This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

Charlebois v Town of Riverview, 2014 CanLII 68479 (NB CA)

Date:
2014-11-19
File number:
88-14-CA
Citation:
Charlebois v Town of Riverview, 2014 CanLII 68479 (NB CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/gfbw0>, retrieved on 2024-03-29

COURT OF APPEAL OF

NEW BRUNSWICK

 

 

COUR D’APPEL DU

NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK

 

 

 

88-14-CA

 

 

B E T W E E N:

 

 

 

 

E N T R E :

 

MARIO CHARLEBOIS

 

APPELLANT

 

 

MARIO CHARLEBOIS

 

APPELANT

 

- and -

 

 

-et-

 

TOWN OF RIVERVIEW

 

RESPONDENT

 

 

TOWN OF RIVERVIEW

 

INTIMÉE

 

- and -

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

 

 

INTENDED INTERVENOR

 

 

Motion heard by:

The Honourable Justice Bell

 

 

-et-

 

LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK

 

INTERVENANT ÉVENTUEL

 

 

Motion entendue par :

l’honorable juge Bell

 

Date of hearing:

September 29, 2014

 

 

Date de l’audience :

le 29 septembre 2014

 

Date of decision:

November 19, 2014

 

 

Date de la décision :

le 19 novembre 2014

 

Counsel at hearing:

 

For the appellant:

Mario Charlebois appeared in person

 

For the respondent Town of Riverview:

Benoit G. Arsenault

 

For the intended intervenor:

Gaétan Migneault

 

 

Avocats à l’audience :

 

Pour l’appelant :

Mario Charlebois a comparu en personne

 

Pour l’intimée Town of Riverview :

Benoit G. Arsenault

 

Pour l’intervenant éventuel :

Gaétan Migneault

 


 

 

 

DECISION

 

[1]                                                            Section 35 of the Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5 (the Act), establishes the requirements for the publication of municipal by-laws in bilingual format. Section 35 provides as follows:

 

35(1) A municipality whose official language minority population represents at least 20% of its total population is required to adopt and publish its by-laws in both official languages.

 

35(1) Une municipalité dont la population de langue officielle minoritaire atteint au moins 20 % de la population totale est tenue d’adopter et de publier ses arrêtés dans les deux langues officielles.

 

[2]                                                            Only 7.7% of the population of the Town of Riverview indicate that French is their first language. Consequently, the Town is not required to provide bilingual services as required by s. 35 of the Act.

 

[3]                                                            Subsections 16(2) and 18(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide as follows:

 

16(2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.

 

18(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative.

16(2) Le français et l’anglais sont les langues officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un statut et des droits et privilèges égaux quant à leur usage dans les institutions de la Législature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick.

 

18(2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes rendus et les procès-verbaux de la Législature du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimés et publiés en français et en anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant également force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant même valeur.

 

[4]                                                            In Charlebois v. Moncton (City), 2001 NBCA 117, 242 N.B.R. (2d) 259, the applicant disputed the validity of municipal by-laws enacted in English only. This Court held that:

 

The purpose of subsection 18(2) is clear: to ensure equal access to Anglophones and Francophones to the statutes of this province. This provision was not enacted and confirmed in the Charter in a vacuum. […]

 

Municipal governments play a very significant role in the lives of the citizens of this province. Given the stated objective of the language right provided for in subsection 18(2), the requirement of substantive equality of status of the official languages and of the two official language communities, and the remedial character of this provision, excluding municipal by-laws from the expression “statutes of the legislature” used in subsection 18(2) would, in my view, be incompatible with the preservation and development of official language communities. […]

 

By interpreting subsection 18(2) purposively and in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities, I think that it is necessary to extend the meaning of the term “statutes” used in subsection 18(2) to include municipal by-laws. In my view, any other interpretation would frustrate the remedial purposes of this language right and be inconsistent with a liberal, dynamic and purposive construction of this right. [paras. 94-96]

 

[5]                                                            With regards to subsection 16(2) of the Charter, this Court stated, in an obiter dictum in Charlebois v. Moncton  (City), that:

 

[…] On the basis of a broad, generous and purposive interpretation of subsection 16(2), I conclude, on the grounds already stated, that municipalities are “institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick” within the meaning of subsection 16(2) of the Charter. [para. 107]

 

[6]                                                            The New Brunswick government’s response to the decision rendered in Charlebois v. Moncton (City) was to repeal the former Act entitled Official Languages of New Brunswick Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. O-1, and to enact the new legislation which came into force on August 5, 2002. In Charlebois v. Saint John (City), 2005 SCC 74, [2005] 3 S.C.R.  563, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the new legislation, but the issue it considered was limited to whether or not the City of Saint John was an “institution” for the purposes of section 22 of the Act. The constitutionality of the Act or parts of it were not in issue.

 

[7]                                                            In the instant case, Mr. Charlebois disputes, on several fronts, the constitutionality of section 35 of the Act, which he believes to be a retreat from the decision rendered in Charlebois v. Moncton (City) and unconstitutional in light of subsections 16(2) and 18(2) of the Charter.

 

[8]                                                            In response to legal proceedings brought by the Town of Riverview against him for failure to conform to a municipal by-law enacted in English only, Mr. Charlebois filed a motion seeking various remedies. As a result of the hearing of a motion before the Court of Queen’s Bench (Riverview (Town) v. Charlebois, 2014 NBBR 154, 421 N.B.R. (2d) 292) and the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal (Charlebois v. Riverview (Town), [2014] N.B.J. No. 28  (C.A.) (QL)), the remedies sought have been narrowed to the following:

 

[TRANSLATION]

1.      That Form 16D of the New Brunswick Rules of Court be declared invalid and of no force or effect for use by the Town of Riverview;

 

2.   That the Town of Riverview resolution dated May 13, 2013, concerning the property be declared invalid;

 

4.   That any order issued by Andrew Newell concerning the property situated at 101 Hillsborough Road (PIN 00648824) be declared invalid;

 

5.   That the Town of Riverview Building By-law R300-10-1 and Zoning By-law 300-5 be declared invalid and/or that the Town of Riverview proceed with the reading and adoption of Building By-law R300-10-1 and Zoning By-law 300-5 in both official languages within 30 days of the issuance of the order.

 

[9]                                                            In the grounds to be argued and the statutory provisions to be relied upon in Form 37A, Mr. Charlebois set out the following:

 

[TRANSLATION]
The Town of Riverview is an institution within the meaning of subsection 20(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as such is subject to subsections 16(2), 16.1(1), 16.1(2), 18(2), 19(2), and 24(1) of the Charter […]

[Underlining in original text.]

 

Notwithstanding clear caselaw to the effect that municipalities are provincial institutions under the Charter, our legislators have chosen to adopt legislation that violates subsection 16.1(2) of the Charter […]

[Underlining in original text.]

 

In order to justify its violation of the provisions of the Charter, the Town of Riverview relies on the provisions of the Official Languages Act which exempt the Town of Riverview from having to provide its services in both official languages and limit the services offered by municipalities in both official languages.

 

Provincial legislation allows the Town of Riverview to violate subsections 16(1), 16(2), 16(3), 16.1(1), 16.1(2), 18(2), 19(2) and 20(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, and An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick. Consequently, relying on subsection 24(1) of the Charter, Mr. Charlebois asks the Court to grant him the remedy it deems just and appropriate under the circumstances and to issue the orders requested, in view of the fact that our legislators have failed to ensure that their institutions take the necessary steps to guarantee the long overdue equality of both linguistic communities.

 

[10]                                                        In his notice to the Attorney General of New Brunswick and to the Attorney General of Canada pursuant to the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, Mr. Charlebois stated the following, among other things:

 

[TRANSLATION]

1)        That subsection 35(1) of the Official Languages Act be declared invalid and of no force and effect given that it violates subsections 16(2), 16.1(1), 16.1(2), 18(2) and 19(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick. Mr. Charlebois submits that subsection 35(1) does not recognize the Town of Riverview as an institution under the Official Languages Act.

 

2)      That the by-laws and resolutions of the Town of Riverview be declared invalid and of no force and effect given that they violate subsections 16(2), 16.1(1), 16.1(2), 18(2) and 19(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick.

 

[11]                                                        The four orders sought in paragraph 8 which had not been previously struck were nonetheless dismissed by the trial judge. I grant leave to appeal the dismissal of the following order sought:

 

[TRANSLATION]
That the Town of Riverview Building By-law R300-10-1 and Zoning By-law 300-5 be declared invalid and/or that the Town of Riverview proceed with the reading and adoption of Building By‑law R300-10-1 and Zoning By-law 300-5 in both official languages within 30 days of the issuance of the order.

 

[12]                                                        I do not grant leave to appeal the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the other three orders sought by Mr. Charlebois, namely, numbers 1, 2 and 4.

 

[13]                                                        There is no order of costs.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                   

B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. / j.c.a.

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick / Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick