Notes
Page 22 of 22
1 R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 [ Beaulac].
2Charlebois v. Saint John (City), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563, 2005 SCC 74 [Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.)].
3 Fédération franco-ténoise v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 NWTSC 20 at para. 601 (decision on appeal before the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal) [FFT].
4 Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé)(2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 577 [Lalonde]. This decision was examined in Language Rights 2001-2002 (online: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages).
5 Solski (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 201, 2005 SCC 14 [Solski]; Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 238, 2005 SCC 15 [Gosselin]. The Quebec Court of Appeal decisions in these cases were summarized in Languages Rights 2001-2002, ibid .
6 SeeFFT, supra note 3, and Thibodeau v. Air Canada , [2006] 2 F.C.R. 70, 2005 FC 1156 (decision on appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal) [Thibodeau].
7 Thibodeau, ibid. at paras. 26–48.
8 Canada v. Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc., 2006 FCA 196 (leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted, [2006] C.S.C.R. no 309) [Société des Acadiens].
9 Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), s. 79(3), (4) and (7), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839 at 862 [Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.)].
10 Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342 at 366-367 [Mahe].
11 Ibid. at 375.
12 Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3; 2000 SCC 1 at para. 27 [Arsenault-Cameron].
13 Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), supra note 9 at 851.
14 Mahe, supra note 10 at 371–372.
15 Referencen re Public Schools Act (Man.), supra note 9 at 855.
16 Mahe, supra note 10 at 374.
17 Arsenault-Cameron, supra note 12 at para. 31.
18Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 2003 SCC 62 [Doucet-Boudreau].
19 Ibid. at para. 29.
20 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. Paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Charter has never come into force in Quebec: see section 59 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
21 Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q. c. C-11 [CFL].
22 Solski, supra note 5.
23 Ibid. at para. 28.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid. at para. 50.
27 It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Solski resulted in allowing Mr. Parasiuk, whose action was reported in Language Rights 2003-2004 (online: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), to have his children educated in English. Mr. Parasiuk’s child had been refused access to English-language instruction in Quebec because of Mr. Parasiuk’s French-immersion instruction while a student in an English-language school in Manitoba (see P.M. c. Ministre de l’Éducation du Québec et al. (February 19, 2004), SAS-Q-094035-0212 (T.A.Q.) and Parasiuk c. Tribunal administratif du Québec et al. (June 25, 2004), Montréal 500-17-019502-049 (C.S.Q.)).
28 In 2002, the Quebec Legislature enacted Bill 104, which amended section 73 of the CFL by excluding from the calculation of the “major
part” requirement all instruction received in a non-subsidized English-language school (S.Q. 2002, c. 28, s. 3).
29 See T.B. c. Québec (Ministre de l’Éducation), 2005 QCCA 635; H.Ha.N. c. Québec (Ministre de l’Éducation), 2006 QCCA 248.
30 However, the Court mentioned that the unique historical and social context of each province is relevant when provincial approaches to the implementation of the rights provided for in section 23 of the Charter are concerned and in situations where there is a need for justification under section 1 of the Charter: Solski, supra note 5 at para. 21.
31 Gosselin, supra note 5.
32 Solski, supra note 5.
33 Gosselin, supra note 5 at para. 16.
34 Mahe, supra note 10.
35 Ibid. at 369.
36 Arsenault-Cameron, supra note 12.
37 Gosselin, supra note 5 at para. 21.
38 Knopf v. Canada (Speaker of the House of Commons), 2006 FC 808.
39 Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, 2005 SCC 30.
40 Federal Court of Appeal file A-402-06.
41 Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Department of Justice), 2001 FCT 239 [Contraventions case].
42 Beaulac, supra note 1 at para. 34, relying on Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 at 749.
43 Under subsection 3(2) of the OLA, a federal court is “any court, tribunal or other body that carries out adjudicative functions and is established by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament”. This includes courts of law such as the Federal Courts of Canada and the
Tax Court of Canada, as well as quasi-judicial administrative tribunals such as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
44 This duty applies to all federal tribunals with the exception of the Supreme Court of Canada: see section 16 of the OLA.
45 Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549.
46 See for ex. Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182; Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016 and Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721.
47 Beaulac, supra note 1.
48 Ibid. at para. 25.
49 Ibid. at para. 41.
50 This right is enshrined in section 14 of the Charter, according to which “A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.”
51 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), supra note 2.
52 S.N.B., c. O-0.5.
53 Charlebois v. Saint John (City) (2002), 255 N.B.R. (2d) 396, 2002 NBQB 382.
54 Charlebois v. Saint John (City) (2004), 275 N.B.R. (2d) 203, 2004 NBCA 49 [Charlebois v. Saint John (C.A.)].
55 McLachlin C.J., Major J., Fish J. and Abella J. agreed with the majority reasons written by Charron J. whereas Bastarache J., Binnie J., LeBel J. and Deschamps J. dissented.
56 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), supra note 2 at para. 10 (citing E.A. Dreidger, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed., 1983, p. 87).
57 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), ibid. at para. 11.
58 Ibid. at para. 15.
59 See for example sections 31 and 32 of the N.B. OLA, which pertain to policing services, and sections 33 and 34, which pertain to health services.
60 Section 37 of the N.B. OLA provides that: “A municipality may, by by-law of its municipal council, declare itself bound by the provisions of this Act and nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to limit the authority of municipalities to promote the equality of status and use of English and French.”
61 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), supra note 2 at para. 21.
62 Ibid. at para. 19.
63 Ibid. at para. 23 (citing Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42 at para. 62).
64 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), ibid. at para. 24.
65 Charlebois v. Moncton (City) (2001), 242 N.B.R. (2d) 259, 2001 NBCA 117 [Charlebois v. Moncton].
66 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), supra note 2 at para. 32.
67 Ibid. at para. 38.
68 Bolduc v. Pozzebon (June 6, 2005), Toronto 05-CV-289563 PDI, (Ont. S.C.), decision by Wilson J.; Pozzebon v. Bolduc (September 21, 2005), Toronto (Ont. Div. Ct.), decision by Carnwath J.
69 R.S.O. 1990, ch. C.43.
70 Lalonde v. Ontario (Health Services Restructuring Commission) (1999), 48 O.R. (3d) 50.
71 Cited with permission by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lalonde, supra note 4 at para. 96.
72 R. v. Sarrazin (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 485 (Ont. C.A.) [Sarrazin].
73 Beaulac, supra note 1.
74 Ibid. at para. 49.
75 Sarrazin, supra note 72 at para. 59.
76 Ibid. at para. 62.
77 R. v. Oliynyk, 2006 BCSC 85.
78 Sarrazin, supra note 72. This decision is examined in section 3.3 of this report.
79 FFT, supra note 3 at para. 601.
80 See for example section 28 of the OLA and sections 28.1 and 31 of the N.B. OLA.
81 See, among others, FFT, supra note 3 and R. v. McGraw, 2006 NBQB 216 [McGraw].
82 Société des Acadiens, supra note 8, rev’g [2006] 1 F.C.R. 490, 2005 FC 1172 (F.C.).
83 Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17.
84 Société des Acadiens, supra note 8.
85 Ibid. at para. 2.
86 Contraventions case, supra note 41.
87 McGraw, supra note 81.
88 R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17.
89 Charlebois v. Saint John (S.C.C.), supra note 2. Decision examined in section 3.1 of this report.
90 Ibid. at para. 13.
91 S.N.B. 1987 c. P-22.1.
92 R.S., 1985, c. C-46.
93 Thibodeau, supra note 6.
94 R.S., 1985, c. 35 (4th Supp.)
95 This provision provides that “if air services, including incidental services, are provided or made available by a subsidiary of the Corporation, the Corporation has the duty to ensure that any of the subsidiary’s customers can communicate with the subsidiary in respect of those services, and obtain those services from the subsidiary, in either official language in any case where those services, if provided by the Corporation, would be required under Part IV of the Official Languages Act to be provided in either official language” (“la Société est tenue de veiller à ce que les services aériens, y compris les services connexes, offerts par ses filiales à leurs clients le soient, et à ce que ces clients puissent communiquer avec celles-ci relativement à ces services, dans l’une ou l’autre des langues officielles dans le cas où, offrant elle-même les services, elle serait tenue, au titre de la partie IV de la Loi sur les langues officielles, à une telle obligation”).
96 Thibodeau, supra note 6 at para. 38.
97 SOR/96-433.
98 Thibodeau, supra note 6 at para. 35.
99 R.S., 1985, c. L-2.
100 Thibodeau, supra note 6 at para. 97.
101 Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 276, 2004 FCA 263 at para. 21 [Forum des maires].
102 Thibodeau v. Air Canada, 2005 CF 1621 (December 1, 2005).
103 Doucet-Boudreau, supra note 18. This decision was reported in Language Rights 2003-2004, supra note 27.
104 See for example Doucet v. Canada (F.C.), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 671, 2004 FC 1444; Forum des maires, supra note 101; Lavigne v. Canada (Human Resources Development) (T.D.) [1997] 1 F.C. 305.
105 Desrochers v. Canada (Industry) (F.C.), [2005] 4 F.C.R. 3, 2005 FC 987 [Desrochers (F.C.)]; Desrochers v. Canada (Industry), 2006 FCA 374 [Desrochers (F.C.A.)], leave to appeal to S.C.C. requested.
106 Desrochers (F.C.), ibid. at para. 73.
107 Ibid. at para. 21.
108 Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624.
109 Treasury Board Policy on Grants and Contributions – Official Languages
(online: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat ).
110 Desrochers (F.C.), supra note 105 at para. 42.
111 Desrochers (F.C.A.), supra note 105.
112 Ibid. at para. 51.
113 Ibid. at para. 33.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid. at para. 41.
116 Department of Industry Act, S.C., 1995, c.1.
117 Beaulac, supra note 1 at para. 22.
118 Desrochers (F.C.A.), supra note 105 at para. 39.
119 Forum des maires, supra note 101.
120 Court file no. 31815.
121 FFT, supra note 3.
122 Northwest Territories Official Languages Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. O-1 [N.W.T. OLA].
123 FFT, supra note 3 at para. 94.
124 Ibid. at para. 132.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid. at para. 144.
127 Ibid. at para. 784.
128 Ibid. at para. 693.
129 Ibid. at para. 883.
130 City of Winnipeg Charter, S.M. 2002, c. 39.
131 City of Winnipeg ward where the By-Law applies.
132 R. v. Rémillard, [2005] M.J. No. 467 (QL) at para. 39 [Rémillard].
133 Beaulac, supra note 1.
134 Rémillard, supra note 132 at para. 42.
135 City of Winnipeg Charter, supra note 130, s. 456(1). Under subsection 451(1), “designated area” means the area of the Riel Community, the area in which all of the accused in this case reside.
136 Ibid. s. 460(1).
137 Rémillard, supra note 132 at para. 58.
138 Canadians for Language Fairness v. Ottawa (City) [2006] O.J. No. 3969 (QL) [Canadians for Language Fairness].
139 French Language Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, chap. F.32.
140 Canadians for Language Fairness, supra note 138 at para. 29.
141 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.
142 United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485, 2004 SCC 19.
143 Lalonde, supra note 4.
144 Canadians for Language Fairness, supra note 138 at para. 92.
145 Ibid. at para. 105.
146 OLA, s. 77. An application for court remedy can be filed with the Federal Court to ensure compliance with sections 4 to 7, and 10 to 13 or 91 as well as parts IV, V or VII of the OLA.
147 Forum des maires, supra note 101 at para. 17.
148 Norton v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2005 FCA 205, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 360.
149 David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. (C.A), [1995] 1 F.C. 588.
150 Caraquet (Town) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Wellness) (2005), 282 N.B.R. (2d) 112, 2005 NBCA 34.
151 Regional Health Authorities Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. R-5.05.
152 Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, S.N.B. 1981, c. O-1.1.
153 Caraquet (Town) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Wellness) (2005), 280 N.B.R. (2d) 146, 2005 NBBR 3.
154 Charlebois v. Saint John (C.A.), supra note 54.
155 Ibid.
156 Caraquet (Town) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Wellness), 2005 NBBR 358.
157 Lalonde, supra note 4.
158 Ibid. at para. 180.
159 Charlebois v. Moncton, supra note 65 at para. 55. The Court of Appeal added, at para. 58, that “the argument that this unwritten and underlying principle can also be used independently of any constitutional text, as a basis of an application for judicial review to strike down government action is not very convincing”.
160 Giroux v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer and Business Services) (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 759 [Giroux].
161 R.S.O. 1990, c. F.32.
162 S.O. 2000, c. 27.
163 Giroux, supra note 160 at para. 29.
164 Ibid. at para. 32.
165 [2006] C.S.C.R. no 19 (QL).
166 Gigliotti v. Conseil d'administration du Collège des Grands Lacs (2005), 76 O.R. (3d) 561.
167 Lalonde, supra note 4.
168 R.S.O., 1990, c. M.19.
169 Forum des maires, supra note 101.
170 Ibid. at para. 46.
171 Ibid. at para. 44.
172 On this topic, see “Amending the Act—A Positive Turning Point”, Chapter 1 of the Commissioner of Official Languages Annual Report 2005-2006, which outlines the history of the amendments made to Part VII of the OLA.
173 S.C. 2005, c. 41.
174 Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 906, 2005 SCC 85.
175 Federal Court file T-1860-06.
