2025

The court is hearing an appeal between the Minister of Justice and Public Safety (appellant) and the Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne (respondent). The dispute concerns the New Brunswick government's decision to reorganize judicial services in the judicial district of Bathurst, including closing the Caraquet courthouse and designating the Tracadie courthouse as a satellite court. The Forum des maires de la péninsule acadienne had won its case at first instance.

In this decision, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal clarified the scope of constitutional language rights in the context of the administrative reorganization of judicial services. The dispute concerned the closure of the Caraquet courthouse and the centralization of certain judicial activities in Bathurst, a decision that was challenged on the grounds that it contravened sections 16 and 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the contested decision did not, in itself, infringe on the language rights guaranteeing the equal status and use of English and French in New Brunswick. It emphasized that these constitutional provisions ensure access to judicial services in the official language of one's choice, but do not impose a constitutional obligation to maintain or locate judicial institutions in specific geographic locations within predominantly French-speaking regions.

The ruling clearly distinguishes between a direct infringement of language rights and the indirect effects that may result from administrative decisions regarding the organization of public services. In the absence of evidence demonstrating a real reduction in access to justice in French or institutional inequality between linguistic communities, the Court refuses to extend the scope of section 16.1 to include a guarantee of the maintenance of local judicial infrastructure.

Finally, the Court reiterates that the obligation to advance and protect linguistic communities, although constitutional in nature, does not transform every administrative decision with a regional impact into a justiciable constitutional issue. The ruling thus reaffirms a cautious and limited approach to judicial intervention in matters of language rights, particularly when services remain available in both official languages.

[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.

In this decision, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal brought by Mr. Régis Beniey under sections 77 and 79 of the Official Languages Act (OLA). The applicant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had violated his language rights by requiring him, in 2017, to sign a unilingual English form in the course of his employment, despite the fact that his preferred official language is French.

On procedural grounds, the Court concluded that the appeal was fatally flawed due to the absence from the record of the complaint filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages. This omission prevented the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, since the remedy provided for in section 77 OLPA concerns the merits of the complaint itself.

In the alternative, the Court analyzed the merits and concluded that no violation of the OLA had been established. It specified that Part IV (communications with the public) does not apply to employment relations, that Part VII, as it existed in 2017, did not confer justiciable individual rights, and that the situation fell instead under Part V (language of work). However, since the applicant worked in a non-designated bilingual region, the Act did not require the Agency to provide the form in the official language of his choice.

The Court also emphasizes that the forms in question had been made bilingual before the complaint was filed in 2024, meaning that the complaint was no longer valid at the time it was filed. In the absence of a violation and proof of harm, no remedy is granted.

The Court’s ruling concerns s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) in relation to the Act to amend mainly the Education Act with regard to school organization and governance (“Bill 40”), which was enacted by the National Assembly in 2020. 

Section 23 of the Charter gives Canadian citizens contemplated by that section the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the linguistic minority of their province of residence – i.e., English in Quebec and French in the other Canadian provinces and territories. When the number of children warrants it, s. 23 includes the right to educational facilities managed and controlled by the linguistic minority.

Bill 40 institutes a profound transformation in Quebec regarding the governance of primary and secondary education. First and foremost, Bill 40 transforms school boards governed by elected councils of commissioners into school service centres governed by a board of directors. It also radically alters the mission of these school service centres when compared to that of the school boards they are replacing. Whereas the role and mission of a school board were to organize and ensure the quality of educational services within its territory, the role and mission of a new school service centre are, instead, to provide goods and services to the educational institutions within its territory. The role of a school service centre’s board of directors is now one of oversight rather than direction. 

The new role and mission are reflected in the composition of the new board of directors, the reduced remuneration paid to its members, the transfer of responsibilities to the director general (who now acts as spokesperson) and to employee committees (notably the commitment-to-student-success committee), and the increased powers of the Minister of Education. 

In the French-speaking sector, elected commissioners are replaced by a board of directors made up of 15 members who are appointed rather than elected.

In the English-speaking sector, Bill 40 preserves school elections for most board of director positions, presumably in order to take into account the linguistic minority’s rights of management and control flowing from s. 23 of the Charter. At the same time, however, Bill 40 establishes eligibility criteria for these elections that disqualify a very large segment of the linguistic minority as candidates. 

On May 15, 2020, the Quebec English School Boards Association (which encompasses all of the province’s English-language school boards), the Lester B. Pearson School Board and Adam Gordon, a s. 23 rights holder, filed an application with the Superior Court to have certain provisions of Bill 40 and the Education Act declared inconsistent with s. 23 of the Charter. 

On August 2, 2023, the Honourable Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court declared that certain provisions of Bill 40 and certain provisions of the Education Act are of no force or effect with respect to Quebec’s English-language school boards because they unjustifiably infringe the rights guaranteed to Quebec’s minority language group by s. 23 of the Charter.

The Attorney General of Quebec (the “AGQ”) appealed this judgment before the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

The Court of Appeal essentially upholds the judge’s findings of constitutional invalidity, but overturns some of the remedies he had ordered.

The main issues in dispute are the scope of the rights conferred by s. 23(3)(b) of the Charter and who exercises these rights. Section 23(3)(b) provides that the right of citizens of Canada under ss. 23(1) and (2) to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in “minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds”.

In Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342 (“Mahe”), the Supreme Court concluded that s. 23(3)(b) includes management and control rights over minority language educational facilities. The Supreme Court there concluded that the measure of management and control may, depending on the number of students involved, warrant an independent school board for the linguistic minority. These rights include, at a minimum, the exclusive authority of the minority language representatives to make decisions relating to the minority language instruction and facilities, including with respect to: (a) expenditures of funds provided for such instruction and facilities; (b) the appointment and direction of those responsible for the administration of such instruction and facilities; (c) the establishment of programs of instruction; (d) the recruitment and assignment of personnel, including teachers; and (e) the making of agreements for education and services for minority language pupils.

The AGQ argues that these rights of management and control are vested in the parents of students enrolled in an English‑language educational institution, rather than in all individuals comprising the linguistic minority. The Court of Appeal concludes, instead, that those who exercise these management and control rights are the representatives chosen by and from among all individuals comprising the linguistic minority. In Quebec, this linguistic minority includes Canadian citizens (a) whose first language learned and still understood is English; (b) who received their primary education in Canada in English; or (c) of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary instruction in English in Canada. 

Like the trial judge, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill 40, of the Education Act and of the Act respecting school elections to elect certain members of the boards of directors of English-language school service centres that deal with the following matters do not comply with the management and control rights conferred on the linguistic minority and guaranteed by s. 23(3)(b) of the Charter:

(a)   the provisions that allow certain individuals who are not members of Quebec’s linguistic minority to vote and run in school elections in the English-language education sector;

(b)   the provisions that severely limit eligibility for positions on the boards of directors of the new English-language school service centres, namely, those that: (i) reserve the majority of positions for parents who have children attending school and who are also members of a school’s governing board, which effectively disqualifies 99% of eligible voters as candidates for these positions; (ii) impose professional qualification requirements for other members of the board of directors, which effectively excludes about half of the eligible voters as candidates; and (iii) allow school service centre employees (who are not necessarily members of the linguistic minority) to designate members to sit on the board of directors;

(c)   the provisions that abolish the remuneration of board members and restrict access to the positions of chair or vice-chair of a board to members of the board who are parent representatives, provisions which, according to the evidence, effectively dissuade members of the linguistic minority from participating;

(d)   the provisions that withdraw the role of spokesperson from the school service centre’s chair and, instead, entrust it to the director general;

(e)   the provisions that transfer responsibility for developing the commitment-to-success plan from the board of directors to a committee made up exclusively of school service centre staff; this plan establishes the school service centre’s policy directions, targets and objectives; and

(f)   the provisions providing for budgetary measures that allow the Minister of Education to order that subsidies paid to a school service centre be used exclusively for specific purposes determined by the Minister.

The Court of Appeal, however, disagrees with the trial judge’s conclusion that s. 23 of the Charter imposes a constitutional duty on the legislature to consult representatives of the linguistic minority before enacting legislation relating to education.

The Court also disagrees with the judge’s decision to retain jurisdiction over the file in order to supervise a dialogue between the parties regarding the appropriate remedial legislation. 

Moreover, the Court disagrees with the judge’s decision to suspend the application to the English-language education sector, for a period of six months, of the provisions of Bill 40that are inextricably linked to those declared unconstitutional. The Court is of the opinion that such a judicial remedy has not been recognized in the context of a declaration of unconstitutionality. The Court therefore substitutes a declaration making these provisions inoperative with respect to the English-language education sector.

Note that the decision is only available in French

The Administrative Tribunal of Québec dismissed an application challenging the Minister of Education’s refusal to issue a declaration of eligibility for instruction in English (DAEA) under the Charter of the French Language.

The applicant argued that, despite having completed his entire primary and secondary education in English and despite the fact that all members of his sibling group had been granted a DAEA, he remained eligible for such a declaration. He also alleged that the refusal infringed the rights guaranteed by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Tribunal recalled that the Charter of the French Language limits eligibility for instruction in English to the period of compulsory schooling at the preschool, primary, and secondary levels. An application for eligibility must be made while the child is of school age and before the completion of compulsory schooling.

The Tribunal concluded that section 23 of the Canadian Charter protects the right of parents to have their children educated in the language of the linguistic minority, but does not confer an autonomous right to obtain a provincial eligibility certificate for an adult who has already completed compulsory schooling. The alleged prejudices relating to future access to English-language college education, to government services in English, or to the language rights of future children were found to be hypothetical.

The application was dismissed, as the Tribunal found no infringement of the applicant’s language rights.

This decision concerns the refusal by a professional regulatory body to register a French-speaking speech-language pathologist trained abroad on the basis that she did not meet the English language proficiency requirement. The applicant argued that her registration should have been granted on a conditional basis, as she undertook to practise exclusively in French within a francophone school board.

The applicant relied, in particular, on the underlying values of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and on the importance of access to professional services in French for the francophone minority. The regulatory body concluded that the English language proficiency requirement served the objective of public protection and that it lacked the authority to grant registration limited to practice in French.

On review, the decision-maker concluded that language rights protected by the Charter do not confer a right to professional registration and that the values underlying section 23 do not extend to the regulation of access to health professions. The English language proficiency requirement was found to be reasonable and consistent with the objective of public protection.

The application for review was dismissed.

In this case, the Federal Court was asked to rule, on a preliminary basis, on whether members of Parliament and their staff constitute “federal institutions” within the meaning of the Official Languages Act and are therefore subject to the language obligations set out in Part IV, among other provisions. The dispute arose from a complaint about a member of Parliament's unilingual response to a citizen who had communicated with her in both official languages.
The Court, hearing a motion to dismiss, refused to strike the application. It concluded that the issue raised serious questions of legislative and constitutional interpretation, particularly with regard to the scope of section 90 of the OLA relating to parliamentary privileges and its interaction with the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the absence of direct case law on the linguistic status of communications between members of Parliament and their constituents, the Court found that the appeal was not doomed to failure and deserved to be examined on its merits.
This decision therefore leaves open a fundamental question for Canadian language law: the extent of the linguistic obligations of parliamentarians in the exercise of their duties to the public.

In this case, Michael Moreau sought a mandatory injunction against the Halifax Port Authority to compel the defendants to file their pleadings and evidence in French, while communicating with him “informally” in English, even though he had chosen French as the language of the proceedings. He relied in particular on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act to support the existence of a right to “bilingual” proceedings and to the translation of an affidavit filed in English.
The Federal Court dismissed the motion. It noted that language rights in court proceedings establish a right to choose either official language (“optional unilingualism”), but not a right to require the simultaneous and interchangeable use of both languages in the same proceeding. Relying in particular on Supreme Court case law, including Mazraani v. Industrielle Alliance and Charlebois v. Saint John, the Court confirmed that neither the Charter nor the OLA confer a right to the translation of affidavit evidence.

In the absence of a strong appearance of right, irreparable harm, and a preponderance of inconveniences in its favor, the injunction was denied. The decision thus reaffirms that judicial language rights protect the freedom of linguistic choice of litigants, but do not create a general obligation of full procedural bilingualism.

In this decision, the Federal Court grants a motion to strike filed by the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority and strikes, without leave to amend, an application based on section 77 of the Official Languages Act. The dispute concerned the trilingual labeling (English, Spanish, French) of a container for sharp objects in the airport washrooms, with the applicant arguing that the order of languages infringed on its rights guaranteed by Part IV of the OLA and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Court reiterated the strict test applicable to motions to strike, as set out in JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Iris Technologies Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General): a motion to strike can only be granted if the application has “no chance of success.” In this case, however, the applicant itself admitted that the presence of both official languages complied with the OLA.
The Court concluded that neither the OLA nor its regulations impose a particular order between the official languages or prohibit the addition of a third language.The Treasury Board instruments invoked, particularly with regard to branding, are not binding on the airport authority and cannot create additional legal obligations. In the absence of a breach of the OLA or the Charter, none of the remedies sought—including mandamus or a declaration of unconstitutionality—could be granted.
The decision thus reaffirms that language rights guarantee access to services in either official language, but do not establish a general principle of graphic precedence of languages or a mandatory hierarchy in the presence of other languages.

This decision is part of a long-running legal dispute between the French-Language School Board of British Columbia (CSF) and the Province and the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE). It follows constitutional orders issued in 2016 and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020, which recognized the right of Francophones to homogeneous schools in several communities across the province, notably in west and northeast Vancouver, Abbotsford, Whistler, and West Victoria. In December 2020, the CSF filed this action on the grounds that these schools had still not been built.

On the merits, the court confirmed that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms imposes a positive—but not absolute—obligation on governments to fund and facilitate minority-language education. The scope of this obligation is assessed according to the standard of “all that is practically possible in the circumstances.” Justice Gomery, however, qualifies this formulation by clarifying that while the Province cannot be satisfied with merely exercising due diligence, practical considerations related to land acquisition and school construction remain relevant. Responsibility is shared: the Province must actively support the CSF, while the latter retains exclusive rights of management and control over its schools.

The court concluded that the Province failed to meet several of its obligations. It delayed enacting the legislative mechanisms for the transfer of school sites, notably Bill 22, and refused to disclose to the CSF the funding status of the capital budget established in 2016. For its part, the VBE was found to have violated its constitutional obligations by refusing to negotiate the transfer of the Laurier annex to the CSF and by failing to adequately incorporate the values underlying Section 23 into its decisions regarding surplus school sites.

With regard to remedies, the court orders the transfer of title to the Queen Elizabeth Annex (QEA) site to the CSF within 90 days, as well as the commencement of negotiations regarding the Laurier Annex within 60 days. Most importantly, it ruled that the lack of expropriation authority for the CSF to acquire private land constitutes an unjustified violation of section 23, and ordered the Province to enact legislation to that effect within six months. It also ruled that the VBE is required to reasonably consider and proportionately balance the importance of minority-language education in all its decisions regarding surplus sites. However, the tribunal refuses to retain ongoing oversight jurisdiction over the parties, finding that such a measure would exceed its institutional role, prolong the adversarial climate, and undermine the cooperation necessary for the effective implementation of section 23.