Case information

Courts - Jurisdiction - Stay of proceedings - Statutory court - Doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication - Inherent jurisdiction of Superior Court - Whether statutory court can indefinitely stay penal proceedings validly initiated before it in order to give precedence to parallel constitutional challenge brought by defendant in superior court - Whether this power arises explicitly from legislation, and in particular from general powers conferred on management judge under art. 186.1 of Code of Penal Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.1, or s. 551.3 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Whether this power may arise implicitly from application of doctrine of statutory court’s jurisdiction by necessary implication - Code of Penal Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.1, art. 186.1.

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.

In 2018, the respondent Pierre Karl Péladeau was served by the applicant, the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec (CEOQ), with a statement of offence based on s. 564.2 of the Election Act, CQLR, c. E-3.3. According to the CEOQ, Mr. Péladeau had not paid the balance of a debt incurred for his political party leadership campaign out of amounts of money collected under the Election Act. In the penal proceedings in the Court of Québec, Mr. Péladeau raised, in defence, the issue of the constitutionality of s. 127.15 para. 4 of the Election Act and asked that it be declared to be of no force or effect. Because the alleged offence might also result in the government being prohibited from contracting with the legal persons of which Mr. Péladeau was the majority shareholder, Mr. Péladeau, together with Quebecor Media Inc., filed an application for judicial review with the Superior Court in order to obtain a declaration of unconstitutionality with respect to s. 127.15 para. 4 of the Election Act and Schedule I of the Act respecting contracting by public bodies, CQLR, c. C-65.1 (ACPB). Mr. Péladeau also applied under art. 186.1 of the Code of Penal Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.1, for a stay of proceedings in the Court of Québec until the Superior Court determined the constitutionality of s. 127.15 para. 4 and Schedule I of the ACPB. The Court of Québec allowed Mr. Péladeau’s application for a stay of proceedings. The Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review filed by the CEOQ. The Court of Appeal dismissed the CEOQ’s motion for leave to appeal.