|
''Roncarelli v Duplessis'', () S.C.R. 121, was a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that Maurice Duplessis, the premier of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by revoking the liquor license of one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Justice Rand wrote in his often-quoted reasons that the unwritten constitutional principle of the "rule of law" meant no public official was above the law, that is, they could neither suspend it or dispense it. Although Premier Duplessis had authority under the relevant legislation, his decision was not based on any factors related to the operation of the licence, but was made for unrelated reasons, and was therefore held to be exercised arbitrarily and without good faith.〔Sarah Blake, ''Administrative Law in Canada'', 5th edition, pages 99 - 100.〕 ==Background== Frank Roncarelli was one of Jehovah's Witnesses and a restaurant owner in Montreal. He used his wealth to provide bail security for members who had been arrested by the municipal government. At the time, tension and unprovoked violence by the dominant Roman Catholic community against Jehovah's Witnesses saw increasing arrests of Jehovah's Witnesses for distributing their magazines without the necessary permits under a city by-law which was later determined to be unconstitutional in ''Saumur v. The City of Quebec''. Roncarelli furnished bail for 375 of Jehovah's Witnesses in three years, many of whom were arrested multiple times. The Chief Prosecutor of the city, Oscar Gagnon, overwhelmed by the number of Witnesses being arrested and then set free by Roncarelli's intervention, contacted the Premier who spoke to Edouard Archambault, Chairman of the Quebec Liquor Commission. Roncarelli's liquor licence was subsequently revoked. Extensive testimony showed the government actors believed Roncarelli was disrupting the court system, causing civil disorder, and was therefore not entitled to the liquor licence. Roncarelli was told that he was barred from holding a liquor licence and that the action was a warning that others would similarly be stripped of provincial "privileges" if they persisted in their activities related to the Witnesses. Roncarelli received news of the revocation in December 1946, and while he tried to keep his business open without the licence, it was not profitable and he put it up for sale within six months. Consequently, he brought an action against Duplessis for $90,000 in damages. At trial, the Québec Court of Queen's Bench found in favour of Roncarelli, however it was overturned on appeal. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Roncarelli v Duplessis」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|