By: Dwija Bhatt
[1940] SCR 139
Christie V. The York Corporation - SCC cases. (n.d.). https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/8489/index.do
Summary
In the 1930s, there were no charters and no laws on discrimination. The case was brought under contract and tort law (York Tavern had a contract with Christie when he ordered the beer, and it has a duty of care toward its customers under its liquor license). The trial awarded $25 in damages. Appeal: The majority sided with York Tavern: "A merchant is free to carry his business in this manner that he conceives to be best for that business." One justice dissented. SCC: The majority found in favor of the York Tavern. "They refused to sell beer to Christie so quietly and politely and without causing any scene of commotion.SCC held that the tavern "had no legal duty to serve everyone. Freedom of commerce meant that a tavern could refuse to serve whomever they pleased.
Significance of the Case
After the Christie decision, human rights laws began to change in Canada. After WW2, both federal and provincial parliaments passed laws to outlaw discrimination. In 1975, Quebec enacted its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The case reminds us of how the law can authorize and even promote racism.
Facts of the Case
In 1936, Christie was refused service in a Montreal tavern. Christie sued all the way up to the SCC, which found that the tavern was within its rights to refuse to serve people based on race. The tavern had imposed a policy on racial segregation. Police were called but failed to do anything. The Montreal black community raised funds to help Christie bring his case to court. Christie sued for $200 in damages for the humiliation.
Procedural Posture
The case was initially brought to trial, where the appellant sued the respondent for damages for breach of contract and damages in tort. The trial judge awarded the appellant $25 in damages and costs. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The reasons for the appeal to the higher court included the interpretation and application of specific statutes, such as the Quebec Licence Act and the Alcoholic Liquor Act, and the question of whether the tavern owner had the right to refuse to sell beer to any member of the public. The appellant also argued that the matter in controversy in the appeal involved the Quebec Licence Act and the Alcoholic Liquor Act and that the decision would have a significant impact on the general principle of freedom of commerce.
Issue
The specific legal issue that the appellate court is tasked with answering, in this case, is whether the tavern owner, as a holder of a special privilege to sell beer in the province of Quebec, has the right to refuse to serve beer to a person based on their race. The central point of contention that needs resolution is whether the particular legislation in Quebec, which establishes complete governmental control of the sale of beer, overrides the general principle of freedom of commerce and whether the respondent's refusal to serve the appellant was within its rights or contrary to good morals and public order. Additionally, the court needs to determine whether the specific provisions of the Quebec Licence Act, particularly section 33, apply to this case and whether they prohibit the respondent from refusing to serve the appellant based on his race.
Rule applied
The appellate court decides to use the principle of freedom of commerce in reaching its decision. The court interprets this principle as allowing any merchant to deal with the public as they choose, without consideration of motives or reasons for refusing service. However, the court also acknowledges that the only restriction to this principle would be the existence of specific laws or rules contrary to good morals or public order. In applying this principle to the facts of the case, the court determines that the respondent, as the holder of a special privilege to sell beer in the province of Quebec, does not have the same freedom to pick and choose those to whom they will sell. The court emphasizes that the particular legislation establishing complete governmental control of the sale of beer in the province limits the respondent's rights as a merchant. Therefore, the refusal to serve the appellant based on his race was not within the scope of the freedom of commerce principle.
Result
The final decision of the court is that the respondent, a tavern owner, was within their rights to refuse to serve beer to the appellant, a colored man. The court resolved the legal issue by applying the principle of freedom of commerce, stating that any merchant is free to deal as they choose with any individual member of the public unless there is a specific law or rule contrary to good morals or public order. The court found that the specific legislation governing the sale of liquor in Quebec did not restrict the respondent's right to refuse service based on race. Therefore, the appellant's claim for damages was dismissed, and the respondent's refusal to serve the appellant was deemed lawful under the circumstances.
Reasoning
The court begins by establishing the general principle of the law of Quebec, which is that of complete freedom of commerce. It emphasizes that any merchant is free to deal as they choose with any individual member of the public, as long as their actions are not contrary to good morals or public order. The court then examines the specific laws in Quebec, particularly the Quebec Licence Act. It determines that the rule adopted by the respondent in refusing to serve the appellant was not within the class of rules contrary to good morals or public order. The court also considers the nature of the appellant's request for a glass of beer in a tavern. It distinguishes it from the provisions of section 33 of the Quebec Licence Act, which pertains to travelers asking for a meal in a restaurant. Since no specific law or provision governs the case, the court concludes that it falls under the general principle of the freedom of commerce. Therefore, the respondent was within their rights to refuse to serve the appellant based on their business interests. Overall, the court's thought process and legal analysis involve a thorough examination of the relevant laws and principles, as well as a careful consideration of the specific circumstances of the case.
Link to the doc with citations:
コメント