30th anniversary of the Civil code

Discrete yet omnipresent, the Civil Code of Qu茅bec is filled with figures that have shaped, sustained, and enriched its pages. These figures came to life during the 笔补耻濒-础苍诲谤茅 颁谤茅辫别补耻 Centre for Private and Comparative Law鈥檚 event titled The Figures of the Civil Code of Qu茅bec. The event was held in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the reformed Civil Code of Qu茅bec and paid tribute to many of its visionary architects, Professor 笔补耻濒-础苍诲谤茅 颁谤茅辫别补耻 being one of them.听

The term figure itself is layered with meanings, all of which were peeled back and dissected through the lens of the Civil Code. Derived from the Latin word figura, the term figure denotes form, appearance, mode of expression, way of being, or even representation through sculpture. The word figura itself is said to derive from the verb fingere, meaning to mold, fashion, make a likeness of, or pretend to be, found equally in the word to feign, a technique with which lawyers 鈥� fond of fictions and presumptions 鈥� are very familiar.听听

Accordingly, participants were encouraged to examine the Code through the idea of the Janus figure, looking both to the past and to the future. By deconstructing the 颁辞诲别鈥檚 many faces, participants sought to critically assess its structure, stature, shapings and disfigurations. Throughout the day鈥檚 discussions on change and transformation, participants examined how the figures of the Code embody not only a legislative role but also reflect social dynamics and tensions within Qu茅bec civil law more broadly. This polysemy was crucial in discerning how each figure contributes to a deeper, more nuanced appreciation of the Code and its place within Qu茅bec society.听听

The first panel of the day investigated the figures surrounding the person 鈥� the center of the civil law tradition and the subject of civil rights within the meaning of the Code. Professor Christelle Landheer-Cieslak juxtaposed the civilian understanding of the law of 鈥減ersons鈥� with the singular 鈥減erson鈥� at the heart of our system of fundamental rights and freedoms. Her analysis of the 颁辞诲别鈥檚 employment of these terms illuminated the Code鈥檚 delicate balance between the will to produce standardized rules for the regulation of persons while simultaneously recognizing each person鈥檚 human complexity. The figure of the person, thus, becomes a vivid representation of the interplay between legal identity and lived experience.听

Professor Benjamin Moron-Puech explored the terms sex and gender through the idea of a Janus figure bearing one face gazing towards the past and the other towards the future, nevertheless stuck together. By comparing how the number of mentions of each term, as well as the context they were mentioned in, ebbed and flowed through the Civil 颁辞诲别鈥檚 history, Professor Moron-Puech argued that Qu茅bec civil law must seriously confront how it understands the double-figure of sex and gender. His contribution underscored how the figure of gender embodies a more nuanced complexity of identity, despite the difficulties that may stem from conceiving of sex and gender as radically distinct.听

Professors Alexandra Popovici and 骋补毛濒别 Gidrol-Mistral unmasked the idea of the 鈥渟tranger鈥� within the private law context, emphasizing the prevalence of this mysterious figure within the Civil Code. Between its presence through private international law, the administration of the property of others, and the concept of indeterminate or interested third parties, the domain of private law fails to exist without the 鈥渟tranger鈥�. Professors Popovici and Gidrol-Mistral highlight the 颁辞诲别鈥檚 reliance on strangers for its surveillance and enforcement, and question whether this stranger disfigures the 颁辞诲别鈥檚 individualistic foundations.听

The second set of panelists tackled the figuration and disfiguration of the Civil Code in terms of its contributory, structural, and numerical components. Professor Sylvio Normand underscored the numerous figures within and beyond the legal community who contributed to the forty-year revision process of the 颁辞诲别鈥檚 reform. During each drafting and revision stage, a different group 鈥� practitioners, academics, government lawyers, and civil society 鈥� presided over the reform. Throughout the project, these main players worked both together and in competition with each other to see their roles, as well as the Code, evolve. Professor J茅r茅my Boulanger-Bonnelly discussed the increasing tendency for the Code, which purports to be a unified and accessible ensemble of Qu茅bec law, to refer to external regulations within its provisions. Though these referrals may allow for heightened legal flexibility, quicker amendment processes, and responses to the complexification of modern life, the acceleration of external referrals within the Code indicates a worrisome dispersal of legislative sources, lower public accessibility and legal certainty, and an increased lack of meaningful consultation for legislative changes. Finally, Me Laurence Bich-Carri猫re examined the numeric figures within the Civil Code, spanning from article numeration and references to sums of money, ages, and periods of time. She critically assessed how the choice of numbers in the Code, while seemingly arbitrary, reflects a desire to mimic the world around us. Through her analysis, she posits that if figures are representations within the Code, then its numbers are its secret language.听听

The third and final panel took on the intersections between figures, obligations, and the Civil Code. Professor Michelle Cumyn explored how standard forms tied to contracts of adhesion have influenced the evolution of Qu茅bec contract law, particularly considering the backdrop of e-commerce. These forms have transfigured our contractual landscape at the hands of corporations and have shaped contractual terms beyond the traditional framework of the Code. The figure of the contract represents, in this case, how a shift in legal authority and technology has reconfigured the fabric of legal agreements.听听

Professors Andr茅 B茅langer and Marc-Antoine Picotte extend the discourse of contracts of adhesion to the broader law of contracts, arguing that capitalism has transformed and disfigured contract law within the Civil Code. They critiqued the contract of adhesion, comparing the contracting party to the figure of an automaton lacking meaningful consent and understanding of the implications of their actions. They asserted that voluntarism is a mask applied to the contracting party to conceal their true alienation from the contractual relationship.听听

Through the prism of Professor Maurice 罢补苍肠别濒颈苍鈥檚 critical gaze, Professor Pascale Dufour analyzed the trajectories of the law of obligations which permeate the Civil Code. She discussed 罢补苍肠别濒颈苍鈥檚 appreciation of the law in Canada as a 尘茅迟颈蝉蝉补驳别, and assessed how his critiques of the Civil Code reform continue to shape our understanding of the evolution of Qu茅bec civil law.听听

The Figures of the Civil Code of Qu茅bec workshop offered a distinctive reflection on the polysemic nature of the conceptual, historic, numeric, and societal figures of Qu茅bec civil law. These figures associated with the Code reveal what is unique to it. As an architect of the Code, Professor 笔补耻濒-础苍诲谤茅 颁谤茅辫别补耻鈥檚 vision and legacy were deeply embedded in the day鈥檚 discussions and were honoured through the reflections on the past, present, and future of the Code 鈥� 30 years since its reform. The Centre is preparing a collective publication to preserve and share each speaker鈥檚 contributions.听

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the speakers and moderators who made the event such a success:听

Professor Mark Antaki (黑料不打烊 University, Co-Director of the 颁谤茅辫别补耻 Centre)听

Professor Andr茅 B茅langer (University of Ottawa)听听

Me Laurence Bich-Carri猫re (Lavery)听听

Professor J茅r茅my Boulanger-Bonnelly (黑料不打烊 University)听

Professor Michelle Cumyn (黑料不打烊 University, Co-Director of the 颁谤茅辫别补耻 Centre)听

Professor Pascale Dufour (Universit茅 de Montr茅al)听听

Me Manon Ferrand (Universit茅 de Montr茅al)听听

Professor 骋补毛濒别 Gidrol-Mistral (Universit茅 du Qu茅bec 脿 Montr茅al)听听

No茅mie Gourde-Bouchard (former Assistant Director of the 颁谤茅辫别补耻 Centre)听

Professor Christelle Landheer-Cieslak (Universit茅 Laval)听

Professor Benjamin Moron-Puech (Universit茅 Lumi猫re Lyon 2)听

Professor Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse (黑料不打烊 University)听

Professor Sylvio Normand (Universit茅 Laval)听听

Professor Marc-Antoine Picotte (Universit茅 du Qu茅bec en Outaouais)听

Professor Alexandra Popovici (Universit茅 de Sherbrooke)听

Professor Nathalie V茅zina (Universit茅 de Sherbrooke)听