BAUDOUIN+&+JOBIN

Badouin & Jobin: “Le Code Civil Français et les Codes Civils Québécois” 1804 CCF: main model, inspiration for CCBC, CCQ – less so for new CCQ - desire to preserve CVL tradition (especially vs. CML), maintain connection to France - but also, influence of/harmonization with CML and effects of real socio-economic changes in QC society led to change (though French code remains the main influence) *CCBC: goal in QC was not to innovate but put order to and safeguard existing law - 1866 Code was “un emprunt non servile”, ‘un emprunt rationnel” - //double but//: preserve CVL tradition (esp vs CML), and maintain connection with mother country 3 levels on which CCBC borrowed from 1804 code… 1. **Le plan**: used French plan but with some changes/additions (ex. //Lois commerciales//, also titre XI of Livre I), though basically the same 2. **La forme**: simplicity, accessibility, understandability understandability were Fr code aims; QC Code effectively the same but with some nuances/changes à some texts/articles identical to French code //but// interpreted differently à some actual differences ex. Titre préliminaire “cédule” = British influence? à QC Code separates out certain term definitions à sometimes QC code uses local vocabulary 3. **Le fond**: could go on forever about this; some main //reasons// for differences here 1) religious influence (Roman Catholicism in QC): incorporation of ecclesiastical law 2) Eng influence ex. reserve successorale (831 CCBC), testaments, verification des testaments olographes 3) Influence of //l’Ancien droit français//: unlike France (Coutume de Paris predominated) 4) socio-economic evolution: 1804-1866 notably laissez-faire, non-interventionism - official chronology of revision, but also many reforms of certain chapters since 1960s, additions - QC society //changed// 1866-1991; CCF less influential but still important Elements of ongoing influence of CCF: 1. **Sources**: M of J cites French Code more than any other foreign source in commentaries - desire to preserve CVL BUT also harmonization with CML … many changes, //but// only 40 % is really new - Fr Code still has direct influence and is main influence, but QC CVL is really //mixed// 2. **Structure:** unlike CCBC codifiers, office of revision and 1991 legislator were not seeking to follow French model precisely, though ultimately very similar to French 3. **Language and style** - changes in real world led to elaborations, details – far from original ideal of generality in some sections - general view that ultimate ideal is still about generality, even abstract, accessible; but this goal was not totally met in 1994 Code – largely b/c final version was created in a hurry (also for that reason, English version is especially weak) - “Toutefois, il faut bien convener que le CcQ ne possède pas toujours la clareté qu’on attend d’un code civil, tant s’en faut”; CcQ can’t escape necessary complexity of a 20th c. code 4. **Fond:** indisputable French influence - QC law has become more and more autonomous but still turns to French law - sometimes turns to French law, sometimes novel (ex. good faith – minister does //not// note French influence; protection du conjoint; bien des sujets; fiducie and //CML influence//) QC managed total reform, French didn’t – is there a role reversal coming (i.e. QC influences France)?
 * LE CODE CIVIL DU QUÉBÉC DE 1994: LA SIMPLE RÉFÉRENCE **