Doré v. Verdun (Ville), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862

Doré v. Verdun (Ville), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862

Trial judge:

art. 2930 is a mandatory provision of public order. The Code as the jus commune, applies on a supplementary basis to legal persons established in the public interest.

Baudouin in C.of A:

agrees with the trial judge that art. 2930 takes precedence over s.585 C.T.A., that hinder the Code’e 3 year period in respect of bodily harm.

SCC: How to interpretation the Code?

• 
  The role of the commentaries of the Minister of Justice
  
• 
  They are not part of the parliamentary history surrending the enactment of the Civil Code, b/c they are published after the Code was enacted.
  
• 
  The commentaries provide information on the legislature’s intentions, the context of the new legislative provisions and the sources that were directly considered.
  
• 
  The interpretation of the Code must be based first and foremost on the wording of its provision. The commentaries are not binding on the courts, and their weight can vary, inter alia in light of other factors that may assist in interpretaing the Code’s provision.
  
• 
  Interpretation of the Code
  
• 
  The preliminary provision explictly states that the Code is the jus commune of Quebec. The Code is not a law of excetion. It must be interpretated broadly so as to favour its spirit over its letter and enable the purpose of its provisions to be achieved.
  
• 
  The Code is the foundation of all other laws dealing with matters to which the Code relates, although such law may complement the Code or make exceptions to it. It is therefore the foundation of all statutes that draw mainly or incidentally on civil law concepts.
  
• 
  It is also applicable to the aspects of legal persons established in the pubilc interest that come under the Civil Code.
  
• 
  Art. 2930 must take precedence over “any stipulation to the contrary”. How to interpret the “stipulation”?
  

• 
  art. 2930 was ambiguous: the English version says “any STIPULATION” (under the usual meaning of this word, something in a contract would fall under here); the French version says “toute DISPOSITION” (this could mean the contract or a law/statutethis is much broader). [The Code is telling us here that 2930 is IMPERATIVE.]
  
• 
  In the CA, Baudouin allowed the victim to win by saying that the French version takes precedence (because the Code was drafted in French and merely translated to English).
  
• 
  In the SCC, Gonthier says “No. Both versions are held to have the same juridical value.” STILL, we have the problem of incoherence. Gonthier turns to the Minister’s Comments. He clearly states that the larger intent is to do exactly what is envisaged – the broader scope is consistent with the legislature’s intention: that changes will occur to municipal law. You cannot rely on the commentary: it is similar to doctrine, and is not binding.
  
• 
  The term “disposituibon” in the French version cannot be limited to ks; it must also cover legislation.
  

• 
  Art. 2930 overrides the first principle set out in art. 300, namely that the provisions of special Acts must be applied before applying the provisions of the Code.  by using the word “notwithstanding”.
  

• 
  how to interpret the Code provisions?
  
• 
  Patalis: The art of code-writing is “tout simplifier en prévoyant tout”. But the drafters did not deceive themselves into believing they would really be able to do exactly that for everything.
  
• 
  SO we should give the Code wide, general sense when interpreting to achieve the purpose of the legislature.
  
• 
  Two Qs here:
  

1. 
   purpose & intention;
   
2. 
   special provisions vs. general provisions
   

• 
  Code is the “droit commune” in the sense that:
  
• 
  Statute;
  
• 
  Residual function;
  
• 
  Conceptual resource – help to interpret other statutes; reference to other statutes