Christie v. York
Encyclopedia
Christie v. York [1940] S.C.R. 139 is a famous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
where the Court allowed private establishments to discriminate on the basis of free enterprise
.
. On July 11, 1936, Christie and several friends went to watch a hockey game at the Forum
. Afterwards they went to a local tavern where the bartender refused to serve Christie on account of the bar's policy against blacks. Christie complained and called the police in protest but to little effect.
Christie brought an action against the bar for $200.
At trial, Christie was awarded costs and an additional $25. The judge found that section 33 of the Quebec Licence Act, which stated that "No licensee for a restaurant may refuse without reasonable cause, to give food to travellers", was violated by the bar's policy. On appeal, the Court of King's Bench found in favour of the bar on account that section 33 did not apply, rather, "a merchant or trader is free to carry on his business in the manner he conceives to be best for that business".
The Court noted that as a general rule a merchant can do business with whomever they may choose and has complete freedom of business. Reading the Act strictly, Christie was not a "traveller" and was not "seeking food". Moreover, the Court found no public policy reason to read the Act broadly. Thus, the Court could not do anything about the bar's practice.
Justice Davis, alone in dissent, held that the spirit of section 33 is to prevent arbitrary
discrimination such as the current situation and should be interpreted as such.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
where the Court allowed private establishments to discriminate on the basis of free enterprise
Free enterprise
-Transport:* Free Enterprise I, a ferry in service with European Ferries between 1962 and 1980.* Free Enterprise II, a ferry in service with European Ferries between 1965 and 1982....
.
Background
Fred Christie was a black chauffeur in MontrealMontreal
Montreal is a city in Canada. It is the largest city in the province of Quebec, the second-largest city in Canada and the seventh largest in North America...
. On July 11, 1936, Christie and several friends went to watch a hockey game at the Forum
Montreal Forum
The Montreal Forum was an indoor arena located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Called "the most storied building in hockey history" by Sporting News, it was home of the National Hockey League's Montreal Maroons from 1924 to 1938 and the Montreal Canadiens from 1926 to 1996...
. Afterwards they went to a local tavern where the bartender refused to serve Christie on account of the bar's policy against blacks. Christie complained and called the police in protest but to little effect.
Christie brought an action against the bar for $200.
At trial, Christie was awarded costs and an additional $25. The judge found that section 33 of the Quebec Licence Act, which stated that "No licensee for a restaurant may refuse without reasonable cause, to give food to travellers", was violated by the bar's policy. On appeal, the Court of King's Bench found in favour of the bar on account that section 33 did not apply, rather, "a merchant or trader is free to carry on his business in the manner he conceives to be best for that business".
Opinion of the Court
In a 4 to 1 decision, the Court found that section 33 of the Quebec License Act did not apply and the bar was able to refuse service to whomever it chose.The Court noted that as a general rule a merchant can do business with whomever they may choose and has complete freedom of business. Reading the Act strictly, Christie was not a "traveller" and was not "seeking food". Moreover, the Court found no public policy reason to read the Act broadly. Thus, the Court could not do anything about the bar's practice.
Justice Davis, alone in dissent, held that the spirit of section 33 is to prevent arbitrary
Arbitrary
Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion.Arbitrary decisions are not necessarily the same as random decisions...
discrimination such as the current situation and should be interpreted as such.