In 1975, Parliament began to expect judges to contribute to pension costs, and a Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act, 1975 was introduced.

Justice Marc Beauregard, who was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court in July 1975, did not immediately have to contribute 6% since the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act was not yet officially enacted.

The majority of the Supreme Court, whose opinion was written by Chief Justice Brian Dickson, rejected the constitutional challenge.

One was the existence of federalism, as courts were needed to clarify jurisdictions, especially since Parliament no longer used its power to decide such questions, disallowance.

[6] This case also concerned financial security, which Dickson acknowledged was a part of judicial independence since the Act of Settlement 1701 and was reaffirmed by Valente.

This financial obligation did not touch the true purpose of judicial independence, namely freedom from manipulation and the separation of powers.

[7] Dickson then clarified Parliamentary power regarding remuneration is not absolute, but what should be guarded against was decisions with sinister motivations and discrimination against judges.

[8] Beauregard's suggestion that judges should not have to contribute to pensions owed partly to section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which assigned the administration of justice to the provincial governments.

[10] Dickson rejected the idea that the type of pension had to be the same as it was at Confederation in 1867 because the Constitution is meant to adapt to changing circumstances.

[13] Regarding the Bill of Rights, Dickson said that it has normally been interpreted to have little effect so that statutes with valid objectives are upheld.

[16] However, Beetz also concluded that the method used to achieve this goal was improper, as it affected equality too deeply and judicial acceptance of these kinds of government actions would make the right meaningless.

[20] If this were done, all judges appointed after the date could be reasonably expected to know they would have to pay the 6%,[21] whereas Beauregard was surprised when the change was made.