Case information

Constitutional law — Constitutional validity of statutes of province of Quebec enacted after January 1, 1969, including Public Curator Act, CQLR, c. C 81 — Constitutional validity of National Assembly — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in relying on art. 31 of new Code of Civil Procedure, article enacted by National Assembly while applicant was challenging constitutionality of Assembly, rather than art. 29 of Code of Civil Procedure enacted by legislature of province of Quebec — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by not allowing applicant to state errors he was alleging, which he characterized as [TRANSLATION] “fraud”, in Béliveau J.’s decision in Montplaisir v. Québec (Procureur général), [1997] R.J.Q. 109, which formed part of basis for judgment rendered by Sansfaçon J. of Superior Court (Larocque v. Ville de Beauharnois, 2017 QCCS 6010) and arguments of Attorney General of Quebec — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that [TRANSLATION] “the appeal has no reasonable chance of success and must be dismissed” even though issue to be decided was one of law to which correctness standard applied, including as regards application of stare decisis rule discussed by Supreme Court in R. v. Comeau, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 342, rule that cannot be based on judgments containing errors.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Sylvain Larocque, is the father of two children of full age. In February 2018, the Superior Court provisionally designated the respondent, the Public Curator, to administer the property of both children. Mr. Larocque challenged the constitutional validity of the Public Curator Act, CQLR, c. C 81, and of the authority that had enacted it, the National Assembly. The Superior Court dismissed the application for a declaration that statutes, including the Public Curator Act, were unlawful because they were unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal and dismissed the appeal.