Chapter 0: The Constitution: Concepts, History and Sources......
Section 1: Substantive constitutionalism and Formal Constitutionalism......
0. Definition......
a. Substantive Constitutionalism: The United Kingdom......
b. Formal Constitutionalism: United States......
c. Canada.......
Section 2: Historic Origins and The Reception of European Law......
2.1. Brief History.......
a. Franco-British Conflicts......
b. Articles of Capitulation of Montréal (1760)
2.2 The Colonial Regime and the Reception of English Law......
Treaty of Paris (1763)......
a. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (put into force in 1764)......
b. The Principles of the Reception of English Law......
*Campbell v. Hall [1774]......
c. Quebec Act (1774)......
2.3Upper and Lower Canada......
a. Constitutional Act, 1791......
b. The Rebellions of 1837-38......
c. The Durham Report (1839): Legislative Union and Responsible Government
b. Union Act, 1840......
2.4Responsible Government......
a. The Correspondence of Grey......
b. Resignation of the Nova Scotia Government – January 25, 1848......
c. Galt Memorandum
2.5Towards Confederation......
a. A Dysfunctional Parliament......
b. Fear of the Americans......
c. Three Conferences Before Ratification......
Section 3: Sources of Canadian Constitutional Law......
3.1 Imperial Legislation: An Evolution in 6 Steps......
a.The First Canadian Constitutions......
b.Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865......
c.British North America Act, 1867......
d.The Statute of Westminster (1931)......
f.Constitution Act, 1982 (Annex B of Canada Act, 1982)......
g.Delegated British Legislation: Admission of New Provinces......
3.2Federal Legislation: 3 Examples......
a. The Creation of New Provinces......
b. Supreme Court Act of 1875......
c. ‘Deconstitutionalized’ (Unentrenched) Provisions......
3.3 Provincial Legislation: 2 Examples......
a. ‘Deconstitutionalized’ (Unentrenched) Provisions......
b. Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
3.4.Constitutional Conventions......
a. Definition and Examples......
*Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 R.C.S. 753......
*Quebec Veto Reference [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793......
3.5.Common law and the Royal Prerogative......
*Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. The Receiver General of N.-B.......
3.6 Parliamentary Privilege
a. Definition......
*New Brunswick Broadcasting co. v. Nova Scotia [1993] 1 SCR 319......
3.7 Other Sources......
a. Federal-Provincial Accords......
Reference Re: Canada Assistance Plan, [1991] 2 R.C.S. 525......
*Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217......
Chapter I -Parliamentary Sovereignty......
Section 1: Historical Perspective and Reception in Canada......
1.1. Evolution of British Constitutionalism......
a. Historic Acts......
b. Definition......
1.2‘Deconstitutionalized’ (Unentrenched) Canadian Provisions......
a. Federal Deconstitutionalization......
*Reference re Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada [1980] 1 S.C.R.......
b. Provincial ‘Deconstitutionalization’......
*A.G. of Quebec v. Blaikie, [1979]......
*A.G. of Manitoba v. Forest, [1979]......
*OPSEU v. Ontario, [1987]......
*Reference Re: Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) [1991]
c. Deconstitutionalization of section 33 of the Canadian Charter......
*Ford v. Québec (A.G.), [1988]
Section 2: Can Parliament Bind its Successors?......
2.1In Context Outside of Canada......
a. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949
b. TheEuropeanCommunitiesAct (1972)
Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (No. 2) [1991]
2.2Canadian Context: The “Manner and Form” requirement
a. *Section 2 of the Bill of Rights:......
R. v. Drybones, [1970]
Canada v. Lavell [1974]
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Education) (1985)
b. Section 52 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms......
c. The “Manner and Form Requirement”, An Exceptional Requirement......
Section 3: Delegation of Powers: In the case of referendum
a. Introduction......
Hodge v. The Queen (1883)......
b. Jurisprudence......
Re: The Initiative and Referendum Act (1919 HL)
R. v. Nat Bell Liquors, Ltd. (1928 HL)
Outdoor Neon Displays Ltd. v. City of Toronto (1959 C.A. On.)
Section 4: Parliamentary Sovereignty and Public International Law
4.1. International Public Law: Custom and Conventions......
4. 2. The Implementation of International Law into Internal Law......
Labour Conventions Reference (A.-G. Canada v. A.-G. Ontario) (1937 HL)
Chapiter II – Principle of Legality or Rule of Law......
Section 0:Definitions......
Wells v. Newfoundland (1999)
Section 1:Administrative Structures......
1.1 Central Administrative Structures......
1.2 Decentralized Administrative Structures......
Section 2:Administrative Powers......
Section 3:Administrative Controls......
3.1 Political or Parliamentary Control and Administrative or Hierarchical/Specialized Control......
a. Control of the delegation of power by writs of prerogative......
3.2 Initial Objections to Judicial Control of Administrative Legality......
a. Incompetence......
Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959) [CP 160]
Alliance des Professeurs Catholiques de Montréal c. Québec (Commission des relations de travail) (1953)
3.3 Protected Nature of Judicial Control of Administrative Legality: The Inoperative Nature of Privative Clauses by Jurisdiction
Woodward v. Minister of Finance (1972) [p.166]
3.4 Disputes Regarding Cancellation and Responsibility
Disputes regarding cancellation (supra at 3.2)
Disputes regarding responsibility
Contractual
Delictual
3.5Unconstitutionality, Retroactivity, and Legality......
Manitoba Language Rights Reference (1985)
Bilodeau v. Manitoba (A.G.) (1986)
BC v. Imperial Tobacco Canada (2005)
Chapter III– Separation of Powers......
Section 1:Historical Background......
1.1John Locke and his Treatise on Civil Government, 1690.
1.2Montesquieu (On) The Spirit of the Laws, 1748.
1.3Reception of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers in the U.S.: The Presidential Regime
1.4Can we speak of the separation of powers in the Canadian parliamentary regime?
SECTION 2: Legislative Power and Executive Power
2.1 The Judicial Perspective: Parliamentary Delegation of Power to the Executive
Chemicals Reference (1943)......
Reference Re: s. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Canada), [1970]
2.2 The Political Perspective: Ministerial Responsibility
SECTION 3: Judicial Power
3.1 The Independence of the Judiciary
3.2 The Connection between the Law and Judgements
Liyanage v. the Queen (1967) 1 A.C. 259
*Gagnon and Vallières v. the Queen [1971], CAQ
3.3 Deference to Legislative Power
Vriend v. Alberta (1998) 1 R.C.S. 493 (See Ch. IV, 4, 4.2)......
*Chaouilli v. Québec (A.-G.) [2005]
Chapter IV - Constitutional Supremacy and Judicial Control of Constitutionality......
SECTION 1: The Origin of the Principle......
1.1 The American Example: Marbury v. Madison (US 1803)......
Marbury v. Madison [1803] U.S
1.2 Before 1931: s. 2 Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865......
1.3 Between 1931 and 1982: s. 7 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931......
1.4 Since 1982: s. 52 Constitution Act, 1982......
SECTION 2:Remedies......
2.1Judicial References or Consultative Judgements......
2.2A Fundamental Distinction: Principle Remedies and Incidental Remedies......
2.3Prerogative Writs (see Ch. 2, s. 3.1)......
2.4Other Remedies......
2.5 Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council......
SECTION 3:The Protected Nature of the Principle......
3.1Cases......
British Columbia Power Corp. v. British Columbia Electric Co. (1962), p. 219
Amax Potash Ltd. v. Saskatchewan (1977)
Air Canada v. A.G. British Columbia (1986)
3.2 Validity Article 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. C-25......
3.3 Articles 60 and 61 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada......
SECTION 4:Effects of the Principle......
4.1 Constitutional Interpretation and the Presumption of Constitutionality......
Committee for the Republic of Canada v. Canada (1991) (See Ch. V.1.2)......
Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores (1987)
4.2 The Sanction of Unconstitutionality......
R. v. Oakes (1986)
Osborne v. Canada (1991)
Schachter v. Canada (1992)
Vriend v. Alberta (1998) 1 R.C.S. 493
Dunmore c. Ontario (2001)
Halpern v. A.-G. Canada (2003)
4.2 The (Often Impossible) Retroactivity of Decisions......
Chapter V- The Protection Of Rights and Freedoms......
Section 0:Introduction......
0.1 Origin of Constitutional Review for Rights Violations (France)......
a) «Taxation d’office», Décision n° 73-51 DC du 27 décembre 1973......
0.3 Instruments of Protection......
a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)......
b) Bill of Rights (1960)......
c) Canadian Human Rights Act (1977)......
d) Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms – *See p. 15, Chapter 0, s. 3.3(b)......
SECTION 1:Scope of the Application of the instruments of Protection
1.1 Charter and Human Rights Codes......
Heerspink v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia [1982]
Winnipeg School Division no. 1 v. Craton (1985)
Canada (A.-G.) v. Druken [1989]
1.2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms......
Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Committee for the Republic of Canada v. Canada (1991)
Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson (1989)
R. v. Rahey [1987]
Operation Dismantle Inc. v. the Queen [1985]
Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson (1989) (See Ch. V.1.2)
Eldridge v. British Columbia (1997)
*Vriend c. Alberta, [1998] (Also see Ch. IV.4.2)......
*Dunmore c. Ontario, [2001] (Also see Ch. IV.4.2)
Schreiber c. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841......
R c. Cook, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597......
RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1986)......
McKinney c. Université de Guelph, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 229......
R c. Blainey, (1986) 26 D.L.R. (4th) 728 (C.A. Ont.)......
1.3Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms......
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem [2004] S.C.C. 47......
1.4Canadian Human Rights Act......
1.5Canadian Bill of Rights......
Section 2:Limiting and Derogating Provisions......
2.1Mode of application of the Canadian and Quebec Charters......
Westendorp v. the Queen [1983] 1 SCR 43
*R. c. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 R.C.S. 295......
*R c. Edward Books and Art Ltd.......
2.2 Limiting Dispositions......
*R. c. Swain [1991]......
*Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1991]......
2.3Les dispositions de dérogation: art. 33 de la Charte canadienne et 52 de la charte québécoise
Section 3: Sanctions and remedies......
3.1Distinction of remedies......
*R. v. Collins [1987]......
3.2Example: Article 7 of the Canadian Charter......
*B.C. Motor Vehicle Act Reference [1985]......
Chapter VI – Constitutional Litigation......
Section 1:Interest to Pursue......
History: The common law and the Code of civil procedure (art. 55 C..P.C.)......
1.2Interest to Pursue Under the Constitution Act, 1867.......
Interests to Pursue Under the Charters......
R. c. Big M. Drug Mart, [1985] see Chapter 5.2.1......
*R v. Morgentaler [1988]......
*Irwin Toy Ltd. v. P.G. Quebec [1989]......
*Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski [1981]......
* Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) [1989]......
1.3 Le statut d’intervenant......
Section 2: The Court of Proper Jurisdiction......
2.1Organisation of the Canadian Judicature......
2.2Constitutional Appeals Under the Constitution Act of 1867......
2.3Le recours sous les Chartes......
Chapter VII - Federalism and the Distribution of Powers......
Introduction......
Section 1:Theory of Federalism......
1.1 Federations, Confederations, and Unitary States......
a) Federation......
b) Confederation......
c) Unitary State......
d) Special Status......
Section 2:Canadian Federalism......
*Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. The Receiver General of N.-B. (see also p.?)....
Hodge v. the Queen, (1883-84) (See also p. ?)......
*Re: Silver Brothers Ltd. [1932]
*SEFPO v. Ontario (P.G) (See p. ?)
*Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board) (See p. ?)
Section 3:Distribution of Powers......
3.1Legislative Jurisdiction......
3.2Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction......
a) The Rule of Exclusivity
*Citizens Insurance v. Parsons [1881]
*SEFPO v. Ontario, [1987] 2 R.C.S. 2 (See p. ?)......
b) Abstention Does Not Give Rise to Transfer
c) The Problem of Interdelegation
*Re Chemicals, [1943] S.C.R. 1 (See p. ?)......
*Reference Re: s. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Canada),[1970] (See p. ?)
*Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson (See p. ?)
*Re: The Initiative and Referendum Act [1919 HL] (See p. ?)
* R. c. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd (See p. ?)
*Re Outdoor Neon Displays Ltd. & Toronto (See p. ?)
*Nova Scotia (A.G.) v. Canada (A.G.) (Nova Scotia Inter-delegation case) [1951]
*P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board v. H.B. Willis & Canada......
*Ontario (A.G.) v. Scott [1956]
*Coughlin c. Ontario (Highway Transport Board)......
*R v. Smith [1972] S.C.R. 359......
Peralta v. Ontario (1985) 49 O.R. (2d) 705 (Ont. C.A.)......
*R c. Furtney [1991] 3 S.C.R.......
i) The Presumption of Non-Abuse
*Bank of Toronto c. Lambe [1887]
j) Concurrent Jurisdiction
Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1998] 1 R.C.S. 322......
3.3Enumerated and Non-Enumerated Powers and the Exhaustive (‘Plenary’) Nature of the Distribution of Powers
a) Constitutive Elements of ss. 91 and 92 of the Consititution Act, 1867
b) Non-Enumeration Theories
c) The ‘Relatively’ Plenary Character of the Distribution of Powers
Central Canada Potash Co. v. Government of Saskatchewan, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 42
d) The Principle of Territoriality of Provincial Laws
*Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act [1984]
C.P. Airlines v. B.C., [1989] 1 R.C.S. 1133
Hunt v. T & N. plc [1993]
Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494
Section 4:Classification of Laws......
4.1History......
*Citizens Insurance c. Parsons [1881] (See above)
4.2Theories of the Formal Aspect ofPith and substance......
*Russell c. R. [1881-1882]
*Hodge c. the Queen (1883-84) (See p. ?)......
*Carnation Co. Ltd. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board [1968] S.C.R. 238
2.3 The Theory of Incidental Powers (“relative to” vs. “affecting”), Ancilliary Powers, and Encroachment
Carnation Co. Ltée c. Office des marchés agricoles du Québec [1968] (See above)......
2.4 Characterization by Purpose / Effect......
R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. (1986)......
2.6 Burden, Degree, and Means of Proof......
2.7 Presumption of Constitionality and Divisibility of Laws (see Fall semester)......
2.8 Interjurisdictional Immunity......
Québec (Commission du salaire minimum) v. Bell Telephone Co. [1966] p. 421......
Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta [2007] SCC 22
2.9 Three Possible Sanctions in the Distribution of Powers......
SECTION 3: Conflict of Laws and Federal Paramountcy......
Bank of Montreal v. Hall
Québec (A.G.) v. Kellogg’s of Canada (1978), p. 379......
A.-G. Alberta v. A-G. Canada (Reference re Bank Taxation) (1939), p. 385......
R. c. Morgentaler(1993) p. 395......
Switzman v. Elbling (1957)......
Québec (Commission du salaire minimum) c. Bell Telephone Co. (1966), See p. ?......
Irwin Toy Ltd. c. Québec (P.G.) (1989), p. 173......
Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1995)......
Ross v. Vehicle Registry (1975 SCC)......
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon (1982)......
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon (1982)......
Bank of Montreal v. Hall (1990), p. 487
Chapter IX – Examination of Particular Powers......
SECTION 1: Peace, Order, and Good Government......
1.1 Starting Point......
A.G. Ontario v. A.G. Canada (Local Prohibitions Reference), (1896)......
A.G. Ontario v. A.G. Canada (Local Prohibitions Reference), (1896)......
A.G. Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation (1946), p. 508......
A.G. Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation (1946)......
1.2 Residuary Nature of Power......
1.3 The Theory of Emergency and National Concern......
Anti-Inflation Reference (1976), p. 425......
Anti-Inflation Law Reference (1976 SCC)......
1.4 Synthesis and Recent Developments......
R. c. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.(1988), p. 511
SECTION 1bis: Exchange and Commerce [s. 91(2)]......
General Motors v. City National Leasing (1989), p. 343......
SECTION 2: Federal Power Over Criminal Law......
2.1 Scope and Limits of the Power......
RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (1995)......
R. v. Hydro Quebec (1997)......
Chapter XI: Aboriginal People and the Constitution
Section 1:Federal Legislative Power......
1.1 Section 91(24)......
1.2 Power Over Indians:......
1.3 Power Over Lands Reserved for Indians......
1.4 Bill of Rights/Charter of Rights......
1.5 Treaties......
Section 2:Provincial Legislative power......
Section 3:Section 88 of the Indian Act......
3.1 Text of s. 88......
3.2 Natural Resource Agreements......
Section 4:Aboriginal Rights
4.1 Fiduciary Duty
4.2 Definition of Rights
4.3 Aboriginal Self-government
4.4 Aboriginal Title
4.5 Extinguishment of Aboriginal Rights
4.6 Treaty Rights
4.7 Aboriginal Rights and the Constitution
1
Chapter 0: The Constitution: Concepts, History and Sources
Section 1: Substantive constitutionalism and Formal Constitutionalism
Constitutions serve to outline the fundamental laws and organization of a state, and the limitations on the exercise of state power and authority between branches of government and vis-à-vis the rights of citizens.
Substantive:
- Takes the form of principles, or conventions, that take precedent with time and tradition.
- No official way to change it
Formalistic:
- Constitution secured through formal written document.
- Considered as law
- Cannot be changed like normal law can (more complex).
0. Definition
A constitution is the fundamental law of a political system because all other laws must conform to the constitution in terms of how they are made and in terms of their substance. It prescribes the exercise of power by the branches of a State and explains which branches can exercise legislative power (making new laws), executive power (implementing the laws), and judicial power (adjudicating disputes), and what the limitations on those powers are. Constitutional law is also concerned with civil liberties and the protection of the values of a nation.
a. Substantive Constitutionalism: The United Kingdom
The UK Constitutionis the uncodified body of law which constitutes the rules for how the country functions. It consists mostly of written sources, including statutes, judge-made case law and international treaties. Because of the lack of a single codified constitutional document, the UK constitution is commonly mislabelled as an "unwritten constitution". For the most part it is written, but is not redacted or reduced into a single document. However, the constitution does have some unwritten sources, including Parliamentary conventions and the royal prerogatives.
There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law." Therefore Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish almost any written or unwritten element of the constitution, however no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. The constitution is based on the concept of all sovereignty ultimately belonging to Parliament (Parliamentary sovereignty), so the concept of entrenching particular rights, privileges or rules cannot exist.
b. Formal Constitutionalism: United States
The ideal Weberian-type, formalized constitution with entrenched principles assembled and written into a single document for the purpose of assuring a measure of certainty and clarity in the meaning of the constitutional rules it sets out. The procedures for amendment are contained within it and are more difficult than those for passing ordinary laws, in order to afford a greater measure of protection to the principles it enshrines.
c. Canada.
The Constitution of Canada could be characterized as falling somewhere in between the two models, or two ideal types: formal (U.S.) and substantive (U.K.). The rules of the Canadian Constitution are expressed in 3 forms: i) written documents, ii) the decisions of courts (common law), and iii) unwritten conventions (those practices that emerge over time and are generally accepted as binding rules of the political system).
The phrase “Constitution of Canada” is defined in s. 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as follows:
52.(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a)the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b)the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c)any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Acts and orders referred to in the schedule include:
- Imperial Statutes – CA 1867, CA 1982, 17 others; four orders of council (under s.146 CA 1867, admitting BC, PEI, & fed. territories).
- Canadian Statutes – acts creating MB, AB, SK; five other amendments under limited amending power, incl. 1949 (see Re: Upper House for limits of unilateral Can. Parl. amendment). These were enacted in ordinary way, entrenched by CA 1982.
Not included, but “constitutional”: Bill of Rights, 1960; Supreme Court of Canada, 1875; Federal Court of Canada, 1971; provincial statutes re: franchise, citizenship, elections, courts, provincial, Bill of Rights (AB, SK, QC).
Canadian statutes generally employ the word “includes” to indicate that a list is not exhaustive and in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (1993), the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that s. 52(2) is not exhaustive. However, considering the specificity of the scheduled list of Acts and orders and the consequences (supremacy and entrenchment) of adding other instruments, the Court’s ruling should be interpreted to suggest that the omissions of the s. 52(2) definition are confined to unwritten doctrine (So held in Re Dixon [1986], MacLean v. A.G.N.S.).
Section 2: Historic Origins and The Reception of European Law
2.1. Brief History.
a. Franco-British Conflicts
Following several battles, the French succeed, in 1690, in removing the British from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. By the 18th century, New France is nearly free of all British military presence.
However, the British would return and capture Port-Royal in 1710. In Europe, as a means of settling the War of the Succession of Spain, the Treaty of Ultrecht of 1713, confers upon Britain the territory of Rupert’s Land, Newfoundland, and Acadia. In 1754, with the advent of the Seven Years’ War, the British government, no longer accepting the neutrality previously granted to the Acadians, demands that the Acadians take an absolute oath of allegiance to the British monarch, which would require taking up arms. Following their refusal, Colonel Charles Lawrence orders the mass deportation of the Acadians. Chief Justice Jonathan Belcher rendered the judicial justification for the deportation. He held thatthe deportation was permitted and even required by law, since without taking an absolute oath of allegiance, the Acadians were not British subjects and therefore could not live in a British colony.
In order to prevent the Acadians from returning to reclaim their lands, which were distributed to British colonists, the British declare Nova Scotia as ‘settled’ rather than ‘conquered,’ which allows for the reception of English law (in cases where colonies were acquired by conquest or cession, the law of the conquered people would normally continue in force).
In New France, the Seven Years’ War continues: Siege of Louisbourg (1758), Capitulation of Quebec (1759) and of Montreal (1760).
b. Articles of Capitulation of Montréal (1760)
These represent negotiations between the French governor Vaudreuil and the English General Amherst. Vaudreuil asked that the French be permitted to follow the Coutume de Paris, and that they not be obliged to take arms against France.
Amherst's ambiguous answer: "They become subjects of the King" - contributes to the uncertainty about the law that existed in Quebec from 1760 until the Royal Proclamation, 1763.
2.2 The Colonial Regime and the Reception of English Law
Treaty of Paris (1763)
Between the Capitulation of Montreal (1760) and the Treaty of Paris (1763), there was a period of time during which the applicable system of law is not clear. In the Treaty of Paris, 1763, France surrendered all claims to New France. In this period, Québec was governed almost as a crown colony: there was no representative Assembly and the governor was the source of most authority. General Murray, the military governor, was made the first Governor of the province.
The Treaty of Paris gave the colonists:
• liberty of religion
• right to leave (after selling their possessions to the Crown)