L’Observatoire international des droits linguistiques

[1] The National Police Federation [the Federation] is applying for a court remedy under subsection 77(1) of Part X of the Official Languages Act, RSC 1985, c 31 (4th Supp) [the Act] for compensation. 

[2] The Federation submits that the policies of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] discourage equal opportunities for advancement for English and French members of the RCMP. Therefore, the Federation is seeking an order that considers the merits of its complaint filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages on March 12, 2021, and added to on August 18, 2021. 

[3] In this complaint, the Federation submits that the RCMP’s internal policies, including the Career Management Manual [the Manual], are inconsistent with the Treasury Board of Canada’s Directive on Official Languages for People Management [the Directive] and that these internal policies therefore do not comply with the Act (the relevant provisions of the Manual and Directive are reproduced in the Appendix). In particular, the Federation contends that the RCMP’s policy set out in the Manual requiring that candidates in a staffing process meet the language requirements as soon as the advertisement is closed is contrary to the Directive, as the Directive requires that candidates meet the language requirements “at the time that they are appointed”. In this complaint, the Federation also alleges that the language requirements of the staffing actions have not been objectively established and that, taking into account the duties and responsibilities associated with the positions, the language profiles for this series of positions should be lowered, thus bringing section 91 of the Act into play

[...]

[10] For the following reasons, the court remedy sought by the Federation will be denied. In summary, (1) the Federation has not submitted any evidence to support a remedy for an alleged violation of paragraph 36(1)(c) of the Act, contained in Part V; (2) the remedy sought under subsection 39(1) of the Act, contained in Part VI, is inadmissible since Part VI is not named in subsection 77(1) of the Act; (3) the Federation has not demonstrated that the Manual and Directive are inconsistent; and (4) even if I were to conclude that there is an inconsistency between the Manual and Directive, the Federation has not demonstrated that such an inconsistency violates the Act.

[...]

[12] As for the interpretation principles applicable to language rights, I agree with the parties that language rights must be given a large and liberal purposive interpretation “in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada” (R v Beaulac, 1999 CanLII 684 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 768 at para 25 [Beaulac]; Mazraani v Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc., 2018 SCC 50 at para 20; Caron v Alberta, 2015 SCC 56 at paras 35–38; DesRochers at para 31; Solski (Tutor of) v Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 14at para 20;).

[13] The Federation rightly adds that, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Beaulac,language rights are positive rights that “can only be enjoyed if the means are provided” (Beaulac at para 20). Thus, the state has a duty to provide the means for ensuring equal access and the implementation of institutional bilingualism in federal institutions (Beaulac at para 20).

[...]

[15] As the AGC notes in paragraph 26 of his Memorandum of Fact and Law, for its application to be successful, the Federation must demonstrate that the RCMP has failed to comply with one of the sections referred to in subsection 77(1) of the Act. Therefore, the burden of demonstrating a violation of a right or duty under the Act rests with the Federation.