Nelson Cyr v. His Majesty the King in right of the province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Minister of Heath and the Office of the Premier of New Brunswick, 2025 NBKB 35
[1] Nelson Cyr brings this application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2022, c. O-0.5, arguing that the Province of New Brunswick breached his and other francophones’ rights to receive services and to communicate with the government in the language of their choice.
[2] He brings this application because Premier Higgs and other unilingual anglophones acted as spokespersons at the daily press conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Cyr argues that he and other francophones received most of their information from those press conferences by way of simultaneous interpretation, which he says is a mere “accommodation” which shows a lack of respect for French as one of New Brunswick’s official languages.
[3] This case raises the question of whether a unilingual Premier or Minister can be the spokesperson for the Province of New Brunswick during press conferences.
[4] It also raises the question of whether simultaneous interpretation is a sufficient means of achieving institutional bilingualism for the purposes of press conferences.
[...]
[13] The Applicant, Nelson Cyr, is from Rogersville, New Brunswick. He is a francophone. He states that from March 5 to March 25, 2020, he tuned in to those press conferences by way of the French-language YouTube broadcast. He noted the virtual absence of any use of French by the spokespersons, notably the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Chief Medical Officer of Health. He also felt that the quality of the simultaneous interpretation was lacking, in part because of the speed with which the speakers were presenting the information, resulting in gaps. That is, some of the information was never interpreted to French, such that the francophone viewers missed out on some of the information. Presumably, similar imperfections occurred on the English-language broadcast.
[...]
[18] As well, there is no real dispute that the simultaneous interpretation was not a perfect solution. That is, the Province acknowledges that sometimes, depending on the speed with which the presenters were speaking and sometimes during a transition from one language to the other, there were brief gaps in the interpretation, such that a small portion of the communications were missed. Presumably this was the case for the simultaneous interpretation to both official languages.
[19] Where the parties disagree is over what is required by the Charter and the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
[...]
[65] In the end, institutional bilingualism has to be functional. It must work in real life.
[66] This is not to suggest that inconvenience – even significant disruption, cost or complexity – will justify non-compliance with our language laws and the rights of members of both linguistic communities to receive services in, and to communicate with an institution in the language of their choice. Language rights are not trivial, and they are not rights of convenience.
[67] But the recommendations from the Commissioner – and the position advanced by the Applicant in this matter – that the Premier was an unacceptable and unlawful spokesperson for the Province during the COVID-19 pandemic because he was not bilingual, and that simultaneous interpretation fails to achieve institutional bilingualism is, in my view, a noble but unrealistic application of the ideal.
[...]
[71] To be clear, the recommendations from the Commissioner and the Applicant’s proposal would create a de facto obligation on the Premier to be bilingual, lest he or she be restricted in their role and responsibilities and usurped by a bilingual spokesperson.
[72] Surely that was not the intention of the legislator in the enactment of institutional bilingualism in New Brunswick.
[...]
[80] As a result, the Applicant’s request for declaratory relief is denied. The Court will not entertain the remedies sought by the Applicant given that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate a breach of the Charter or the Official Languages Act.
