The court held that in 1946 Maurice Duplessis, both Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by ordering the manager of the Liquor Commission to revoke the liquor licence of Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah's Witness who was an outspoken critic of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec.

[2] A significant decision on civil liberties in the pre-Charter era, Roncarelli became known as one of the central cases in the constitutional theory later called the "Implied Bill of Rights.

[7] Protestant groups had traditionally limited themselves to winning converts among the English-speaking minority, and Jehovah's Witnesses aggressively attacked other faiths as paths to damnation, particularly Roman Catholicism, so they became the target of Quebec's powerful Catholic Church.

[8] In 1945, Maurice Duplessis acting as both Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had provincial and municipal authorities take action against what they considered seditious and offensive behaviour, resulting in the arrest of groups of Jehovah's Witnesses in Montreal for distributing pamphlets and literature.

The accused pleaded 'not guilty", maintaining that under the Quebec Freedom of Worship Act they were ministers of the Gospel and could visit homes and distribute literature without a permit.

[6] The Chief Prosecutor of the city, Oscar Gagnon, was overwhelmed by the number of Witnesses being arrested and then set free by Roncarelli's intervention.

[6] In response, the Jehovah's Witnesses circulated "Quebec's Burning Hate", a pamphlet with a blistering attack in the Church and Duplessis government.

[11] Extensive testimony showed the government actors believed that Roncarelli was disrupting the court system, causing civil disorder and so was not entitled to the liquor licence.

Roncarelli was told that he was barred from holding a liquor licence and that the action was a warning that others would similarly be stripped of provincial "privileges" if they persisted in their activities related to the Witnesses.

Although Duplessis had authority under the relevant legislation, his decision was not based on any factors related to the operation of the licence but was made for unrelated reasons and so was held to be exercised arbitrarily and without good faith.

Cartwright went on to argue that even if the Commission were to be considered quasi-judicial, in which case procedural fairness guarantees would apply, that still would not entitle the plaintiff to monetary damages.