Legal decision
Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998
The Supreme Court of Canada held that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally, but that a clear majority on a clear question would oblige all parties to negotiate.
What happened
The Court held that secession could not be achieved unilaterally under the Constitution, but that a clear expression of a desire to secede would oblige all parties to Confederation to negotiate.[1][2] It left the meaning of “a clear majority on a clear question” to political actors.[3]
It also found no right to unilateral secession in international law, since Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial or oppressed people.[4]
Sources for this page
Each number marks a specific claim. Notes give the source, its locator and how it relates to the claim.
-
1.
Claim: The Supreme Court of Canada held that secession of a province under the Constitution could not be achieved unilaterally, without principled negotiation within the existing constitutional framework.
- Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 August 1998) link, paras. 149–151, at p. 293. Source record
-
2.
Claim: The Court held that a clear expression of a province’s desire to secede would give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional change.
- Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 August 1998) link, paras. 87–88, at p. 265. Source record
-
3.
Claim: The Court left it to political actors to determine what counts as “a clear majority on a clear question” and to settle the content of any negotiations.
- Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 August 1998) link, paras. 152–153, at p. 294. Source record
-
4.
Claim: The Court found no right of unilateral secession for Quebec in international law, concluding that Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial or oppressed people.
- Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 August 1998) link, paras. 137–139, at p. 287; para. 154, at p. 295. Source record