Student strike leader rejoices in ruling
Top court clears Nadeau-Dubois of wrongdoing
MONTREAL • In the spring of 2012, with a raised fist and revolutionary rhetoric, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois led Quebec student protests that gripped the province.
The fight against tuition hikes, ultimately successful, was only the beginning of a more radical challenge that Nadeau-Dubois vowed in one speech: “We have planted this spring the seeds of a revolt that might not sprout for several years.”
His approved protest tactics included barring students from classes they were legally entitled to attend, but he nonetheless became a media darling. The province’s most popular TV talk show praised him, both for being “sexy” and for providing hope for the province’s future.
Four years later, as he embarks on a venture that could lead to the creation of a new political party, Nadeau-Dubois has scored another victory. And this time vindication of his actions comes not from a talk-show host but from the country’s highest court.
In a 6-3 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada cleared him of contempt of court for statements made at the height of the student protests. In a May 2012 interview with RDI, Nadeau Dubois, then spokesman for a student group known as CLASSE, said it was “quite unfortunate” that some students had turned to the courts to have classroom blockades by “striking” students declared illegal.
“So we find it perfectly legitimate for people to do what they have to do to enforce the strike vote, and if that takes picket lines, we think it’s a perfectly legitimate way to do it,” Nadeau-Dubois said.
Jean-François Morasse, a fine-arts student who had recently won an injunction requiring protesters to stop blocking his access to class, brought a contempt-of-court charge against the student leader.
He was successful in the Court of Quebec, and Nadeau-Dubois was sentenced to 120 hours of community service, but the verdict was overturned on appeal. Morasse decided to take the case to the Supreme Court.
The majority ruling, written by Justices Rosalie Abella and Clément Gascon, said that for Nadeau-Dubois to be convicted, it had to be shown he was aware of the Morasse injunction when he gave the interview. And that was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
“If Mr. Nadeau-Dubois did not know about the order, he cannot have intended to interfere with it, or encourage others to do so,” they wrote.
The court also said his call for picket lines could have meant peaceful pickets that did not block access to classes.
Writing for the three dissenting judges, Justice Richard Wagner agreed with the trial judge that Nadeau Dubois comments were “promoting anarchy and encouraging civil disobedience.” Wagner rejected the majority’s position that a conviction required proof that Nadeau-Dubois specifically knew of the Morasse injunction.
“In a television interview that was broadcast to a large audience, (Nadeau-Dubois) publicly incited others to breach the court orders at the height of the conflict,” he wrote. “He made the remarks in question as a spokesperson for CLASSE, which added to the risk of impairing the authority and undermining the credibility of the courts.”
Even one of the judges siding with Nadeau-Dubois, Michael Moldaver, did so on a legal technicality. He said he has no doubt Nadeau-Dubois “intended to incite students at large to breach any and all court orders” prohibiting pickets.