Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General)
Encyclopedia
Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 238, 2005 SCC 15 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
on the constitutional protection of minority language
rights under section 23
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The case was part of a trilogy of minority language rights cases including Solski (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 14 and Casimir v. Quebec (Attorney General)
, 2005 SCC 16.
A number of French
-speaking families who wanted their children educated in English but did not qualify under the Charter of the French Language
for English schooling challenged the French Charter as a violation of their equality rights under sections 10 and 12 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
.
The Court rejected the claim. It held that the parents were not protected under the minority language rights provision in section 23 of the Canadian Charter. The Court also found that the equality right cannot be used to invalidate other rights under the Constitution; consequently there was no violation.
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 the constitutional protection of 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 under section 23
Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that constitutionally guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking minorities in Quebec...
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 case was part of a trilogy of minority language rights cases including Solski (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 14 and Casimir v. Quebec (Attorney General)
Casimir v. Quebec (Attorney General)
Okwuobi v. Lester B. Pearson School Board; Casimir v. Quebec ; Zorilla v. Quebec , 2005 SCC 16, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on minority language rights...
, 2005 SCC 16.
A number of French
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...
-speaking families who wanted their children educated in English but did not qualify under the Charter of the French Language
Charter of the French Language
The Charter of the French Language , also known as Bill 101 and Loi 101, is a law in the province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the only official language of Quebec, and framing fundamental language rights for everyone in the province...
for English schooling challenged the French Charter as a violation of their equality rights under sections 10 and 12 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975...
.
The Court rejected the claim. It held that the parents were not protected under the minority language rights provision in section 23 of the Canadian Charter. The Court also found that the equality right cannot be used to invalidate other rights under the Constitution; consequently there was no violation.