(Quebec) Andre Berube, a protester spring maple, challenging the Article 19.2 of the Regulations on peace and good order of the City of Quebec has tried unsuccessfully yesterday to convince the judge to testify Mayor Regis Labeaume.
This regular events, which has already been successful against the City, has received a statement of offense under section 19.2 during his arrest before the parliament, March 7, 2013, while participating in a demonstration against rising tuition fees.
The famous section is integrated with Regulation RVQ 1091 adopted by City Council on June 19, 2012. He said that a demonstration becomes illegal when the police department was not informed of the time, location or route or an event that one of these three elements has not been respected.
Mr. Bérubé alleges that the settlement “bullied substantially ‘rights to protest,” infringes his freedom of peaceful assembly “and” de facto prevents spontaneous event or surprise. ” The debate on the constitutionality of the regulation was initiated yesterday in the Municipal Court of Sainte-Foy, yet without the desired presence of Mayor Labeaume.
From the outset, counsel for the City, Mr. Guy Bilodeau Jacques Ouellet asked a judge subponae of Cassation, that is to say to exempt Mr. Labeaume to appear before the court because his testimony would be no use.
“Mr. Labeaume did not attend the event tonight. It therefore can not inform the court about what happened. This is a legal debate and not a political debate. Do Régis Labeaume could assist the court on the constitutionality of section 19.2. In our opinion, not at all, “said the lawyer.
“Identifying the legislator’s intentions”
For his part, Mr. Bérubé argued that the presence of Mr. Labeaume was required “to identify the legislator’s intentions in adopting Regulation 19.2.”
After reviewing the case law, Ouellet J. reached the conclusion that “check the legislative intent is useful in the context of the text causes problems of understanding.” In this case, “it is clear”, he argues. Moreover, he believes that Mr. Labeaume is not the legislator and that his testimony is, so, of no use.
The substantive debate continued throughout the day yesterday. Mr. Bérubé disputes the Regulation in two other protesters, Michael Dumas and David Dulac. The three causes are discussed in the same resort. Ouellet The judge will make a decision in the coming weeks.