Most law students have at least some appreciation for the concept of the rule of law. In addition to the concepts of federalism and responsible government, it is considered one of the cornerstones of Constitutional Law.
Hon. Eugene A. Forsey explains this principle in How Canadians Govern Themselves,
It means that everyone is subject to the law; that no one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law — not the government; not the Prime Minister, or any other Minister; not the Queen or the Governor General or any Lieutenant-Governor; not the most powerful bureaucrat; not the armed forces; not Parliament itself, or any provincial legislature.
This concept was best illustrated by a 1959 landmark case regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses in Quebec.
Bailing out JW’s is not a Crime
In Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, Roncarelli used revenues from a restaurant he owned to bail out Jehovah Witnesses arrested for distributing pamphlets. In a society primarily Catholic at the time, the actions were considered to be disrupting the peace.
Duplessis was both Attorney General and Premier of Quebec at the time. He revoked Roncarelli’s licquor license and denied any renewal, specifically to limit his ability to generate such funds.
Although the province was within its power to dismiss licences at its discretion, it must be impartial and compatible with enabling statutes.
The Rulings on the Rule of Law
The court ruled that there is no such thing as unlimited power. Rand J. stated,
In public regulation of this sort there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled “discretion”
“…Discretion” necessarily implies good faith in discharging public duty; there is always a perspective within which a statute is intended to operate; and any clear departure from its lines or objects is just as objectionable as fraud or corruption. Could an applicant be refused a permit because he had been born in another province, or because of the colour of his hair? The ordinary language of the legislature cannot be so distorted.
Because there was no reasonable reason for revoking the license other than impairing the financial ability of Roncarelli to post bail, the court considered this to be an arbitrary use of power and invalid.
Fallout from the Case
It took 13 years for Roncarelli to achieve a favourable ruling by the Supereme Court of Canada. By this time, Duplessis’ goal of running him out of business was successful, and worse still, Roncarelli died soon after the decision.
The case was cited by the later Supreme Court decision in Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; (June 13, 1985). Contrary to the constitution, the province had been publishing laws in English only (and not French) for around 100 years. To demonstrate the illegality of the practice, Rand J. was quoted in Duplessis,
…the rule of law [is] a fundamental postulate of our constitutional structure.
From these cases, we can obtain three broad principles about the rule of law in the Canadian consitution:
1. Every act by a public official, regardless of the official’s rank must have the authority of a particular law.
2. The law must be applied in a manner directly related to its legislative and social purpose.
3. The law must be applied in a manner consistent with the Supreme law and consistent with the Constitution.
18 Conditions for Rule of Law
1. The state must uphold and enforce laws that it enacts.
2. All are equal before the law.
3. Courts must be impartial and unbiased, and must seem to be impartial and unbiased
4. There must be a separation of powers between 3 branches of power, especially judiciary, must be judicial independence; independence of political and executive power.
5. Must be consistent application of the law, i.e. across jurisdictions
6. There is no such thing as effective right without a remedy.
7. Judicial decisions should (must) be accompanied by reasons that are publicized.
8. The legal profession should be independent of state control.
9. Any judicial decision maker must apply natural justice to the proceedings. What is natural justice? Not natural law. Procedural justice, due process. In front of an unbiased court.
10. Courts should be open to all; unhindered access
11. Legal protection for the poor. This is becoming more important.
12. Restraints on the powerful.
13. Laws are to be enacted through a democratic and transparent process.
14. Laws should be known to all. Publicized and available to all. No secret laws.
15. All actions of the State must be authorized by law.
16. All actions of the State must be consistent with Constitution.
17. Courts should be open and transparent
18. Law and order are recognized as indispensable elements of life
“It took 13 years for Roncarelli to achieve a favourable ruling by the Supereme Court of Canada. By this time, Duplessis’ goal of running him out of business was successful, and worse still, Roncarelli died soon after the decision.”
That being the case, let me say that I’m grateful to the man. You sometimes take some arrows when you stand up agianst the abuse of authority. It takes real courage.
Yes, we should all be thankful to Roncarelli for his resilience in this case. Although his personal benefits may have been limited, the principles that the case established were something that we all benefit from.
Unfortunately, we still see similar sentiments in Quebec today, with the “reasonable accommodations” committees underway right now.
3. “The law must be applied in a manner consistent with the Supreme law and consistent with the Constitution.”
What exactly is the ‘Supreme law’? Thoughts anyone?
I see it as the law of the land, the common law jurisdiction that justice is done not through any form of government authority or hired authority but by the people in the Name of the Queen of Canada.
The Supreme Law is the 10 commandments in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.
Everyone should be aware that there is an assumed or implied social contract where everyone is operating as a SIN-ner and subject to the corporate laws that overlay the real laws.
Understand how to reserve your rights UCC 1-308, UCC 1-1-3.6 and waive all public benefit privileges and you will enjoy much more freedom to be in your own right.
Jesus said repent of your SIN. This is waiving the public benefit privilege. The birth certificates give the holder the power to control an estate created by the probate court of the Registrar General. The Crown tries to usurp your authority over the estate by getting a false confession that you are either the SIN name in the public or the LAST, First Middle estate name on the birth certificate. This gives them assumed power to control the estate granted to you by th Will of God.
You, the man are in the private and cannot be seen in the public unless you do one of these false confessions in court, etc. Your title (statement of birth) is protected under the Armour of God which is the coat of arms of the province or state you are were born in.
It’s the inquisition all over again against the Christians who have been saved by Christ. He saved everyone, That’s why you were given a Christian name. This made you one of GOd’s children, an heir of GOd and Joint-Heir with Christ. The living Christ today is Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II. She is from the bloodline of King David and was annointed during the coronation ceremony when she became queen. Christ means the annointed one.
Wake up everybody. You have been sealed by Christ at birth on your forehead and the dark forces are making you waive your rights and accept peonage and involuntary servitude so they can live high on our private estates.
Study the law of Arms and Heraldry and you will see the truth. L.G. Pine published some great books on these subjects.
Good luck,
As an activist and human right defender of Canadian and non-Canadian persons who have suffered non-state actor torture, part of this work is focussed on the necessity for an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. Presently, only State actors–the police or military for example–can be held accountable for acts that constitute torture. Non-state actors have impunity because even though they commit the same acts of ‘classic’ torture they are not held equally legally accountable. I see the application of the ‘rule of law’ as containing dual discriminatory processes. First, victims of non-state torture cannot charge for the crime of torture suffered and there is a gender bias present in that sexualized torture is predominately inflicted against women/girls. Secondly, there is not equal legal accountability in that the law differentiates between State versus non-state actors. Both ought to be equally accountable under the rule of law.