• About Us
  • The Commissioner of Official Languages
  • Mandate
  • Mission
  • Roles
  • History of the Office of the Commissioner
• Your Language Rights
  • Official Languages Act
  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Official Languages Regulations
  • Filing a Complaint
  • Court Remedy
  • Legal Interventions
• Official Languages and You
  • General Information
    • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Linguistic Duality and Cultural Diversity
    • Immigration and linguistic duality
    • Studies
  • Teachers
  • Parliamentarians
  • Institutions
• Newsroom
  • Search
  • News Releases
  • Daily Highlights
  • Backgrounders
  • Speeches
  • Media Resources
  • Contacts
• Publications
  • Search
  • Reports
  • Studies
  • Report Cards
  • Language Laws and Rights
  • Audits
  • Newsletter
  • History of Official Languages
  • Youth
  • Videos
  • Posters
  • Other publications
  • Order Form
• Statistics
• Careers
• Archives
• Links
• Proactive Disclosure
  • Travel and Hospitality Expenses
  • Contracts Awarded
  • Grants and Contributions
  • Position Reclassifications
  • Advertising and Public Notices Expenditures

Montfort Hospital - Affidavit of Dyane Adam Before Ontario Court of Appeal

BETWEEN:

I, the undersigned, Dyane Adam, doctor of psychology, working in the City of Ottawa, at 344 Slater Street, DECLARE UNDER OATH AS FOLLOWS:

1. Since August 1999, I have filled the position of Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada (hereinafter the "Commissioner") pursuant to the provisions of the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4^th Supp.) (hereinafter the "OLA").
   
   
2. Under section 56 of the OLA, it is my duty "to take all actions and measures within my authority with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages" and "the advancement of English and French in Canadian society."
   
   
3. This statutory mandate is fulfilled by the full realization of the purpose of the OLA, which is, among other things, according to paragraph 2(b) of the OLA, to "support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society."
   
   
4. I am therefore very sensitive to and interested in any issue related to recognition and advancement of the status of the two (2) official languages, to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society, to the vitality of the English and French linguistic minorities as regards their being part of the two (2) official language communities and, finally, to respect for the language rights enshrined in the OLA, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, which constitutes Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (hereinafter the "Charter"), or any other pertinent legislation.
   
   
5. I understand that subsection 78(3) of the OLA provides that the Commissioner may seek leave to intervene in any adjudicative proceedings relating to the status or use of English or French. This implies the possibility of doing so even in proceedings that do not specifically involve a provision of the OLA.
   
   
6. My predecessors and I have, moreover, obtained intervenor status in various proceedings, including before this Court, involving language provisions other than those of the OLA, specifically in the following cases involving language provisions of the Charter or the Criminal Code, R.S.C. c. C-46:
   
   

   -	Arsenault-Cameron et al. v. the Government of Prince Edward Island 2000 1 S.C.R. 3;
   -	R. v. Beaulac (1999) 1 S.C.R. 768;
   -	Mario Charlebois v. the City of Moncton et al., New Brunswick Court of Appeal, 166-2000-CA (still pending);
   -	Reference re Public Schools Act (Manitoba), 1993 1 S.C.R. 839; (1990) , 67 D.L.R. (4th) 488 (Manitoba Court of Appeal);
   -	Mahé v. Alberta 1990 1 S.C.R. 342; (1988), 42 D.L.R. (4th) 514 (Alberta Court of Appeal);
   -	Reference re Minority Languages Educational Rights (P.E.I.), 1988 69 NFLD & P.E.I.R. 236; (1988), 49 D.L.R. (4th) 499 (Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island - appeal division);
   -	Reference re Education Act of Ontario and Minority Language Education Rights (1984), 10 D.L.R. (4th) 491 (Ontario Court of Appeal).

1. I believe I have the necessary and sufficient interest to intervene in this case, which concerns section 16 of the Charter relating to the official languages of Canada.
   
   
2. I believe that the issues raised with regard to the interpretation and application of section 16 of the Charter will have a significant impact not only on the application of the OLA, a number of whose provisions implement the constitutional language rights guaranteed by that section, but also on the implementation of the constitutional commitment of the government of Canada and of the provinces to advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society.
   
   
3. My predecessor in the position of Commissioner, Dr. Victor Goldbloom, and I have very closely followed the situation of Montfort Hospital;
   
   
4. Commissioner Goldbloom testified in the trial stage. The transcripts of Dr. Goldbloom's cross-examination are attached to my affidavit as Exhibit DA-1;
   
   
5. I believe that if I am granted leave to intervene in this matter, I can bring, as a language ombudsman, a national perspective and hence a dimension different from that which the opposing parties and intervenors can bring.
   
   
6. I also believe that if this leave to intervene is granted, it will not unduly delay the conduct of these proceedings since I do not seek leave to file evidence or to obtain additional time in respect of the schedule already established or to be established. I simply ask for the opportunity to file written arguments and make oral representations, through my counsel, at any hearing which might take place in connection with this matter.
   
   
7. If this application is granted, my intervention will be concerned essentially with the following points:
   
   
   1. the importance for the official language communities of having institutions for the purpose of ensuring their vitality and development;
      
      
   2. the scope of the constitutional principle of protection of the minorities set out in the Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998 2 S.C.R. 217, and its impact on governments and courts;
      
      
   3. the scope of the application of section 16 of the Charter, specifically subsection 16(3) and its impact on determining the issues in dispute. In this regard, my intervention will essentially aim to explain:
      
      
      1. the importance of the principle of equality enshrined in this provision;
         
         
      2. the principle of advancement enshrined in this provision and the fundamental commitment to advance toward the equality of status of English and French;
         
         
      3. the remedial character of section 16 of the Charter and, consequently, the principle of ratcheting incumbent on government authorities because of the obligation to "protect" the linguistic minority and, accordingly, not to infringe the principle of advancement; and
         
         
      4. the impact of the constitutional obligations arising from section 16 of the Charter on the government's action to restructure its health care system and reduce the services of Montfort Hospital.

1. I make this affidavit in good faith and in order to support the notice of motion for leave to intervene in this matter.

___________________________________ Dyane Adam

SWORN BEFORE ME in Ottawa,
in the province of Ontario,
this 14 ^th day of December 2000

_______________________________