| |
| | SUPERMARCHÉS JEAN LABRECQUE INC. v. FLAMAND, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 219 |
 | | Alleging that respondents had lost jurisdiction by failing to observe the audi alteram partem rule at a hearing held in Montréal on June 10, 1981, and by their inactivity, at the hearing scheduled for June 10, 1981, in Val d'Or, appellant made a motion seeking authorization to issue a writ of summons against the respondents. |
 | | Respondents, while maintaining that in the circumstances of the case the audi alteram partem rule had not been infringed, also argued that no prejudice had resulted from what they saw as a mere irregularity which could be remedied under the provisions of the Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. |
 | | While it is true that any infringement of the audi alteram partem rule will not necessarily or automatically attract the exercise of this reforming power, since the remedy remains a discretionary one, it will be denied primarily when the situation thus created can be otherwise remedied. |
| www.lexum.umontreal.ca /csc-scc/cgi-bin/disp.pl/en/pub/1987/vol2/html/1987scr2_0219.html (7276 words) |
|