THE FRED CHRISTIE CASE

(Cour suprême du Canada)
Christie v. York [1940] S.C.R. 139

CONSIDER THE FRED CHRISTIE CASE è IN MONTREAL, QUÉBEC, JULY 11TH, 1936 FRED CHRISTIE [A BLACK MAN] WENT TO A TAVERN WITH SOME FRIENDS AT THE MONTREAL FORUM AFTER A HOCKEY GAME ON THE EVENING OF JULY 11TH, 1936. FRED PUT 50 CENTS ON THE TABLE AND ORDERED 3 STEINS OF BEER. THE BARMAN REFUSED TO SERVE HIM. THE BARMAN AND THE ASSISTANT MANAGER EXPLAINED THAT THE "HOUSE RULES" PROHIBITED SERVING A "NEGRO"

FRED ARGUED THAT THE "HOUSE RULES" WERE NOT FAIR AND THAT HE AND HIS FRIENDS EXPECTED TO BE SERVED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. HIS PLEAS FELL ON DEAF EARS AND SO FRED CALLED THE POLICE - WITHOUT AVAIL. HUMILIATED AND DEFEATED, FRED AND HIS FRIENDS WENT HOME.

UNABLE TO STOMACH DISCRIMINATION, FRED CHRISTIE SUED THE TAVERN FOR $200 IN DAMAGES FOR THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF BEING HUMILIATED IN FRONT OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

è ON DECEMBER 9, 1939 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW IN QUÉBEC IS COMPLETE FREEDOM OF BUSINESS. AS LONG AS A MERCHANT DID NOT BREAK THE LAW, HE OR SHE WAS FREE TO REFUSE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ON ANY GROUNDS. ONLY 1 JUDGE OUT OF THE 5 DISSENTED.

THE COURT WAS UNAPOLOGETIC. SHOCKINGLY, IT ADDED THAT BUSINESSES COULD SET RULES UNLESS THEY VIOLATED LAWS OR RAN "CONTRARY TO GOOD MORALS OR PUBLIC ORDER". APPARENTLY, THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - IN 1940 - DID NOT JUDGE THE "NO SERVICE FOR COLOREDS" RULE TO BE "CONTRARY TO GOOD MORALS OR PUBLIC ORDER".

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE DISSENTING JUDGE, JUSTICE DAVIS, ARGUED THAT THE TAVERN HAS A PUBLIC LICENSE TO SERVE LIQUOR THEREFORE, IT CANNOT REFUSE TO SERVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC STRICTLY BECAUSE OF THE COLOUR OF HIS SKIN. ISN'T IT SAD HOW THE COURTS COULD (CAN) FOCUS ON COMMERCE AND LICENSING TECHNICALITIES BUT AVOID QUESTIONS OF RIGHT OR WRONG?

IN SHORT, FRED CHRISTIE NEVER GOT HIS BEER AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA MADE IT CLEAR THAT, IN 1940, DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM WERE "GOOD MORALS".

è THE CHRISTIE CASE CONFIRMED THE PRIMACY OF “COMMERCIAL RIGHTS” OVER “EQUALITY RIGHTS” THAT LASTED THE BETTER PART OF THE 20^TH CENTURY UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF THE “FAIR ACCOMMODATIONS PRACTICES ACT” WHICH WAS THE PRECURSOR TO THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION, WHICH WAS THE PRECURSOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

***ONLY AFTER THE ESTABLISHIMENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DO WE SEE THE BEGINNING OF A LEGAL SHIFT AND ELABORATION FROM A “COMMERCIAL” OR “PROPERTY RIGHTS” FOCUS TO A “SOCIAL RIGHTS” FOCUS.