Mr. Roncarelli did have the right to post bail for the members of his religious community. There is no law that dictates who can post bail for someone. Therefore, legally Mr. Roncarelli did not break any law. At the end of the day, Mr. Roncarelli has the right to do as he pleases with his money (as long as his actions don't break the law), therefore he had every right to post bail for members of his religious community. However, this could be of nuisance for law enforcers as it could allow members of the Jehovah's Witnesses to believe that they could get away with committing crimes because Mr. Roncarelli would post their bail. This could result in an increase of crimes due to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses' members would believe that their actions have little to no consequences.
Mr. Duplessis did not have any right to get Mr. Roncarelli's liquor licence removed. Mr. Roncarelli did not do anything illegal that would make it unreasonable for him to own a liquor licence. Removal of a licence with no reasoning is not morally or legally right.
Mr. Duplessis had more power in society. Firstly, he is a Premier, which automatically gives him large power and authority. Secondly, his immense power is proven due to the fact that he had the power to immediately get Mr. Roncarelli's liquor licence revoked. Mr. Roncarelli did not have the power to get his liquor licence back, which shows how mr. Duplessis' word is greater than his due to Mr. Duplessis' greater power.
Mr. Duplessis' actions violated the third aspect of the rule of law which states that people in power can put themselves above the law. In this scenario, Mr. Duplessis abused his power as Premier and put himself above the law, which states that this abuse is not permissible and a violation of Mr. Roncarelli's rights.
It was critical for society that the SCC favoured Mr. Roncarelli. It showed that the SCC is upholding the Rule of Law and that there is truly no one above the law. It also was a form of reassurance for others whose rights were violated by people in power as it assured them that they would have a fair and corruption-free trial like Mr. Roncarelli.
I think it would definitely be a major setback for lawmakers and society if the SCC ruled in Mr. Duplessis' favour. It would show people in power that they can evade the law with their authority and might cause a lot of abuse from people in power towards the general public. In addition, it would cause fear in the general public and could result in the loss or decline of democracy in Canada.
