-
Case Title & Citation
Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, Supreme Court of Canada. -
Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)
This case involved Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah’s Witness supporter. Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis ordered the cancellation of Roncarelli’s liquor licence as punishment for posting bail for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Supreme Court ruled:
-
Duplessis abused his power by using the liquor licence regime for an improper purpose.
-
Public power must be exercised according to law, not personal whim.
-
Duplessis was personally liable in damages to Roncarelli.
-
Historical & Legal Context
In the mid-20th century, Quebec politics were dominated by Duplessis’s authoritarian style and conflicts with religious and political minorities. Roncarelli became a landmark affirmation of the rule of law: even premiers are constrained by legal limits. -
Key Legal Principles Identified in the Case
-
Discretionary power must be used for proper, legally relevant purposes.
-
Abuse of power by public officials can result in personal liability.
-
The rule of law constrains all actors, regardless of status.
-
Implications for Haldimand, Loyalist, and Mohawk Questions
-
Roncarelli reinforces that federal, provincial, and municipal officials cannot ignore Haldimand or Mohawk refuge status simply because it is inconvenient or politically awkward.
-
When authorities issue permits, licences, or development approvals on Haldimand land without lawful jurisdiction or in conscious disregard of underlying obligations, they approach the same zone of abuse of power.
-
Points of Interest to Mohawk of Grand River Posterity
-
The case is a tool to argue that officials who treat Haldimand lands as ordinary municipal property are not just making policy; they may be acting ultra vires and in bad faith.
-
It opens the door to individual accountability for ongoing misadministration and harmful decision-making on the tract, especially where officials have been confronted with the Haldimand instruments and choose to ignore them.
-
Unresolved Questions / Future Research Directions
-
How might Roncarelli’s logic apply to councillors, ministers, and agency heads who approve roads, tax sales, or developments on Haldimand lands after being formally put on notice?
-
To what extent could personal liability be invoked where the harm is long-term dispossession, rather than one discrete licence?
-
Sources
-
Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121.
-
Secondary literature on the rule of law and abuse of discretion.


Leave a Reply