St. John's International Airport Authority v. Thibodeau, 2024 FCA 197
[1] The conclusions reached in this appeal illustrate the broad and generous interpretation that must be given to the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.) (OLA) and related legislation to protect the official languages of Canada. Any unduly restrictive interpretation of language obligations that a federal institution might put forward is outdated and cannot be accepted.
[2] This case concerns an application by Mr. Michel Thibodeau (the respondent) before the Federal Court seeking remedies under section 77 of the OLA on the grounds that St. John’s International Airport Authority (SJIAA) breached its language obligations under that Act. Mr. Thibodeau’s application follows the complaints he filed against SJIAA with the Commissioner of Official Languages (COL), who concluded there had been a violation of sections 22 and 23 of the OLA with respect to the language of communications and services. Mr. Thibodeau, representing himself before the Federal Court, submitted that SJIAA had failed to comply with its language obligations under Part IV of the OLA by communicating in English only on social media and failing to ensure that its website is fully bilingual. Mr. Thibodeau sought various remedies before the Federal Court, including a declaratory judgment, damages, and a letter of apology.
[3] On April 21, 2022, the Federal Court, per Grammond J., ruled in Mr. Thibodeau’s favour, finding that SJIAA had violated its language obligations and consequently awarding him $5,000 in damages (2022 FC 563) (Decision). SJIAA, dissatisfied with the Federal Court’s judgment, has appealed to this Court.
[...]
V. ISSUES
[26] SJIAA’s appeal raises the following issues:
- Did the Federal Court err in deciding that airport authorities are subject to the “head office” rule set out in subsection 4(1) of the ATA?
- Did the Federal Court err in its interpretation of section 23 of the OLA?
- Did the Federal Court err in the award of damages?
- Did the Federal Court grant an “appropriate and just” remedy?
- Did the Federal Court err in the award of costs?
[50] The wording of subsection 4(1) of the ATA relies on this distinction to provide that several parts of the OLA, including Part IV, “apply … to the authority in relation to the airport as if …”
/ “
s’appliquent … à cette administration, pour ce qui est de l’aéroport, au même titre que s’il s’agissait d’une institution fédérale
”
. This wording reflects Parliament’s intent to maintain the application of the OLA despite the transfer of a given airport. This explicit wording is in fact necessary because, as mentioned above, the OLA does not immediately apply to airport authorities, since they are private corporations.
[51] Similarly, the wording of subsection 4(1) of the ATA provides that Part IV of the OLA applies to the airport authority as a federal institution in respect of its airport operations activities. The English wording is even clearer and confirms the meaning of the provision: “Parts IV [of the OLA] apply to the authority in relation to the airport as if … the authority were a federal institution”
. As the Federal Court rightly points out, Parliament thus ensures that airport authorities like SJIAA are deemed federal authorities and are therefore subject to the OLA (Decision at para. 32).
[60] In short, there is no basis to conclude that Parliament’s intention in enacting the ATA was to take a step backwards in language matters by removing head office language obligations from airport authorities and thus limiting their obligations under Part IV of the OLA.
[...]
[65] Ultimately, the wording of subsection 4(1) of the ATA indicates that the head office of the airport authority, in this case SJIAA, which took over from Transport Canada, is subject to section 22 of the OLA, no matter its location. The Federal Court was therefore correct to find that SJIAA is under the same language obligations as a federal institution and that it must therefore communicate with the public in both official languages.
[...]
[108] For all these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs in favour of Mr. Thibodeau.
