Saumur v. City of Quebec
Saumur v. City of Quebec is a significant legal case that highlights tensions between municipal regulations and religious freedoms in Canada. The case arose from a bylaw enacted in 1933 by the City of Quebec, which prohibited the distribution of written material on city streets without prior police approval. This law was seen as targeting Jehovah's Witnesses, whose public preaching and distribution of literature often criticized the predominant Catholic Church, leading to conflicts with local authorities. In 1947, Laurier Saumur, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was arrested for distributing literature and subsequently fined, with lower courts upholding his conviction.
The matter escalated to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1953, where Saumur argued that the bylaw infringed upon his freedom of religion, as protected by historical Canadian legislation. The Supreme Court's ruling was divided and complex: while it ultimately found that Saumur's rights had been violated, the decisions of the justices revealed differing views on the applicability of the bylaw and the jurisdiction of civil rights. The case is often regarded as a pivotal moment in Canadian law regarding religious freedoms, although it also sparked concerns about the potential for provincial legislation to restrict rights as upheld by the federal government. The aftermath of the ruling allowed Quebec to amend its Freedom of Worship Act, limiting protections for Jehovah's Witnesses, illustrating the ongoing struggle between civil liberties and municipal authority.
Saumur v. City of Quebec
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Date: October 6, 1953
Significance: This decision overturned a municipal ordinance forbidding the distribution of literature on city streets by Jehovah’s Witnesses
This case revolved around the validity of a municipal bylaw of the city of Quebec, Canada, which outlawed distribution of written material on city streets without prior permission of the chief of police. Passed in 1933, the law was generally perceived as being aimed at Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose beliefs encouraged them to preach publicly and hand out literature. Witness literature often contained harsh criticism of the Roman Catholic church that offended Quebec’s largely Catholic population. In 1947 Laurier Saumur, a Witness, was arrested for distributing such material and fined. Two provincial courts upheld his conviction.
In 1953 the Supreme Court of Canada heard Saumur’s case on appeal. Saumur claimed that the city had violated his freedom of religion, which was guaranteed by the British North American Act of 1867 and the Freedom of Worship Act of 1851, a preconfederation law that had been re-enacted by Quebec’s legislature in 1941. The city of Quebec, on the other hand, argued that an ordinance to regulate streets was a valid assertion of municipal power and applied to all citizens, not only to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In a narrow decision the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Saumur’s freedom of religion had been violated. However, many legal observers regarded the ruling as confusing and complicated. Four justices had found the bylaw constitutional. They argued that the regulation of streets was a proper concern of municipalities, that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not exempt from obeying reasonable civic laws, and that they were not prohibited from the practice of their religion. Four other justices found the bylaw unconstitutional, arguing that such an important right as freedom of religion was under federal and not provincial jurisdiction. They also held that the purpose of the bylaw was to regulate not the streets but the minds of those who used them, and that the bylaw, if upheld, might also justify censorship of newspapers or political pamphlets.
The court’s deciding vote was cast by Justice Patrick Kerwin, a Roman Catholic, who held that although the municipal bylaw was constitutional, it could not apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were guaranteed free exercise of their religion by the province’s Freedom of Worship Act and the pre-confederation act of 1851.
Many Canadians believed that the case enshrined freedom of religion throughout Canada; however, civil libertarians were concerned that five of the justices had effectively ruled that civil rights were under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. Their concern was justified. The Quebec legislature took advantage of the interpretation to amend the Freedom of Worship Act so that it did not protect distribution of literature by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Canadian Supreme Court later upheld this amendment.