Docket No. 24990 Ruling court Supreme Court of Canada | Docket number 24,990 | |
 | ||
Full case name City of Longueuil v. Michèle Godbout Citations [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, 152 D.L.R. (4th) 577, C.R.R. (2d) 1 Prior history ruled in favor of respondent, [1989] R.J.Q. 1511 (QC.C.S.), 48 M.P.L.R. 307, 12 C.H.R.R. D/141; repealed on appeal, [1995] R.J.Q. 2561 (QC.C.A.), 31 M.P.L.R. (2d) 130, [1995] Q.J. Nos. 686 and 874 (QL), 1995 CanLII 4750 Majority La Forest J. (paras. 15-111), joined by L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ. Concurrence Major J. (paras. 1-14), joined by Lamer C.J. and Sopinka J. Similar R v Oakes, R v Morgentaler, R v Keegstra, R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd | ||
Godbout v Longueuil (City of), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court found that the city of Longueuil that required all permanent employees to reside within the municipality was in violation of both the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Contents
Background
Michèle Godbout was hired as a dispatcher for the Longueuil police force. As part of her employment she was required to sign a declaration that she would reside within the city and if she were to move outside of the city her employment would be terminated without notice. Initially she had lived within the city but soon bought a house in the nearby town of Chambly. When she refused to move back in she was fired.
Before the Superior Court of Quebec, the parties argued primarily as to whether the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Judge Turmel ruled that because the employment contract constituted a matter of private law between an employer (here the city of Longueuil) and an employee, neither charters applied, in so far as such rights as granted by the charters can, under civil law be willingly waived by contract.
Reasons of the court
Justice La Forest, writing for the Court, held that the restriction on residency was unconstitutional.
La Forest began by considering the question of whether the Canadian Charter applied to municipalities. He found that it did as they were government entities. He noted that municipalities were run by elected officials and were accountable to the public, they had the power to collect taxes, and they had the power to make laws which they derived from the provincial government. In addressing the municipality's argument that the residency requirement was merely a private employment contract and not a governmental function, La Forest J. found that once a body is labeled governmental, that body cannot use colourable devices or organize activities to avoid Charter responsibility.
La Forest considered the validity of the law under section 7 of the Canadian Charter. He identified section 7 as protecting personal autonomy which includes the choice of selecting one's home. At no time did Godbout waive that right, even in signing the employment contract that contained the residency restriction. He further found that the restriction did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice as there was no compelling reason to have such a restriction.
Finally, La Forest found that the selection of a places of residence was within the meaning of "private life" which is protected under section 5 of the Quebec Charter.