Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne Inc. v. Minister of Justice and Public Safety, 2024 NBKB 58 (CanLII)
[1] This case involves an application for judicial review filed by the Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne Inc. (hereinafter the “applicant”) challenging a decision of the Minister of Justice and Public Safety (hereinafter the “respondent”) involving changes made to court services in the Judicial District of Bathurst, namely the closure of the Caraquet courthouse, the conversion of the Tracadie courthouse into a satellite court and the transfer of two judges to Bathurst and Miramichi (hereinafter the “decision”)
[...]
[18] The applicant does not deny that by closing the two courthouses, the provincial government was able to better allocate its resources. The issue is rather whether, in making this decision, the Minister fulfilled his obligations in accordance with the language rights set out in the Charter and the relevant legislation. The applicant argues that he did not. It submits that, at the very least, the Minister should have considered the impact of his decision on the Francophone community, not in terms of access to services in French, but rather in terms of fulfilling his obligation to promote the cultural, economic, educational, and social development of the Francophone minority.
[...]
[72] In the instant case, in order to determine whether the impugned decision engages values underlying language rights, it is necessary to consider exactly what those values are. The process involves keeping in mind the principles set out in R. v. Beaulac, 1999 CanLII 684 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, which require courts to interpret language rights broadly and generously. The Supreme Court, under the pen of Bastarache J., stated as follows, at paragraph 25:
25 Language rights must in all cases be interpreted purposively, in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada; see Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), supra, at p. 850. To the extent that Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, supra, at pp. 579-80, stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected. The fear that a liberal interpretation of language rights will make provinces less willing to become involved in the geographical extension of those rights is inconsistent with the requirement that language rights be interpreted as a fundamental tool for the preservation and protection of official language communities where they do apply. It is also useful to re-affirm here that language rights are a particular kind of right, distinct from the principles of fundamental justice. They have a different purpose and a different origin. I will return to this point later.
[Emphasis in original.]
[73] It is therefore from this perspective that I shall consider the values underlying language rights in Canada.
[74] Firstly, language rights are described as remedial rights, which means that they are designed to address historical injustices or inequalities suffered by the linguistic minorities. These rights are also intended to promote linguistic diversity and preserve the cultural identity of the minority language communities. At paragraph 25 of Doucet-Boudreau, the Supreme Court stated as follows on the manner in which these remedial rights are to be interpreted:
25 Purposive interpretation means that remedies provisions must be interpreted in a way that provides “a full, effective and meaningful remedy for Charter violations” since “a right, no matter how expansive in theory, is only as meaningful as the remedy provided for its breach” (Dunedin, supra, at paras. 19-20). A purposive approach to remedies in a Charter context gives modern vitality to the ancient maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium: where there is a right, there must be a remedy. More specifically, a purposive approach to remedies requires at least two things. First, the purpose of the right being protected must be promoted: courts must craft responsive remedies. Second, the purpose of the remedies provision must be promoted: courts must craft effective remedies.
[Emphasis in original.]
