Godbout v. Longueuil (City)

Godbout v. Longueuil (City)

The municipal residence requirement unlawfully deprived the employee of a constitutionally protected sphere of personal autonomy—protected under Quebec Charter s.5 (and in substantial reasoning under Canadian Charter s.7)—and the City failed to establish that the broad, mandatory territorial residency rule was justified; accordingly the requirement is invalid, the employee’s reinstatement and trial-period damages stand, and the Court of Appeal’s handling of interim damages and rectification was not erroneous.

Citation
[1997] 3 SCR 844
Parties
Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal: City of Longueuil; Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal: Michèle Godbout; Mis En Cause: Attorney General of Quebec
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Quebec Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment upheld in substance
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Residence Requirement, Charter Applicability to Municipalities, Section 7 Liberty and Fundamental Justice, Quebec Charter S.5 and S.9.1 Justification, Rectificatory Judgment and Damages, Reinstatement, Waiver and Contract of Adhesion, Ultra Vires / Public Order
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Human Rights Municipal Law Civil Procedure Employment Law Right to Privacy Residence Requirement Charter Applicability to Municipalities +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Longueuil

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Michèle Godbout

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal

Attorney General of Quebec

Mis En Cause

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Quebec Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The municipal residence requirement unlawfully deprived the employee of a constitutionally protected sphere of personal autonomy—protected under Quebec Charter s.5 (and in substantial reasoning under Canadian Charter s.7)—and the City failed to establish that the broad, mandatory territorial residency rule was justified; accordingly the requirement is invalid, the employee’s reinstatement and trial-period damages stand, and the Court of Appeal’s handling of interim damages and rectification was not erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment upheld in substance

Orders

  • Resolutions CE 84-1491 and CM 84-1286 declared null and void as to the residence requirement
  • Respondent reinstated to her position