L’Observatoire international des droits linguistiques

In this decision, the Federal Court grants a motion to strike filed by the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority and strikes, without leave to amend, an application based on section 77 of the Official Languages Act. The dispute concerned the trilingual labeling (English, Spanish, French) of a container for sharp objects in the airport washrooms, with the applicant arguing that the order of languages infringed on its rights guaranteed by Part IV of the OLA and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Court reiterated the strict test applicable to motions to strike, as set out in JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Iris Technologies Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General): a motion to strike can only be granted if the application has “no chance of success.” In this case, however, the applicant itself admitted that the presence of both official languages complied with the OLA.
The Court concluded that neither the OLA nor its regulations impose a particular order between the official languages or prohibit the addition of a third language.The Treasury Board instruments invoked, particularly with regard to branding, are not binding on the airport authority and cannot create additional legal obligations. In the absence of a breach of the OLA or the Charter, none of the remedies sought—including mandamus or a declaration of unconstitutionality—could be granted.
The decision thus reaffirms that language rights guarantee access to services in either official language, but do not establish a general principle of graphic precedence of languages or a mandatory hierarchy in the presence of other languages.