Charlebois v. Saint John (City)
Encyclopedia
Charlebois v. Saint John (City) [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada
on minority language
rights in New Brunswick
. The Court found no statutory obligation on municipalities for bilingualism in court proceedings.
for not using the French language
in court proceedings. He maintained that the failure to provide bilingual services was a violation of Section 22 of the provincial Official Languages Act, which states that bilingual services should be provided by all institutions of the provincial government—which raised the question of whether a municipality is, legally speaking, a provincial institution.
Both the trial judge and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decided municipalities are not institutions. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found the definition of an "institution" is an institution which under legislation has a function related to government. This definition excludes municipalities, which are corporations, incorporated under provincial law.
Charlebois also challenged English-only municipal laws and won his case before the Court of Appeal with arguments regarding section 18
, section 16
, and section 16.1
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The Court of Appeal decision is also known as Charlebois v. Mowat et ville de Moncton. The government of New Brunswick said it would not appeal this decision and instead provided the affected municipalities with the funds needed to provide French-language versions of their municipal statutes.
emphasized in her opinion that the majority would not consider constitutional issues but rather just the statutes and whether the municipality should have used French in the courts, and she found against Charlebois. Charron noted that in terms of constitutional law and section 16 of the Charter, municipalities were deemed institutions by the Court of Appeal. However, she decided that the Court of Appeal's decision related more to section 18 of the Charter and the commentary on section 16 and institutions was thus obiter dictum
. She thus turned back to the definition of an institution according to statutes. Looking at the Official Languages Act, Charron found that a municipality is considered to be an entity separate from institutions and each has different language responsibilities. The responsibilities for municipalities are more limited than those held by other institutions, and while the defendant in quasi-criminal law will have the choice as to what language is used, this is not necessarily true of civil proceedings. While the Charter of Rights could encourage a liberal reading of the law if the law is uncertain, Charron found that in this case the law was clear.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on minority language
Minority language
A minority language is a language spoken by a minority of the population of a territory. Such people are termed linguistic minorities or language minorities.-International politics:...
rights in New Brunswick
New Brunswick
New Brunswick is one of Canada's three Maritime provinces and is the only province in the federation that is constitutionally bilingual . The provincial capital is Fredericton and Saint John is the most populous city. Greater Moncton is the largest Census Metropolitan Area...
. The Court found no statutory obligation on municipalities for bilingualism in court proceedings.
Background
Mario Charlebois challenged the city of Saint JohnSaint John, New Brunswick
City of Saint John , or commonly Saint John, is the largest city in the province of New Brunswick, and the first incorporated city in Canada. The city is situated along the north shore of the Bay of Fundy at the mouth of the Saint John River. In 2006 the city proper had a population of 74,043...
for not using the French language
French language
French is a Romance language spoken as a first language in France, the Romandy region in Switzerland, Wallonia and Brussels in Belgium, Monaco, the regions of Quebec and Acadia in Canada, and by various communities elsewhere. Second-language speakers of French are distributed throughout many parts...
in court proceedings. He maintained that the failure to provide bilingual services was a violation of Section 22 of the provincial Official Languages Act, which states that bilingual services should be provided by all institutions of the provincial government—which raised the question of whether a municipality is, legally speaking, a provincial institution.
Both the trial judge and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decided municipalities are not institutions. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found the definition of an "institution" is an institution which under legislation has a function related to government. This definition excludes municipalities, which are corporations, incorporated under provincial law.
Charlebois also challenged English-only municipal laws and won his case before the Court of Appeal with arguments regarding section 18
Section Eighteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eighteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Charter that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 requires that all statutes and other records...
, section 16
Section Sixteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Sixteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first of several sections of the Charter dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French...
, and section 16.1
Section Sixteen One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the newest section of the Charter. It was enacted by the Constitution Amendment, 1993 and guarantees equality between English-speaking and French-speaking New Brunswickers.Section 16.1 is not to be confused with subsection 16 , which...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Court of Appeal decision is also known as Charlebois v. Mowat et ville de Moncton. The government of New Brunswick said it would not appeal this decision and instead provided the affected municipalities with the funds needed to provide French-language versions of their municipal statutes.
Decision
Justice Louise CharronLouise Charron
Louise Charron is a Canadian jurist. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in October, 2004, and is the first native-born Franco-Ontarian Supreme Court judge...
emphasized in her opinion that the majority would not consider constitutional issues but rather just the statutes and whether the municipality should have used French in the courts, and she found against Charlebois. Charron noted that in terms of constitutional law and section 16 of the Charter, municipalities were deemed institutions by the Court of Appeal. However, she decided that the Court of Appeal's decision related more to section 18 of the Charter and the commentary on section 16 and institutions was thus obiter dictum
Obiter dictum
Obiter dictum is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision...
. She thus turned back to the definition of an institution according to statutes. Looking at the Official Languages Act, Charron found that a municipality is considered to be an entity separate from institutions and each has different language responsibilities. The responsibilities for municipalities are more limited than those held by other institutions, and while the defendant in quasi-criminal law will have the choice as to what language is used, this is not necessarily true of civil proceedings. While the Charter of Rights could encourage a liberal reading of the law if the law is uncertain, Charron found that in this case the law was clear.