Hazen Hansard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hugh Gerard Hazen Hansard | |
|---|---|
| 36th President of the Canadian Bar Association | |
| In office 1964–1965 | |
| Preceded by | Oscar L. Lundell, QC |
| Succeeded by | J.T. Weir, QC |
| Personal details | |
| Born | 1905 |
| Died | April 30, 1985 (aged 80) Montreal |
| Spouse | Marguerite Barry |
| Children | Phillippa Verrier; Hugh Hansard |
| Alma mater | McGill Law School |
| Profession | Lawyer |
| Military service | |
| Branch/service | Canadian Army |
| Rank | 2nd Lieutenant |
| Unit | Royal Canadian Artillery |
Hugh Gerard Hazen Hansard, QC (1905 – April 30, 1985) was a Canadian lawyer from Quebec. A respected civil litigator, he appeared several times in the Supreme Court of Canada, and served as president of the Canadian Bar Association.[1]
A graduate of McGill Law School, Hansard was called to the bar of Quebec in 1928.[2] He originally was a member of the firm Montgomery, McMichael, Common & Howard in Montreal, and later with the firm of Cate, Ogilvy, Bishop, Cope, Porteous and Hansard.
In 1940, he enlisted with the Royal Canadian Artillery, 27th Field Battery, 2nd Montreal Regiment.[3]
As Hansard's practice grew, he was appointed a director of several corporations, including Canadian Marconi Co. and Singer Co. of Canada.[2]
Supreme Court cases
In one of his Supreme Court cases, Christie v. York,[4] Hansard acted for the owners of a bar at the Montreal Forum. The bar had refused service to Fred Christie, a black private chauffeur in Montreal, on the basis of his race. Christie sued the bar owners for damages. Hansard argued in the Supreme Court that the bar owners had an absolute right of liberty of contract under the civil law of Quebec, and therefore could decline to serve someone because of their race. In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court accepted Hansard's argument and ruled that the bar owners were not liable for refusing to serve Christie because of his race.
In another case, Reference Re: Offshore Mineral Rights,[5] Hansard appeared for the Government of Newfoundland, arguing that the provinces owned the mineral rights found offshore, and denying that international law was relevant to determining the issue of ownership under Canadian constitutional law.[6] The Court rejected the provincial arguments and held that the federal government had sole ownership of the offshore mineral rights.
