[
1] The Greater Toronto Airports Authority [GTAA] is a non-profit corporation that operates Toronto Pearson International Airport [the Airport], among other things. The applicant, Michel Thibodeau, who is not represented by counsel, is applying for remedies under
subsection 77(1) of the
Official Languages Act, RSC 1985, c 31 (4th Supp) [the OLA], against the GTAA, alleging that it has failed to meet its language duties under the OLA and has therefore violated the language rights associated with those duties. The alleged violations are related to three complaints that he made to the Commissioner of Official Languages [the Commissioner] under
section 55 of the OLA, namely one complaint in docket T-534-21 and two complaints in docket T-2013-19, with both matters being heard in succession on the same day. The Commissioner prepared investigation reports and made recommendations in relation to each of the complaints. In addition, in an order dated November 26, 2020, the Commissioner was granted intervener status in docket T-2013-19 only. The Commissioner did not intend to take a position on the merits of Mr. Thibodeau’s application; rather, the Commissioner’s objective was to present to the Court the principles of interpretation that apply to the
Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, SOR/92-48 [the Regulations], in order to clearly delineate the scope of third-party contractor services under subsection 12(1) of the Regulations and the scope of airport authorities’ duties.
[...]
[81] In any event, since I have established that Mr. Thibodeau’s language rights have been infringed, the next step is to order an appropriate and just remedy under subsection 77(4) of the OLA. Remedies may also be based on subsection 24(1) of the Charter. Together, these provisions enable the Court, in the case of a violation of the Charter or the OLA, to grant the remedy it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances (Air Canada 2019 at para 60).
[...]
[100] To sum up, whether under the Charter, the OLA or its Regulations, a purposive interpretation of the remedies to be granted in the context of violations of language rights breathes life into the age-old maxim ubi jus ibi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy. This is why it is important for the Court to make a clear pronouncement as to the just and appropriate remedy to be granted to Mr. Thibodeau. In so doing, it must “exercise a discretion based on [its] careful perception of the nature of the right and of the infringement, the facts of the case, and the application of the relevant legal principles”, having regard to the principles inherent to language rights (Doucet-Boudreau at para 52).
