This article explores judicial methodology in the mixed legal system of Quebec and examines, in particular, how the nature of its legal system as a mixed legal system influences the judicial methodology of its judges, especially with respect to the de facto use of precedent. Features of the mixity, including the institutional setting of Quebec courts as courts of inherent jurisdiction, the nature of Quebec’s civil justice system and procedural law, as well as the judicial role and the effect of a supreme precedential authority (in the Supreme Court of Canada) are examined in turn as influential factors.
See Glenn HP (1996) ‘Quebec: Mixité and Monism’ in Örücü E; Attwooll E and Coyle S (eds) (1996) Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing Kluwer Law International 1; Tetley W (1999) ‘Mixed Jurisdictions: Common law v. civil law (codified and uncodified)’ (60) Louisiana Law Review 677; Brierley JEC (2001) ‘Quebec (Report 1)’ in Palmer VV (ed) (2001) Mixed jurisdictions worldwide: the third legal family Cambridge University Press 329.
See Mayrand A (1994) ‘L’autorité du précédent au Québec’ (28) Revue Juridique Thémis 771 at 783; Dalphond (Judicial Style) supra at 3 95-96; L’Heureux-Dubé supra at 3 15-17.
See especially Macdonald RA (1982) ‘Curricular Development in the 1980s: A Perspective’ (32) Journal of Legal Education 569.
See UK (1996) The Ministry of Justice Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales by the Right Honourable the Lord Woolf Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; Jolowicz JA (2000) On Civil Procedure Cambridge University Press at 70; Otis L and Reiter EH (2006) ‘Mediation by Judges: A New Phenomenon in the Transformation of Justice’ (6) Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 351.
See eg Antoine Leduc A (2005) ‘Les limites de la “jurisdiction inhérente” du tribunal et le cas du financement débiteur-exploitant (“DIP Financing”) en droit civil québécois’ (2005) 39:3 Revue Juridique Thémis 551.
Dedek H (2010) ‘The Relationship between Rights and Remedies in Private Law’ in Sharpe RJ and Roach K (eds) (2010) Taking Remedies Seriously/Les Recours et les Mesures de Redressement: Une Affaire Sérieuse Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice 63 at 80 citing de Montesquieu C (1748) ‘Introduction’ in de Montesquieu C (ed) (1748) De L’esprit Des Loix np i at xiii.
Brierley JEC (1992) ‘The Renewal of Quebec’s Distinct Legal Culture: The New Civil Code of Quebec’ (42) University of Toronto Law Journal 484 at 496.
See eg Baudouin JL (1974) ‘The Impact of the Common Law on the Civilian Systems of Louisiana and Quebec’ in Dainow J (ed) (1974) The Role of Judicial Decisions and Doctrine in Civil Law and in Mixed Jurisdictions Louisiana State University Press 1 at 8.
Goldstein S (2003) ‘The Odd Couple: Common Law Procedure and Civilian Substantive Law’ (78) Tulane Law Review 291 at 305.
MacCormick N and Summers RS (1997) Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study Ashgate/Dartmouth at 1.
Bjorklund AK (2010) ‘The Promise of Arbitral Precedent: The Case of Amici Curiae’ in Hoffmann AK (ed) (2010) Protection of Foreign Investments through Modern Treaty Arbitration: Diversity and Harmonisation ASA Special Series (No 34) 165. See also Kaufmann-Kohler G (2007) ‘Arbitral Precedent: Dream Necessity or Excuse’ (25) Arbitration International 358.
Algero MG (2005) ‘The Sources of Law and the Value of Precedent: A Comparative and Empirical Study of Civil Law State in a Common Law Nation’ (65) Louisiana Law Review 775 at 807-814.