

, . ·.. !'article 846 C.p.c., n'ont pas ete
interpretees litteralement, sous !'in-
fluence des regles de corrunon law. Il
est de jurisprudence bien etablie que
!'evocation est recevable contre une
personne oµ un organism.e habili te par. la .
a: loi prendre des decisions quasi" judiciaire's .
..• l'evo�ation soit desormais possible
a l'encontre d'une personne OU d'u�
organisme habilite par la loi a prendre des
decisions qui affectent les droits des indi­
vidus OU des entreprises. Nous preferons
d'ailleurs !'expression employee en Cour
supreme par le juge Dickson: decisions qui
affectent "les droits, interets, biens,
privileges OU liberte d'une personne"..

In the case of Her Majesty the Queen in right of

Newfoundland & Hydro Quebec & Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. &

Royal .Trust Co. et al (1982) 2 S.C.R. 79, the Supreme Court considered

an application by motion for a declaratory judgment, which the

Superior Court had dismissed for want of jurisdiction rationae

personae (the Crown Nfld.). The petitioner Hydro Quebec sought a

decision as to the effect on its rights under certain contracts of a

Newfoundland order in council invoking a lease between it and Churchill

 12
•', ,· · · . . ..·..-. .

ordering Churchill Falls to provide power to Newfoundland. The

availability of the declaratory judgment to determine future

rights is made unmistakably clear.

The Court held, per Beetz J. at p. 106:

" Further, it is not necessary for Churchill

Falls to have already refused to perform
the Power Contract in order for the
Superior Court to rule on the rights of
the parties to the contract. The value of
the new declaratory actionC12) which Hydro­
QU��e.c i,s .seeking to use lies precisely in ·.··.. · .
- .. . ... .::.·.

. the" .f_act· that .it allows the litigant to

. .� . protect'. a threatened right� As the Commis­
sione.rs 'observed, "the interest required
to institute proceedings may flow from a
right which itself would only be eventual".
What matters is that the interest in obtain­
ing a solution to a genuine problem is
real ...".

Arid at page,_ 107:

" purely procedural considerations should
not be an obstacle to the solution of a
genuine problem to which art. 453 of the Code
of Civil Procedure applies, and once again,
that problem consists in categorizing, in
light of the interpretation that must be
given to the Power Contract, the difficulty
in which Churchill Falls is likely to be."

This case was returned to the Superior Court for

judgment on the merits. (1983) S.C. 604.

(l2) Translated from the French "recours". The case arises

from a demand made by "motion" and is not as such an
"action" for a declaratory judgment.
 13

,· . ,.

In Les Proprietes Place McGregor Inc. v. Regie du

Logement & Gauthier et al., J.E. 84-105, the Superior Court con-

sidering an evocation, held at p. 12 of the notes of judgment:

. "En rnat.:i.ere d' absence OU d''·exces de

juridictiGn, le pouvoir de surveil­
lance de la Cour superieure peut
s'exercer par l'action directe en
nullite, l'action OU la requete pour
jugement declaratoire et l'evocation.
Le tout depend de ce qui est recherche
par le _justiciaple c'est-a-dir� si l'on
recherche ou non des ordonnances de
•. • • •• • .=
. . ....·..... .. ·.. . �- ··: ..::·· .-·· :· . : · ·... :.. s��is: •OU ·.autres 6rdo_nnances pouvant
=�· .·.-.........-·
.:
.. .
:·

a
. .·> .. �--� ': -.dcinn�r.- .. ouverture ,. au cas. de refus,
•• • I

. . >-. .., •
•·'·.. ,. .... .,· rie polll--�uite �n'outrage. au tribunal. (13)
.: _ �

In summary, from the foregoing it is possible to

suggest that there are no cases where the remedy of a declaratory

judgment is necessarily excluded because the

. subject matter of an
,•

order sought.by the applicant may be more appropriately dealt with

by one of the prerogative writs, contemplated by the Code of Proce-

dure, if the subject matter otherwise falls within the four corners

of art. 453 C.C.P. or would be the proper object of an action for

ueclaratory judgment, art. 33 c.c.P.

In light of this conclusion, there is little practical

importance in the distinction between the action for a declaratory

judgment or the motion for a declaratory judgment, as an alternative

(13) Art. 46 C.C.P.: "The Courts and judges have all the powers
necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction. They may ••.
pronounce orders or reprimands •.. and make such orders as
are appropriate to cover cases where no specific remedy is
provided by law." As orders for sursis in cases of prero­
gative writs are specially provided for, it has not yet been
held that this article can be invoked during a declaratory
proceeding to suspend proceedings or further action. It may
only be a matter of time 'till that occurs.
 14

. . ·. ..
·· .· . _ . ·,· . recourse to the ·prerogative writ·s· of c::ertiorari "and prohibiti6�

(now evocation), quo warranto, mandamus and habeas corpus. The

recourse of habeas corpus can not easily be exercised by the

0

declaratory judgment. It is not discretionary as is the decla­

_ratory recourse tinrra p. 1 'i ) , .and a certiorari:....in-aid or

evocation-in-aid,. although·:considered available in Quebec (by

Garant, p. 887) is seldom invoked according to the jurisprudence

consulted. Howeve·r, the.re appears to be no objection in prin-

cipl'e 'to the motion of a ·deciaratory recourse . .

affirming that a
.: ... . :
.... -�-·-· :. . ·-�· .--.��"t �--�_ .._.: .. ·
._,. . . · -·�.:··.-· . . ·::·. � · .. · ...
. · : . _'detention.. :i;s·. unla�j;u).. �-:·:The :non..:executory · nature of the dei::la-
• ,• •, o • 0 ,I o �· '0 I o•
• '•
,• , - 00 • ' - ' • •
' '
� : ' •,

ratory recourse might make this option less than attractive.

The consequential procedural effects of the decla-

ratory recourse, such as interruption of ongoing procedures

not automatic in any event; since D�cernbe·r 1, l-983 (15) are

weighed and considered by the litigants as their needs dictate.

If the object of the parties is to obt�in a relatively quick

opinion, declaratory but not executory, they can avoid the risk

of there being a trial of the issues(lG) by properly cast pro-

ceedings. When the declaratory recourse is properly married to

proceedings for injunction, interim relief is available, (l7) even

where the record of the case is incomplete for want of the required

(14) See Ferland: L'action directe en nuilite et la requete pour

emission du bref d'Svocntion: recours alternatifs ou exclu­
sifs? (1979) 39 Eevue du Barreau 325.
(15) 1983 S.Q. c. 28, a. 31 in force December 1, 1983 - The court
may grant a suspension at any time after the filing of the
motion.
(16) Article 455 c.c.P.
(17) Article 752, as injunctiverelief is not available to inhibit
judicial or quasi-Judicial proceedings 758 C.C.P. Vignola v.
Keable (1980) C.A. 531; Montreal Dress Guild "· Tremblay, J.E.
83-270 (C.A.), this marriage does not always work .

...�::_::.:._ __
 15

··.:·· ' . .. . ... ' . . � .

detailed affidavit!;; oi: SU.1:Jporti11g documents. (18)

If the distinction between the declaratory recourse

on motion or by action is inconsequ�ntial for the litigant who is

making his choice betwee!1 th.em ( 19 >. �nd one of the prerogative .
..
I�• • •

writs, it might �e useful "to.examine the constraints which, in

practice limit recourse to the declaratory judgment.

';t'he authors cited above, Pepin & Ouellette, c 2 o

>

Garant.(21�. and .L�mieux (22

_ ) hav.e given illustrations of the juris-
....
:·:. ·.·.-: :· : pi-iid�h��/�ri�in<i
.- . . . •
.
ret:ati·���\o
··:\ .. . . .
l; ..
,:". ·.
' _:,,.· .. ' ,: .·
.th� . declaratory
,. -.
recours� ,_ ._and the
•
• .:; ':, • •
<, � ..• •• ·:' .

limitations on i.ts ·avail�bility · or appropriateness perceived to

exist from time to time. That the borders of the province of

the declaratory judgment are unsettled arises from the judicial

fact that it is�·by Art. 462 C.C.P.(�3) �ranted or denied as :a

function of judicial discretion.

(18) Article 754.2

(19) See Pepin & Ouellette, op cit at p. 368, sub-heading "La
requete et l'action declaratoire du droit quebecois", which
compares the conunon law declaratory action and the effect on
Quebec law of the adoption in 1966 of Art. 453 C.C.P. and
Article 55 C. C.P. (a litigant must have a sufficient inter.est
.•. "to obtain a pronouncement upon the existence of a legal
situation").
(20) Pp. 373 et seq.
(21) Pp. 888 et seq.
(22) Pp. 5-26, para. 5.06 et seq.
(23) "Art. 462 C.C.P.: No action will be dismissed merely because
it is intended to obtain a declaratory judgment, but the court
may, if it is of opinion that the interest of plaintiff is
insufficient or that a judgment will not put an end to the
uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action,
refuse to render judgment".
 16

··.· ' ..
To paraphrase Pepin & Ouellette, at page 377, from

the moment the motion or action for declaratory judgment became

a way to exercise the power of revi�w by the superior Court of

act�on or ina�tion by the publi�. admini�trator, the problem of ..

its coexistence with the other remedies arose, account being taken

that it (the declaratory recourse). like the prerogative writs

cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It is accepted that in these

'matters -the ·Supreme··Court of Canada has ·shown a great latitude

. ·.·
. . . :_ ..
.• •• !
�o·
.-.-.:'�iih:-� -'vie�: f�v6�£dg>�h� .a�6�s-;ability··of· justice. It express·ly
. . . .·
• •
"' � • •
•
• '
• • ' • ' ·:'
' • • • : l- • • ;• • . � •• • ..- • •
•'-•

recognized· ·in the Duquet · case the principal of coexistence of the

I

declaratory recourse with the special recourse in nullity of a by-

law, contemplated by municipal law. Thus it follows, in the same

spirit that·it.h�s been held that· the declaratory recourse and t?e

direct action in nullity are alternative recourses, and that the

same is true for the declaratory recourse and the recourse in

evocation. So as to perhaps dissipate any doubts, it is useful to

cite Pigeon J. in Vachon, at p. 561:

" ... nowhere does the Code prohibit a

declaratory action or a motion for a
declaratory judgment in respect of claims
that may be urged by an extraordinary
remedy contemplated in this article".
(834 c.c.P.).

As the declaratory recourse may alternate with the

prerogative writs to exercise judicial control over administrative

bodies and inferior tribunals, it follows that its exercise is

subjected to a variety of privative clauses.

 17
. .. : : .

The effects of the privative clause on the

declaratory recourse is identicill to its effect on the prero-

gative writs. The Supreme Court in. Crevier v. Procureur General

. � . . .
. Quebec . - . .
·du (1981) 2 S.C.R. 220, declared that as to provincial
. : .

mattersC24) a privative clause could not have the effect of

preventing the Superior Court from· exercising its traditional

inherent sup�rintending and reforming power in cases of a�sence

, . or= :ex.cess_.. of· authority by :the.

. interior. tribunal; otherwise stated· . .·.. ..
:\
: ·-... : . .
. ,· . . . . . :· . •.
·, . ·.: . �- . . . . .
,. · .-:a� '.j u�-:{�di�io�:a:1··-ei°f·a�.-(.2 5} . · I� p·rocureur General du Quebec ·v.
Regie du Logement et Grondin et Atelier 7, November 3, 1983, the

Supreme Court per Chouinard J. held, at p. 24�

"In the Crevier case dealing with the

Profession�! lrih�nal� in addition to
the ·priva.tive clause of s. 194 of the
Professional Code wh5ch was to the same
effect as 518 in the case at bar, there
was s. 195 which excluded the superintend­
ing and reforming power of the Superior Court

(24) Gilles Pepin (1983} 43 Revue du Barreau, 353, 377.

(25} As to the operative effect of a privative clause in respect of
Federal public administrative law, see Pepin "L'Administration
publique et le principe de legalite" address of 23 September--
1983; (1984} Revue du Barreau, 137 at p. 143:
"Reste a
savoir, toutefois, si la Cour supreme etendra
cette garantie constitutionnelle de controle l'activite a
de !'administration publique federale, sujet dont elle
n'a pas traite dans l'arret en question. (Crevier} On
voit mal corrunent elle pourrait, ace propos, reconnaitre
un statut particulier aux organismes administratifs fede­
raux; corrunent expliquer que la primaute du Droit serait
mieux assuree au Quebec qu'au Canada? ... Mais un arret
recent (McEvoy v. A.G. New Brunswick (1983) 148, D.L.R.
3d, 25 (S.C.C.) ... annonce peut-etre le nivellement
prochain des statuts. En effet, dans un jugement consacre
a
l'etude de la validite d'une loi etablissant une Cour de
juridiction criminelle c1.u Nouveau Brunswick, la Cour dans
une opinion qui souleve en realite plus de questions qu'elle
n'en reqle, u decide que l'�rticle 96 apportait des res­
trictions a la competence du Parlement du Canada ... ".
 18

under Art. 33 C.C.P. There is no similar

clause i..n the case of the Board, and the
Superior Court therefore continues to have
its traditional superintending and reform­
ing power for lack or excess of juris­
diction, which may be exercised by direct
action or by a motion for a deolar�tory
, - jtl'dgme-nt. (Vacho'n v. ·A.G�- Quebec {1979)
·1s.c.R. �55 a� 560 to 562)".

The Rules of Practice of the Superior Court, adopted

with legislat�ve effect,.. provide that ordinary cases are fixed for

hea.r:ing qn the roll of cont�sted cases, having. regard to the :aate

: : . -' : when/the act::i.on'.�as .insti tu.ted. /2� > : current delay for hearing.such
-: .. .
. i
\a�.� �� � � ),,\ �,t;., � "- ,:·; � <lA,\L.

By Rule 27:

"The following matters are inscribed on the

special roll ...
· (19) ·motions for declaratory' judgment
when. contested in wri t.ing."

Current practice in Montreal is to ensure that motions for declara-

tory judgment be directed to the specially designated administrative

courtroom, where the current delay for hearing such cases is between

3 months and 6 months.

If the Court concludes that there ought to �c contes-

tation in writing, the case falls onto the special roll, shared by

other urgent cases to be heard on the merits in approximately b � j l.\-1,,\\'-.Llu.:i ;.,�. C-L
I - "J. - ,;._)
� c.c.,� •
If the Court does not order the trial of special issues(27l, the

case is heard forthwith (which might mean 6 weeks).

(26) Rule 18; Arts. 47, 48 C.C.P,.; Deschenes J, "Maitres chez Eux"
(1981) (Conseil Canadien de la Magistrature), p. 138.
(27) Art. 455 C.C.P.
 19
...
'I'he procedural advantages. of the declaratory

judgment on motion are at once obvious.

The tariff of costs prescribed by Regulations

...adopted. pursuant to..th�··Bar. Act pa:yable by the· 1osinq party

(Art. ·477 C.C.P.} in cases of declaratory judgments unless

otherwise determined by the Court, is based upon an action in

which the amount in dispute is from $3,000. to $10,000. (class

The fee on the action where judgment is rendered

·,� :�· . . . . .
,., .· .• . ··:'. .. ,·· ·.: . . .. ,.· .. . . · ..
,· . �· - -·· - .

. . -� -.. ; :· ·.... :'•on ,the, .ine'iit� i� . thi:i°s · $5"00'•. 00. Aside· from soiicitor-client costs,
•• • .. .
� • .. • • ' •
•• •'l • • • •• '. : . : . • . • . • • • • '

. . .
over which the Court has no direct control, the economic advan-

tages of the declaratory recourse,. even if denied,

. are obvious.

In the judicial District of Montreal, the declaratory

. .
r'.ecourse·. was inv'oked 9i t imes betweert September 1,. 1983 and May 30,

1984. Of these, 23 were classified as "public law" cases.

To determine which cases of the declaratory remedy

reported by the cornmentarors,in summary form by Jurisprudence

ExpressC28), or the case report�might have equally arisen as a

"pure" exercise of the: power of a prerogative writ is not practicable.

There follows however a modest survey of the more recent of the

available reported cases, orqanizcd generally in acc:urdance wi 1:h the

text of Article 453 C.C.P. and, where useful, other applicable

Articles.

•,
(28 ) Societe d'information quebecoise d'information juridique
(SOQUIJ 276, rue St-Jacque�, Suite 310) cited "JE 81 -
paragraph number"

-�--
 20

The present tr�nd for the Superior Court is to

consider and dispose of cases brought by declaratory judgment

.where.procequre by prerogative. writ might also lie, and to·

follow, albeit someti.mes·reluctantly, the clear signal of the

Supreme Court that the procedure is only an accessory, once

the right exists.

. .. ....
.. ·· ..... :.. . . · . . :....... ; ·. ·. ·. ·.
.
. .• ·: : ·.. . . . .. . .. ..
' .
.
":.

. . ·- ••

• • �
... � #, ••••: •.... � •• : •• • •
. ·:- : .. :. � ;·-: ...·. : .·

. .. ·-·--·
. ··.:-··- �- ...
 21

I "ANY PERSON WHO HAS AN INTEREST... " (Article 453 C.C ! P.)
"WHOEVER BRINGS AN ACTION AT LAW . . . TO OBTAIN A PRONOUNCE­
MENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A LEGAL SITUATION, MUST HAVE A
SUFFICIENT INTEREST THEREIN".· (Article 55 C.C.P.).

, a) Conseil:.du Patronat: du Quebec. v. Comrniss·ion de ·1-a Sante

.. ·et de la Se curite du Travail du Quebec, J.E. 84-409

The Superior Court refuses to allow the Conseil, a

non profit organization representing employees, to contest

the constitutional validity of s.ect �ons of the c.�s.s.T. Act

.. . . -·.. ·. . ·_··:'
:.
. i ·.. ···,:.. .-·· an\i. the inop�rability_ 9f other sections by motion for decla� ·
. ··. _:· : :.: :. ·. ����-� · �����en:·.·... Th�· "·r�so� ..d retre ·f�r the Conseil, being
-;
. . . y. . . -
the promot ion of employers' interests, does not confer on it

sufficient interest to bring thes e proceedings.

b) Propik Inc. v. Regi.e du Logeme nt & St-Maurice· (1982.

C."S. 111

The petitioner, a non profit organization of owners of

apartment buildings, has suffi cient interest to demand a decla-

ration of the unconst itutionality of resident ial tenancies

legislation constituting the Reqie (rental board). Thorson v.

Procureur General du Canada (1975) 1 S.C.R. 138, and McNeil

v. Board of Censors (1976) 2 S.C.R. 265, followed. See also

Raoul Blouin v. Le Procureur General du Quebec &__ Regie du

Logernent (1983) c.s. 213, to the same effec t.

c) Boudreault v. Municipalit e de Gatineau & Offic� d�� Ser­

vices de garde a l'enfance (1982) c.s. 151

Any genuine difficulty as to the installation of a

kindergarten exists b etween the Municipality and the owner

 22

of the buildinq in which it is to be installed. The

parties before the Court, parents on the one hand and

members of the Municipal Council on the other do not

have the interest required to demand a declaratory

judgment.

d) Forget v. Procureur General du Quebec, J.E. 82-704

. A .nurse, .whether member o.f _a. professional· corporati.on

-. . -.
•,
: .·. ":,: · .. , . of,'.nurse"s.·or· no.f,· has sufficient interest, and as a simple-
I

..,, .... . .:· .. .. . ..• "'. ....·:· ·:. • v • •: , • • •

-citizen has· sufficient interest to demand a declaratory

judgment as to the legality of regulations adopted under

the Charter of the French Language (L.R.Q. c. C-11) •

. �e). Quebec ��sociation of ?�otestint School Boards v�

Procureur G�n6�il du Que�ec (1982) c.s. 673; 1983
c.s. 77

A motion for declaratory judgment lies to determine

rights arising under Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, which is held, in part, incompatible

with the Charter of the French Language.

f) Charnbre des Huissiers du Quebec v. Lussier, J.E.

84-190 C.A.

The Chambre des huissiers, an association representing

bailiffs had the necessary interest required by Art. 453 C.C.P.

to demand a declaratory judgment that the prothonotary should

not routinely allow service of judgments of Small Claims

Court by mail rather than by bailiff. The Chamber need not

slow pecuniary interest.

 23

g) G.L. Procureur G6n�ral d;·gu�bec, J.E. 83-314 (1983)

c.s. 278

The right to corrunence class action proceedings

for a declaratory judgment that certain medical seryices

provided·outside Canada to transsexuals were payable by

, .·
the Regie. de l '-Assurance-Maladie is _denied. Inter Alia

the petitioner failed to disclose the existence of a class

as requii::ed by Art. 1002 C.C.P. et seq. and (semble) there-

•fore the int�re.

. .
st of �he .peti-t;.ioner .. was not demonst:i;ated.
. .

-·. ·:."•. {��smissed. ori a: vaiiety of··other grounds relating to Art:�· -

. .· .
: · .453. c;C�;E>.). ·

h) Risborough (Corp. Mun. des Cantons Unis De) v. Tanguay

J.E. 8'2-64

Failure to serve all interested parties will be

.
. o a.pet.it.ion for declaratory judgment.
fatal t The abscence

of supporting documents leaving facts alleged in a confused

state is also grounds to dismiss a motion for declaratory

judgment which 'is an exceptional remedy and can only be applied

for when all the necessary conditions of Art. 453 C.C.P. are

met.

i) Trust G�n&ral du Canada v. Bisson, J.E. 82-1148

No declaratory judgment lies in these circumstances

to determine the rights of a corporate trustee whose fees may

be increased by a favorable judgment. The interest of the

petitioner to demand the judgment is not sufficiently demonstrated.

 24 -.

j) La Ccirporation Profe�sionnelle des Physioth�rapeutes

du Qu�bec et �l. v. L'Hon. Laurin & L'Office des
Professions du Quebec (1982) C.S. 781

The professional Corpdration, constitued by statute

(Code des Professions) have sufficient interest to require

by a'eclaratory judgment· that 'the co1·1ective. agreements 'negotiated·

by the Minister containing work de.scriptions infringe on pro-

fessional titles reserved to members of the particular profes-

sional 'corporation. The interest required is that advantage

. . . .
. which the party . will obtain supposing the recourse is well
.. ..
:·.� . .
' .
• .. .t
. ..� � . . :. :· :
'• -� • ; :• : . ; . •• : �- ';; . � •. �·
•
fouruleli fS •.S;J.'8.'M. Vo C.U.M. (L981). C.A. 168) c
. . .
k) Destine v. Monpoint, J.E. 83-1063

A declaratory judgment lies to homologate a foreign

judgment. Petitioner must however establish all the conditions

necessary for homologation. All parties interested were not

called into the case, as required for procedures by way of

declaratory judgment

1) Me Robert Sacchitelle & Defense Lawyers Ass'n. v.

Procureur G�n�ral du Qu�bec (1983) C.S. 167

A petition for a declaratory judgment that the rules

of the Court of Sessions of the Peace were not duly adopted

by a court of criminal jurisdiction (Sec. 438.1 Civ. Code) must

be dismissed. Quare: whether the petitioner's had "inunediate

interest'' to obtain the solution to a genuine problem. There

is a distinction between the application of Art. 462 C.C.P.,

referring to the direct right of action for a declaratory

judgment and the petition under Art. 453 C.C.P. which is more

properly described as a way of exercising a right rather than

the right itself. (C.F. Banque de Nouvelle-Ecosse, J.E. 82-478,

- . . . ..... ..
-·-·,'-
 25

IV (R) infra J •

II ••• ( "IMMEDIATELY • • • ")

a) La Cor12_oration Professionn�lle des Physiotherapeutes

supra I j.
: � r -. I

While . immediat.ely. (immediatement) implies the motion

of urgency (Neiderer v. Gulf Canada (1982) C.S. 298) the Court

of Appeal in S.S.B.J.M. v. C.U.M. does not give this tenn such

a restricted mPaning. Any delay, if delay there be in exercisi�g.

. .
. ·,

b) Kronstrom v. Procureur General du Quebec (1983) C.S. 795

A legal aid lawyer is entitled to a declaratory judgment

that the' Ba)'." Association by arbi.tration should fix th.e fees .

he is entitled to receive for appearances before the Federal

Court. The tariff agreed to,as confirmed by regulation in

1974, is silent on the subject. The application is not tardy

and there has been no �enunciation of petitioner's riqhts by

delay. The interest is redl and actual.

II c) Corrunjssion ScoJaire Kativik v. Procureur General du C)uebec

J.E. 82-455

A declaratory judgment lies to determine if the Minister

of Education has proceeded ultra vires the Education Act to

establish a school by Order in Council. This judgment lies

even if the school year of such institution will shortly expire

and the practical cfi:ect of the judgment be limited thereby.

 26

d) Pimpare v. Soci;te de Raffinage & Marketing B.P. Canada

(1983) c.s. 806

A declaratory judgment lies to determine obligations

of a party arising from more than one contract, even if no

declaration of nullity
' . . . of. contract
. . . . .
lies under 453.
.
c ..C.P. .
! •. . . :
:-� . .
"Immediate" imp],ies a sense of urgency outside the ordinary

procedure.

e{i) Fernand Gallant & Fils v. Commission Regionale de

l'Outaouais, J.E. 83-751
. . . '
.··. ]\ · declar_c).tion: that an award of contract ;s invalid •

. ... .:
·. ,;
, t: .
:,· ·-'
because undet.' t�e- Act·,. the bidder was . required to be licericed does

not lie under Art. 453 C.C.P. The word inunediately is the

essential qualifying word for exercise of this recourse. Here

the petitioner seeks a first judgment on the law to be used in

future litigation as res judic�ta. Ai to interest, the petitioneL

seeks not a declaration of his interest, but a declaration that

the mis-en-cause has no interest. Such judgment would solve no

problem.

e (ii) Jos. Pelletier Ltee. v. C.G.E.P. de l'Outaouals (1983)

C. S. 185

A declaratory judgment can be rendered to determine whether

a low bid had been illegally accepted even in the absence of a

formal contract being issued. The pre-contract relations

between the parties to the case created rights and obligations

even in the absence of a written instrument.

 7.7

II f) Mines d',�iante Bell Ltle. v. Ulicny, J.E. 82-940

No declaratory judgment lies to provi�e counsel to a

party to case already institu�ed. Thus a demand that any

eventual judgment in New Jersey .cannot be exemplified :1,-n Q�ebec

is purely hypothetical and is not a genuine and immediate

problem resulting from interpretation of a contract, will or

law.

g)' MuniciPaiity o( Ste-There�e de Gaspe v·•. Municipality of

··. · ·.: �,. ·.·.,. Grande Riviere··; (1981) .c.s. -1153
.... .. .
.. . .
'- ::
:� . ··: . .' ::·.:.;. ,�·-:
• = ,'· •A..-.;:
;.·. . ·. .-.... '"·. .'
. .. Petition for a:declaratory judgment that there was
overpayment of interest on sums due for supplying drinking

water must be dismissed. The proceedings reveal that there is

np threat that the supply of water �ill-be cut off, thus there

;i.s no interest that the issue be determined "immedi.:.i tely".

Paralell proceedings before the Municipal Commission constitute

a lis pendens for these purposes.

III ... "FOR. THE SOLUTION (of a genuine problem)"

a) Boulangerie Le�lerc v. Municipalit6 St-Flavien (]981)

c.s. 46(,
An acti.on to have a municipal by-law based on property

valuation declared null granted in part.

b) Place Dalhousie Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec (1981) R.P. 88

A declaratory judgment upon motion lies to determine

that high tension electricity cables are installed contrary to

a city by-law. The decision would end the controversy.

 28

III c) Berm-1rd v. E/!i_-une (1981) R.P. 75

A declaratory judgment upon motion lies to detennine

the existence of a conventional servitude; oral proof based

UJ?O� a conunencement of f)roof in w�iting is accepted.

d) C.E.G.E.P� Montmorency v. Paldec Inc; et al. (1981)

C.A. 305

No declaratory judgment lies to extend a fixed delay

within which contractually appointed arbitrators must render

... ' · .. their· decision.

� . . .. · · ·
.
.. :·�. . . .
"•er: Galarneau �·. B�a�pr€ - . J.E. ai-1085
!' • •

A declaratory judgment lies to declare that a widow

convicted of involuntary homicide in the death of her husband

is "unworthy of inherit�ng" in accordance with Art. 610.C.C.B.C.

f) Du,ffault & Associes Inc. v. Mutuelle d'Omaha - J.E. 81-661

A petition for declaratory judgment does not lie to

determine entitlement to commissions on renewals of insurance

policies; the contested documents and facts require a trial in

the US'..l..J.l manr�cr or a demand for judgment on a stated case as

a decision en a question of law.

g) Laniel Quebec Ltee. v. Regie des Loteries et Courses du

Quebec - J.E. 81-547

A declaratory judgment on petition lies to interpret

regulations allowing reimbursement of 1/2 of the �ees �aid to

the Regie upon transfer of a regulated amusement device from

a vendor to an operator of·such device. Vendor's licence and

 29

operator's licence are issued to divisions of the same

company. Reimbursement is declared to be allowed.

III h) Habitat Mon Pays Inc. v. Procureur General du Quebec -

·,· · ..·· . :-
J.E •. 81-983 .'!

A declaratory judgment ·On petiti�n lies. to

determine the application of the provisions of the Loi sur

les mines to concessions issued by letters patent in 1900

and 190;1..'. (Maintained in appeal). ·

. .._ ..... :·I: ..:�· .... �: ·... '"'-;, .
.. . ... .. \.... .. .
.
... •• I

. ·.. · -... .·., . • _. ." .. .....4.,. :• ·J.),'.Masonite ·.canada Inc; ·v:.. ·Ville de Gatineau - J.E. 81-833
. ••·· • • • • • •..

A declaratory judgment is granted to declare what

rate of interest is applicable to tax arrears.

j) Lavigne v. Paquin (1981) C.S. 896

A decl�r�tory judgment does not lie to interpret

the provisions of a judgment granting a provisional alimentary

pension in accordance with a consent filed by the parties. Such

judgment does not fall squarely within the provisions of Art.

453 C.C.P� as lxcin<J a contract, will or other written ii,strument,

statute of by-law.

k) Leblanc v. Jansen - J.E. 82-753 (C.A.)

A declaratory judgment that respondent illegally

occupies an immoveable is reversed by the Court of Appeal, but

on grounds of error in law, not error as to procedure.

 30

III 1) Lavoie v. Lavoie - J.r�. 82-97

No declaratory judgment will lie to determine

the meaning of provisions of a·will that provides for

.certain ·disburseme.nts if· the · legatee· is in urgent need ·

· ("besoin urgent"). This is· the province of the executors.

m) Perrault v. Commission des Affaires Sociales - J.E. 84-243

A demand for a declaratory judgment that the C.A.S.

·. had m.isenterpreted
. .. certain
. .. . Orders in Council is di�missed·p

aft.et a. ievi:ew of_ the procedures adopted by the C.A.S. �fri":

arriving as its decision, which was not unreasonable.

n) Mathieu v. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke -

J.E. 84-260

Mixed demand for a declaration that the C.A�S. is

unconstitutionally formed, being a Section "96" Court, and

that in any event it had exceeded its jurisdiction by taking

certain objections to evidence under reserve is dismissed after

consideration of the merits.

o) Commissio11 Ssolu.iL"t" dP. Gatineau V. Procureur General du

Qu�bec - J.E. 84-331

A declaratory judgment lies to determine whether the

Provincial Government had unduly witheld subventions, citing

reduced conunission revenues resulting from its taxing practices.

The petition is dismissed on the merits.

 31

III p) Conunission de la Sante et de la Securi tC du Travail

v. Durunceau - J.E. 84-361

The Court of Appeal maintains a declaratory judgment

holding that the C.S.S.T. could not administratively declare

that_.. payme'i-it's''for med.ic�l; services provided away from ,hospital

centers would not be reimbursed.

q.) Commission des Normes du Travail v. Edphy - J.E. 84-414

An actio� by the C.N.T. for recovery of sums due

of underpayment. of wages !=ixed

I , .

. .. • t.
'
. · ·. :·. :· >empl:6yees' of d�feridant;:
. because
.... � ·. . .. ·...
' . . . . .

. by. -�egul'�tion is converted by consent to a demand fo�. �eclaratory

judgment that defendant is subject to the C.N.T. Act and

Regulations. Granted.

·r). Ville de La-0-al v. Regie des Rentes.du Quebec (1903) C.S. ·810

The text of Art. 453 C.C.P. does not allow a declaratory

judgment as to the effect on the rights, powers and obligations

of petitioner of decisions of boards, conunissions and inferior

Tribunals. Semble, the deicisions of such bodies are immune

from intt,rferenc� by way of declaratory judgment as lonq c-s they

are within the jurisdiction of such bodies. (Zarolega).

s) Perrault v. Commission des Affaires Sociales - J.E. 83-1008

While evocation may lie against a decision of the C.A.S.

denying an employment claim, that remedy is only facultative, a

declaratory judgment on motion will also lie and there is no

legal impediment to choosing that remedy if the circumstances

fall within the ambit of Art. 453 C.C.P.

 32

III t) Attore Inc. v. Construction de Defense (1951) Ltee. (1982)

R.P. 118

A petition for declar�tory judgment is introductive

. : :.·.of. the "��.s;tan.c�": (suit.) •. No .decla,ratory judgment can be ..

granted inside an. existing case;.there is lis pendens. The

petition for declaratory judgment cannot be used as an inter-

locutory procedure to help decide an ongoing case by successive

steps.·
,·. ·. . . ... .
\

:· ,·u}: 91984; Canada. Ltee·,; V-o· Procure� General du Quebec & c .... · .
·. . . R�gistrariMontreal. (1982) C·�S. 534

A declaratory judgment lies to solve the question of

limits of jurisdiction of the Regie de Logements (rental board).

Thus a judgment is granted declaring that it is not necessary to

obtain authority from the Regie to register u declaration of con-

dominium ownership where the property was previously not a dwelling.

This judgment is not an exercise of the jurisdiction of the Regie,

but a determination of that jurisdiction.

v) Neiderer v. Gulf Ce1nada Ltd. �' Hamel (1982) C.S. 298

A demand for a declaration that the provisions of a non--

competition agreement are unenforceable must be dismissed. The

Court cannot by declaration annul such document, the only power

is to interpret so as to determine the status, rights and

obligations of petitioner.
 33

III w) Lemieux-Lidbetter v. Succession Arthur Lidbetter et �1.

(1982) c.s. 3]{_)

The Court grants a declaratory judgment that a

donation by marri�ge contract has had its effect so that the

: 9-_i!;ipqsit.j.011 .by wilt .of .the �ame benefit is a nullity. .The ·

intervening divorce between· the petitioner and the testator

did not affect the gift.

x) Jamieson v. P�ocureur General du Quebec - J.E. 82-1020

A civil. declaratory ..judgment under Art. 453 C.C.f.

: .. :' .··::·.:
. . ·...·· . : ;·· . . · � .�. . .
,. ·, .' .

·: do.es,' riot'·.'1�e ).� r.�specit:.' o( thi{'ju<;Ii.cial act of issuirig a - � -

summons under the Criminal Code, even where the constitution-

ality of the Criminal Identification Act (S.C.R. 1970, c. I-1)

is challenged. The Court will treat the application as a

y) Institut Philippe Pinel de Montreal v. Guy Dion, le Curateur

Public et le,Procureur General du Quebec (1983) C.S. 438

A declaratory judgment lies to declare the right of the

Institute to oblige one of its inmates to submit to certain

psychiatric treatments, and to absolve it from responsibility

for any negative consequences, if the rules of the art are

duly followed in carrying out such treatments.

IV 11 (FOR THE SOLUTION) of a GENUINE problem .•. 11

a) Sparling v. Caisse de Depot - J.E. 82-992

A declaratory judgment to determine the obligations of

a provincial Crown Corporation, to file insider trading reports

under Federal legislation, the Canada Business Corporations Act,

S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 12, granted.

 34

IV b) Lefebvre v. Commission de Prote1� tion du Territoire

Agricole du Quebec - J.E. 82-1153

A declarato-ry judgment lies to have the limit of

acquired rights determined in' light of the limitations of

use ,imposed by.th� Agricultui:'a:l Territory Protection Act

L.R�Q. c. P-41.1.

c) Procureur General du Quebec v. Commission Scolaire

Champlai� (1982) C.A. 200.-

An appeal is allowed against a declaratory judgment inter-

'preting·_ th; eifect of alleged derogations from ce:rt�}n Statutory

, . -· . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
'
':.

Regulations relating'to the appointment of sub-contractors and

the consequent obligation of the Govenrment to provide cons-

truction subsidies.
. .
d)� Beaulieu v. St-Patrice de Riviere-du-Loup - J.E. 84-237

A declaratory judgment lies to interpret a contract of

acquisition of land for streets which had the effect of depriving

the municipality of its right to impose taxes for impro"ements

by by-law.

e) Guerin v. Ville de Ste-Catherine - J.E. 82-579

A declaratory judgment lies to determine if tax

accounts are erroneous and corrections should lie; that part

of the judgment seeking monetary condemnation for reimbursement

of overpaid taxes will be dismissed but its inclusion is not fatal

to the conclusions otherwise falling within Art. 453 C.C.P.

 -·,-- ::;,;::::,,.;- ,0, _..,,., St+ p
--·-·· -·-··,-··-·-..
- •p � tb:et

35

IV f (i) Societe St-J·ean-Baptiste de Montreal v. Conununaute

Urbaine de Montreal (1981) C.A. 168

A declaratory judgment by the Superior Court lies to

determine the application of taxing by-laws to the inunoveables

of the s. S.J ."B�M. ,' · ev�n- though the pro�eedi�gs demand the
modification of the valuation roll, which would not be

executory under a declaratory judgment. The eventual need for

further procedures is not necessarily fatal to a demand for

.- , ;.-_dec:l�ratory · ju<;igriu�-�·�· ..
>
_ hur�hill_ .Fatis .(.Labrador) Ccirp. v. Hydro-Quebec
:£'(:ii:.)· C
J.E. 83...;;1093

A declaratory judgment will not lie where a petitioner

seeks an executory conclusion of a monetary nature, as the

declarat·ory .Judgmen_t. is not executory. As another proceeding

would be required the declaratory judgment would not provide

a solution to a genuine problem.

g) Tremblay v. Trans-Canada Credit Inc. - J.E. 82-698

A declaratory judgment lies to determine whether the

interest claimed under a loan of money is exigible and whether

the creditor is obliged to accept payment on account.

h) Brown v. Gore - J.E. 82-118

A declaratory judgment lies to declare null a sale for

taxes of an irrunoveable. The procedure by action in nullity under

the Municipal Code does not exclude the choice of a demand for

declaratory judqment.
 36

IV i) Banque Natioriale du Canada v. Turenne - J.E.

83-175 (C.A.)

A demand for a declaration that a loan contract was

void, being in violation of �he Interest Act was to be

all.�we�
_ , not"." .ths�!:mding 1rhat �nother proce_eding..against .
i
.,
the Bank based in quasi delict for damages to reputation was

already pending between the parties. There was no lis

pendens and· a genuine problem existed between the parties,

..
in the circurnstctnces •
.. . . .• •.·· -1': : . . :. • 0 .
. ·..·: :.' j � 'Alliance B linde v. Lloyds Underwriters - J.E. 81-856

A declaratory judgment lies to determine that a clause

pennitting cancellation of an all risk insurance contract, on

notice of 90 days, is null and contrary to public order, seeing

J
Art. 2567 C.C.B.C.
•

k) Banque Nationale (Master Charge) v. Gilbert -

J.E. 81-1122 (C.A.)

No declaratory judgment lies to determine whether the

prothonotary has authority to render judgment by default under

Art. 194 C.C.P. There is no genuine problem between the Bdnk

and Respondent Gilbert, but between the Bank and the Court

officer, the matter could have been inscribed for hearing

before the Court.

1) Caisse Populaire Carrefour Therrien v. Ville de Longueuil -

J.E. 82-97

Exemption from municipal taxes is declared by declarat<Jry

judgment after examination: of the applicable statutes.

 37

IV m) Groupement des Assureurs Automobiles v. Ville de

Montreal (1981) C.S. 682

A petition for declaratory judgment as to the

application.of la Loi sur l'assurance automobile to

.
�at�rpillar-tr��k�d s.n.owpiows operated.. by the City is to

be granted. Such vehicles are not automobiles but snow-

mobiles and exempt from the Act.

n).. Chincilla Nord Arnericain (Quebec) Ltee. v·. Office de

.la.Protection du Consommateur (1981) C.S. 294
� : . • °':- •• ,·' I:: ' • .• �- • • • ·-� •• • • •
'"• · .. ·
.· ; ,

:, :· ';. · . ::•. ,:· ··• ..;,··:- :. A- qe�lai:atory · judgment lies- to· ·determine if the
.• . . . .. . .
I - • • -·. '-•

:
•_, --

Consumer Protection Act applies to sales of rabbits for

breeding for commercial exploitation.

o) Vill� de Montreal v. Bureau des Examinateurs Electriciens

du· Quebec (l.'981) C.A. 279

A declaratory judgment lies, where there are no out-

standing penal proceedings which would constitute lis pendens,

to determine if a particular parking control system is an

electric installation within the terms of the Loi des elec-

triciens et installations electriques.

p) Neveu v. La Commission de Transport de la C.U .M. Cl981)

R.L. 148

A declaratory judgment lies to determine if petitioner

is entitled to carry his bicycle on the busses and metro trains

operated by the C.U.M. (No). The dispute arises as to the

interpretation of a contract: the Ticket and the Regulations

adopted by the C.U.M.

 38

IV q) Hogue v. Leduc-Mader - J.E. 82-557

A declaratory judgment lies to determine the rights

of an adopted child in the ab-intestate succession of his

natural grandparents.

r) Banque de Nouvelle-Ecosse v. Minister of Revenue,

quebec - J.E. 82-478

The Bank is entitled to a declaratory judgment as

�. : .. . . .
to th� application of the Sales Tax Act to its speculative
. � - :.. .. ..
. ,,· � · ·. ' .:. . .. : ' . .. � ... :
·: .:sa:les of. gold ·ingots.·.' ·rt i.s not obliged to await prosecution

before the Provincial Court. Disagreement as to interpretation

of the Act constitutes a genuine problem.

s) Bonneau v. Commission des Transports du Quebec (1981)

c.s. 268

A petition for declaratory judgment to the effect that

carriage of live animals can only be performed by holders of

permits issued by the Commission, is dismissed. The declara-

tory judgment is not a procedure which allows the Superior

Court to usurp the jurisdiction of the Conunission either

before or after it has exercised it, even if it is in error

in law.

t) Beaubien Balla v. Heirs of the Late Balla - J.E. 81-203

The Court will interpret a will by declaratory judgment.

When the legatee was the wife of the testator but divorced

from him after the will was signed, the term "my wife said

damn X" is held to apply to the divorced wife.

 . ··------- --------

' .. ,'

39.

IV u) Jutras v. Lefebvre & Tatta (1981) C.S. 1192

A declaratory judgment lies to determi"ne the vali-

dity of title to an imrnoveab�e sold by a testamentary

:· ... ..
. .. . ,•. � · . . eXeC\ltor:
" . '
(es qua'liteL·
'•· .. after
. . :the expiry. of his mandateo
.
.· . .
v) Centre Local.de Services Comrnunautaires de l'Erable
v.· Lucie Lambert (1981) c.s. 1077

A declaratory jud9ment Ii.es to establish the right

·= .
of . the Director of the Centre.· to require an .employee to .

. • .:
.
•.• -: . ;#J •• ·:.-· .•• ': · "-
.._
- · .·.:
....·
.· ;·giv�· h'i.in. . info�atfo�
.
. c�nsidered
. by her to be confidentia:l
,.: 1,' . .. ·.; , . : �
# ... .·
under'Gertain"Acts and Regulations;

w) Gilbert Galipeau v. Denis Labelle (1983) C.S. 350

A declarato:i;y judgment lies to establish whc:tt house-

hold ef'fects have. become immoveable by destination in a con-

jugal domicile. There is no objection in principle to

determining the value of these items by declaratory judgment,

seeing the parties wish to thus dispose of their differences.

x) La Corporation de la Paroisse de St-Telesphone v. La

Societe d'Habitation du Quebec et la Corporation Epis­
copale Catholique Romaine du Diocese de Montreal et als.
et les Heritiers de feu Michel Claude (1983) C.S. 656

A declaratory judgment under Art. 453 C.C.P. does not

lie to permit use of land other than that stipulated by a

testator in 1875. (To erect a chapel). The proposed erection

of a home for the retired or the poor cannot be sanctioned

by such judgment.