Jean-Joseph DENIS

DENIS, Jean-Joseph, Q.C.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Joliette (Quebec)
Birth Date
January 27, 1876
Deceased Date
September 22, 1960
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Joseph_Denis
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=691705c6-e71f-4fae-a033-f5eeacf51c8d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 148 of 148)


April 9, 1918

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):

I agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers in the opinion that it is a great mistake to have judges stepping from one jurisdiction to another. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau)

has just mentioned that he is one of the kickers with respect to the Court of Review. Let me say that he is not the only one, but that practically all the lawyers that I know of in the province of Quebec, or in the district of Montreal, are also kickers with respect to that particular court. In French it is styled the Cour de Revision, but many have called it a Court of Confirmation, because its function is to confirm judgments. If we take the record of that court we will find that it allows appeals at the ratio of perhaps one in ten cases. This does not mean that the judgments of the Court of Review are bad. Nor is there any intention in this discussion, as my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) has just said, of casting any reflection on the reputation of the Court of Review. But I maintain that when the Court of Review in Montreal hears from six to eight- or ten cases each day for three or four days in succession, the court cannot fully study the records and render to them the attention which they deserve. What is true of the Court of Review should be true of the other courts; but the main point is this: It is not right and proper that judges in one tribunal should sit as judges in another tribunal.

Topic:   SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE AD HOC.
Full View Permalink

April 9, 1918

Mr. DENIS:

We know that such is the case 'to-day, and any lawyer who practises in the province of Quebec is aware of it also. It is only right that judges should consult among themselves. It is only right that the five judges of the Court of Appeal should consult, but I do not think it is right that the judges of the Superior Court should consult among themselves and after that that their judgments should be revised by other judges of the Superior Ccurt, because it is inevitable that it will often happen that when a judge of the Superior Court consults with his confreres about a case, the same case may come before the Court of Review, and one of the three judges of that court, who has been consulted before, would be sitting in the Court of Review. * I do not think that is right or fair. The same principle applies here. My hon. friend has said that this Government is well able to provide the country with judges. I think that if an advertisement were put in the newspapers we could get as many judges as we need; and I do not think that in order to get a supply such a step should be necessary. There are plenty of learned and well-read lawyers in the country out of whom the Government can make judges. I do not want to launch out too far, but perhaps I may go so far as to say that it is bad enough that

judges should be named for life, without taking a judge who is appointed for life and who has no account to render to anybody but his own conscience, and transfer him from one court to another. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I follow the leadership of the hon. member for Three Rivers in the conviction that this Bill should not be accepted.

Topic:   SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE AD HOC.
Full View Permalink