Misplaced Pages

Chaput v Romain

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Part of a series on
Jehovah's Witnesses
Overview
Organizational structure
History
Demographics
Literature
Places
People
Watch Tower presidents
Formative influences
Notable former members
Notable scholars
Criticism
Opposition

Chaput v Romain SCR 834 was a legal case that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. The case had broader implications for Freedom of religion in Canada. The case determined that all religions have equal rights, based upon tradition and the rule of law. At the time, no statutes formed the basis for this argument. It was one of many legal cases surrounding the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada.

Background

Esymier Chaput was one of 30 Jehovah's Witnesses attending a meeting in his Chapeau, Quebec home on September 4, 1949. Three police officers were observed outside, who asked to enter the premises after confirming that they were having a meeting, and arrested Chaput. They ordered everyone else to leave, seized a bible, song books, and some religious pamphlets. Esymier Chaput first filed the case with the provincial trial court, the Court of Quebec for damages and the value of the seized articles. This action was dismissed by the trial judge and by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Case

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. When one of the police officers was questioned, he stated that he had determined that it was illegal for Jehovah's Witnesses to hold meetings by reading the newspaper. Their legal defence was that Jehovah's Witnesses were known to distribute "seditious libel", created "animosity and hate between different classes of society", and that Chaput did not follow the requirements under the Magistrate's Privilege Act. They also stated that their superior officer ordered them to take these actions. The Supreme Court determined that the police officers had violated the Criminal Code through their actions. The Supreme court also ruled that Chaput was entitled to $2000 dollars in damages and the appeal was sustained, overturning the lower courts. The case is often compared to Saumur v. Quebec (City of) and Roncarelli v Duplessis.

See also

References

  1. ^ Chaput v. Romain, SCR 834 (Report). Canadian Government News.
  2. Awada, Michael (1956). "Chaput v Romain et al". McGill Law Journal. 2 (2). Retrieved 30 January 2024.
  3. McLachlin, "Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Law: A Canadian Perspective", pages 19-20.
  4. Botting, Gary (1993). Fundamental Freedoms and Jehovah's Witnesses. University of Calgary Press. pp. 60–63. ISBN 1-895176-06-9.
  5. "Notable Case Law | W. Glen How & Associates LLP". www.wghow.ca. Retrieved 2024-12-15.
  6. ^ "Chaput v. Romain Et Al". McGill Law Journal. Retrieved 2024-12-14.
  7. Botting, Gary (1993). Fundamental Freedoms and Jehovah's Witnesses. University of Calgary Press. pp. 60–63. ISBN 1-895176-06-9.
  8. name="Canlii""Chaput v. Romain, 1955 CanLII 74 (SCC)". www.canlii.org. 1955-11-15. Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2024-12-14.
  9. "Canadian Wrongs: Jehovah's Witnesses before the Supreme Court of Canada · Canadian Law and Canadian Identity · Exhibits". exhibits.library.utoronto.ca. Retrieved 2024-12-15.
Categories:
Chaput v Romain Add topic