## Facts

- During the federal–provincial patriation negotiations, Canada and nine provinces reached an accord on a patriation package and amending formula; Quebec did not agree.
- In December 1981, the federal Parliament adopted a joint resolution seeking enactment of the patriation package through an address to the United Kingdom.
- Quebec initiated a reference asking whether, as a matter of constitutional convention, Quebec’s consent was required for a federal resolution to amend the Constitution in a manner affecting (i) Quebec’s legislative competence or (ii) Quebec’s status or role within the federation, and whether Quebec’s objection would make the resolution “unconstitutional in the conventional sense.”
- The Quebec Court of Appeal answered no, concluding there was no convention granting Quebec a veto.
- Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada; by the time of the hearing, the patriation legislation had been enacted and proclaimed in force in Canada.
- Interveners included a francophone Ontario association and a Cree council from Quebec.

## Issues

1. Whether a constitutional convention required Quebec’s consent for constitutional amendments affecting Quebec’s legislative powers or its status/role in the federation.
2. Whether Quebec’s objection to the federal resolution would render the resolution unconstitutional in the conventional (non-legal) sense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and answered the reference question in the negative.
- The Court held no constitutional convention granted Quebec a unilateral veto over constitutional amendments affecting its legislative competence or its status and role in the federation.
- Quebec failed to establish the most important element of a convention: acceptance or recognition of the alleged rule by the relevant constitutional actors reflected in the precedents.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional conventions are distinct from legal rules: they guide political conduct but are not enforceable as law.
- The existence of a constitutional convention is assessed by examining (1) precedents, (2) whether the relevant actors believed they were bound, and (3) the normative reason for the rule.
- Acceptance or recognition of the alleged rule by the relevant actors is central to proving a convention.
- A general convention requiring a substantial degree of provincial consent for major constitutional change does not, without more, establish a unilateral veto for any single province.
- Political or historical arguments based on “duality” or a special provincial role cannot establish a convention absent demonstrated, shared recognition by constitutional actors.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that historical practice and political theory did not show a recognized constitutional convention making Quebec’s consent an absolute condition for constitutional amendments affecting Quebec, and therefore Quebec’s objection did not invalidate the federal resolution in the conventional sense.


Re Objection by Quebec to a Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793 (Can. 1982)