Law · Legal Information · Justice
 

Question of Privilege

A term of parliamentary law and procedure which refers to an urgent motion made at a meeting which seeks an immediate ruling on an alleged violation of the rights or privileges of members as a whole, or in regards to a negative personal remark.

An important issue related to the whole meeting or assembly such as heating, ventilation, sound or lighting.

A question of privilege is directed at the chair. It will be allowed to interrupt a speaker if the chair determines that the alleged question of privilege is of an urgent nature.

A question of privilege is resolved by the chair of a meeting. It is not a matter for the whole assembly to debate unless the chair defers to the assembly or if the chair’s ruling is appealed to the assembly (some organizations provide for an appeal of the chair’s decisions on points of order or questions of privileges - some explicitly disallow such an appeal).

Words of wisdom from the Canadian authority Procedures for Meetings and Organizations:

“Where there is a disturbance, the chair should halt the meeting, interrupt the speaker where necessary and called for order, and, where an admonition to the speaker does not suffice, a recess may be in order. When the situation is extreme, an adjournment may be required….

"The chair may order the removal of a person interfering unduly with the conduct of the proceedings. Such action prudently should be taken only in those instances where the chair reasonably expects to be step by the meeting.”

A unique species of questions of privilege are those which object to personal remarks made by another during the meeting, sometimes distinguished by name as questions of personal privilege.

For example, in the course of speaking on a motion, a member might make a comment which reflects poorly on another member’s character.

A chair has the first duty to control and stop offensive language or imputations of improper motives but if he or she does not, a question of personal privilege is properly stated.

In these instances, in the event that the chair upholds the question of privilege, the transgressor is asked to withdraw his or her remarks failing which, he or she is usually subject to being asked to leave the meeting.


REFERENCES AND FURTHER RESEARCH OR READING:

  • Kerr, K. and King, H., Procedures for Meetings and Organizations (Toronto: Carswell, 1996), page 19-31
  • Nathan, H. and Voore, M., Corporate Meetings: Law and Practice (Toronto: Carswell, 1995), page 19-28 and 19-29.
  • Robert, H., Robert’s Rules of Order, 10th Edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing, 2000)

Are we missing anything? If you think there is a term that should be included, please send us the suggestion

  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • LawMag

Latest LagMag headlines:

H1N1 Law - Swine Law for a Swine Flu

In a state of public health law anarchy, professional hockey players receive a killer flu vaccine while infants and pregnant women wait.

More...

The Death of the Common Law: Expiry date, 2100

Just about now, but for the economic might of the United States of America, the last funeral bell tolls of the common law would be fading.

More...

Gretzky Law

The recent Phoenix Coyotes debacle, in which he left behind his job, is not the only time Wayne Gretzky has had to leave from the side exit of a courtroom.

More...


Read earlier headlines »
Subscribe to stay in touch »

Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). It is not intended to be legal advice and you would be foolhardy to rely on it in respect to any specific situation you or an acquaintance may be facing. In addition, the law changes rapidly and sometimes with little notice so from time to time, an article may not be up to date. Therefore, this is merely legal information designed to educate the reader. If you have a real situation, this information will serve as a good springboard to get legal advice from a lawyer.

top