rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Quebec court rejects emergency injunction against Bill 78. Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, legal experts weigh in

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Got change? Want change? Spare some and get some by becoming a member of rabble.ca today.

Quebec Superior Court Chief Justice François Rolland on Wednesday rejected a motion filed by Quebec's student associations asking for an emergency injunction against certain elements of Quebec's contentious Bill 78.

In a 21-page decision released late Wednesday afternoon, Rolland found that the students case had the "appearance of right", but failed to meet the two other criteria for this type of emergency injunction, namely "irreparable prejudice" and "balance of inconvenience."

In Quebec's legal system various types of injunctions are available, to deal with situations too urgent to leave until a full court case can be conducted, potentially years in the future.

The injunction sought here was a "requete en sursis," which is similar in nature to a safeguard injunction, and requires the aforementioned three standards be met. It is the most immediate form of injunction, and as a result it is the most difficult to obtain.

In addition to proving that your cause of action is not frivolous, and that you have a reasonable chance of winning the eventual court case (the "appearance of right") you must also prove that if the injunction is not granted you will suffer irreparable harm, which cannot be remedied at a later stage (the "irreparable prejudice"), and that greater damage, or inconvenience, will happen to you if the injunction is not granted, than would to the respondent if it is granted (the "balance of inconvenience").

"We have to remember it's a decision on an emergency injunction, which was only seeking to temporarily suspend some articles of the law. Soon we will be able to argue against the law itself, and we have high hopes that when we argue on the deeper issues we will win," said Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, co-spokesperson for CLASSE, one of the student groups seeking the injunction.

In an interview with rabble.ca after the decision was released, Nadeau-Dubois explained that the student groups had filed two motions, today's injunction, and a request to annul the law in it's entirety. The second case will hopefully be heard this fall.

On the question of whether the student groups would appeal this ruling, or simply proceed with their main case against the law, Nadeau-Dubois wasn't ruling anything out. CLASSE will be meeting with their lawyers, and other student associations, tomorrow morning to determine their strategy going forward, but nothing is off the table.

Nadeau-Dubois described Bill 78 as "a strategy from the government to apply the law in the short term, knowing the process to challenge the law will take longer. It's a deliberate strategy to override the institutions which are there to protect our rights. If it succeeds then any government can pass an unconstitutional law, knowing by the time it's overturned the crisis will have passed. It's a terrible precedent."

Justice Rolland's impartiality has been harshly criticized by La Presse and Le Devoir, among others, in recent months. He has been quoted arguing that judges must not take part in public discussions, because doing so will compromise their impartiality. Nevertheless, he appears to have done just that earlier this year, when he told students seeking injunctions allowing them to return to class to appeal to the government, and seemed to demand that the government intervene. They of course did, with Bill 78, and he is now the judge handling appeals of this law.

"We had asked the judge to recuse himself in other matters, injunctions, because we thought he was not impartial at the time. This time we decided not to ask him to do so, and maybe that was a mistake. We will be considering all our options about this judge in the future."

Nadeau-Dubois also took strong issue with the government assertion that freedom of association does not apply to student associations in the same way it does to labour unions.

"We can't wait to argue the real case. We have strong evidence and documents which prove that the student strike is legal, it should be recognized, and obviously, freedom of association applies to student associations as well as unions. When it [Provincial law granting recognition and rights to student unions] was originally passed by the National Assembly, the argument that was made was that obligatory fees are at the heart of having the right to associate."

One of the articles of Bill 78 which the student groups tried to have suspended allows the government to block the collection of dues by a student association or federation which violates Bill 78.

Nadeau-Dubois explained that the threat of this section of the law was one of their main arguments for the urgency and necessity of the injunction, and they were very dissatisfied with the judge's decision that since it had yet to be applied, their rights weren't threatened.

"This is a clear attack on student associations, and on our right to freedom of association. If that part of the law is applied in August there is a high probability that it will simply kill the student associations of Quebec. That would be very sad. It's probably the element of the law which is least explained in the media, but it's one of the most serious parts."

There was further confusion over the legality of spontaneous protests. Although Bill 78 seems to clearly make them illegal, the government argued, and Justice Rolland accepted, that they were legal if not formally organized.

"Bill 78 made spontaneous protests illegal. Now this judgement says they are legal, but what is the definition of a spontaneous protest? Citizens will not know if a protest is spontaneous or not, if it is illegal or not. We don't know what we have the right to organize. In a democratic society everyone should have the right to organize and go down into the streets whenever they want, without the fear of a huge fine."

To get a better handle on the legal issues involved, rabble.ca spoke to two legal experts to get their take on the ruling. Patrice Blais, a lawyer in Montreal, and David DesBaillets, a law professor at UQAM.

Both expect the students to win, and prove the law unconstitutional, at trial. They cautioned that while this ruling may be a setback, it should in no way be interpreted as a defeat.

"This is a preliminary ruling, which was decided on prejudice and inconvenience, not the facts of the case. It's important to understand that losing at this stage does not indicate that you have a weak case, merely that you were unable to clear some exceedingly high legal hurdles. It is exceptionally rare to see a law overturned at the stage of a temporary injunction, that's why I'm not surprised by this ruling. I would have been very surprised if a court at this point granted this injunction, just as I'll be shocked if the law is not ultimately struck down," said Blais."The court will almost always take the safe, conservative route, and in this case that was putting off a decision on the constitutionality of the law."

"To me the decision is disappointing. I think it's a cop out. The court chose to pass the buck on constitutionality, and cited the case of Manitoba v Metropolitan Stores Ltd. to establish that they were required to accept the constitutionality of the law Prima Facie, or as a given" said DesBaillets. "This case was decided on the balance of inconvenience, by a court which was clearly eager to pass the decision onto a higher court".

Both lawyers noted that it was odd that the judge accepted the assertion of the Quebec government that Bill 78 does not restrain the right to hold a spontaneous protest. Given that a spontaneous protest would be considered illegal under Bill 78, and participants could be charged for attending, it seems clear that the law does exactly that.

"My reading of the decision is that the court is trying to make a fine distinction between student associations and individual protesters to provide constitutional cover, but in reality we know they're one and the same" said DesBaillets. "You're not going to have much of a protest if no one organizes it or publicizes it, and in this case that's the student associations. Bill 78 places so many limits and conditions on protests that, in effect, your rights have been curbed to the extent that you no longer have any meaningful right to protest.

I certainly think the reason the government inserted a time limit on the law has a lot to do with their own judgement that this law is not constitutional. It looks like they very deliberately passed a law they knew was unconstitutional in order to restore order at any cost, even if it undermines basic civil liberties. It's a very dangerous precedent."

"I find it interesting that the government is trying to minimize the effect of the law in order to justify its constitutionality," added Blais. "The time limit on the law [it is set to expire on the 1st of July, 2013] is also very interesting, insofar as if this case goes to the end, the law will likely have expired and the government will argue that the issue is academic and the case should not be heard. But I think there will be a strong argument to continue the case, that it is not academic, because it will be about the government imposing laws with a time limit and avoiding constitutional challenges to their actions. That would set a very bad precedent in a democracy. That a government could pass any temporary measure without consequence or judicial review."

"My understanding of the constitution is that it's on the students side" summed up DesBaillets. "I can't imagine the court ultimately upholding this law."

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.