Charlebois v. Mowat,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Larlee, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 NBCA 117
• Citation: (2001), 242 N.B.R.(2d) 259 (CA),2001 NBCA 117,242 NBR (2d) 259,[2001] NBJ No 480 (QL),(2001), 242 NBR(2d) 259 (CA),242 NBR(2d) 259,[2001] N.B.J. No 480 (QL),242 N.B.R.(2d) 259
• Date: 20 December 2001
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

Charlebois v. Moncton (2001), 242 N.B.R.(2d) 259 (CA);

    242 R.N.-B.(2e) 259; 628 A.P.R. 259

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.030

Mario Charlebois (applicant/appellant) v. John R. Mowat and the City of Moncton (respondents/respondents) and the Province of New Brunswick, l'Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, la Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick and the Commissioner of Official Languages (interveners)

(166/00/CA; 2001 NBCA 117)

Indexed As: Charlebois v. Moncton (City)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Larlee, JJ.A.

December 20, 2001.

Summary:

Relying on ss. 16 to 20 of the Char­ter, Charlebois applied to have a City of Monc­ton bylaw declared invalid on the ground that it had been enacted in English only and that the City had not complied with its constitutional obligation to enact its bylaws and regulations in the two official languages of the province, i.e., English and French. He also sought to have an order made under the impugned bylaw declared invalid.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the ap­plication in a decision reported at 229 N.B.R.(2d) 83; 592 A.P.R. 83. Charle­bois appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court declared the bylaws of the City of Moncton invalid. However, it suspended the effectiveness of its declaration for a period of one year to enable the City of Moncton and the govern­ment of New Brunswick to comply with their constitutional obligations.

Civil Rights - Topic 2706

Language - General principles - Institution of the legislature and government of New Brunswick - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8301.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2762

Language - Bilingual legislation including translation of statutes - Statutes of the legislature of New Brunswick - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal declared the bylaws of the City of Moncton to be in­valid and of no force and effect because they had not been enacted, printed and published in French and English thereby infringing s. 18(2) of the Charter - The Court held that the government of New Brunswick had a duty to ensure by positive action that municipal governments comply with the constitutional obligation provided for in s. 18(2) - The Court, while refrain­ing from trenching upon the role of the legislature and imposing standards upon the legislature, stated that the government has a choice in the institutional means by which its obligations can be met - For example, a possible approach that would meet the constitutional obligation of the principle of equality of official languages might be to implement a language policy whereby municipal services would be available in both official languages only where numbers warrant - The Court sus­pended the effectiveness of its declaration for a period of one year to enable the City of Moncton and the government of New Brunswick to comply with their constitu­tional obligations - See paragraphs 111 to 134.

Civil Rights - Topic 8301.3

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Municipalities - Relying on ss. 16 to 20 of the Charter, Charlebois applied to have a bylaw of the City of Moncton declared invalid on the ground that it had been enacted in English only and that the City had not complied with its constitutional obligation to enact its bylaws and regulations in the two of­ficial languages of the province, i.e., English and French - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and declared the bylaws of the City of Monc­ton invalid - The Court held that: 1) New Brunswick municipalities are subject to the Charter; 2) municipalities are "institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick" within the meaning of s. 16(2); and 3) the City of Moncton is subject to the obligation provided for in s. 18(2) to enact, print and publish its bylaws in both official languages - See paragraphs 97 to 110.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the City of Moncton had infringed its constitutional obligation under s. 18(2) of the Charter because it had failed to enact, print and publish its bylaws in the two official languages of New Brunswick - The Court also held that this failure was an outright denial of a Charter right - It could not be a limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 118 et 119.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declara­tion of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2762 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8462

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Purposive test - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated: "Gener­ally speaking, the Supreme Court can be said to advocate a large, liberal, dynamic and purposive interpretation of constitu­tional rights" - With respect to language rights in particular, the Court again quoted the Supreme Court which had held that: 1) Language rights must " in all cases " be interpreted purposively, in a manner con­sistent with the preservation and develop­ment of official language communities in Canada; and 2) the existence of a political compromise is without consequence with regard to the scope of the resulting lan­guage rights - The Court of Appeal also stated that, legally, it is incumbent upon the courts to delineate the scope of Char­ter-guaranteed language rights by reference to the history and sources of these rights, to determine their purpose and scope, as well as to the constitutional documents themselves - See paragraphs 20 to 31, 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 8484

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Language rights - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8462 and Civil Rights - Topic 8561 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8484

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Language rights - Section 16(2) of the Charter provides that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick - Section 16.1(1) provides that the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational and cultural institutions - The New Bruns­wick Court of Appeal held that the equal­ity provided under s. 16.1 is based not on the equality of the languages as provided for in s. 16(2) rather but on the equality of New Brunswick's English linguistic com­munity and French linguistic community - Unlike s. 16(2), this provision therefore includes collective rights whose holders are the linguistic communities themselves - See paragraph 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 8484

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Language rights - Section 16(2) of the Charter provides that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that equality does not have a lesser meaning in matters of language - The principle of equality enshrined in s. 16(2) must be interpreted according to its true meaning, i.e., substantive equality is the applicable norm - Substantive equality means that language rights that are institu­tionally based require government action for their implementation and therefore create obligations for the government - See paragraphs 62 to 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 8484

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Language rights - Section 16.1(1) of the Charter provides that the English linguistic community and the French linguistic com­munity in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural insti­tutions as are necessary for the preser­vation and promotion of those communities - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the purpose of this provision is to maintain the two official languages, as well as the cultures that they represent, and to encourage the flourishing and development of the two official language communities - It was remedial in nature and had concrete consequences - It imposed on the provin­cial government an obligation to take positive measures to ensure that the minor­ity official language community has equal­ity of status and equal rights and privileges with the majority official language com­munity - See paragraphs 78 to 80.

Civil Rights - Topic 8561

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases­ - Statutes of the legislature of New Brunswick - Section 18(2) of the Charter provides that the statutes of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the phrase "statutes ... of the legislature" included municipal bylaws - The Court also held that: "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 bylaws 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. Depriving members of the minor­ity language community of equal access would impede the attainment of the objec­tive of substantive equality. In addition, this conclusion is supported by the govern­ing principle of the respect for minority rights stated in Reference re Secession of Quebec, supra. The Supreme Court stated that this principle underlies our constitu­tional order and continues to exercise influence in the operation and interpreta­tion of our Constitution" - See paragraphs 1 to 96.

Municipal Law - Topic 3228

Bylaws - Form and content - Language - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8301.3 and Civil Rights - Topic 8561 ].

Cases Noticed:

Blaikie v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1981] S.C.R. 312; 36 N.R. 120, consd. [para. 4].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Bruns­wick Inc. and Association de Conseillers Scolaires Francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; 238 N.R. 131; 121 B.C.A.C. 227; 198 W.A.C. 227, consd. [para. 4].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, consd. [para. 22].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), consd. [para. 22].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, consd. [para. 23].

Official Languages Act, Re, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182; 1 N.R. 582; 7 N.B.R.(2d) 526, refd to. [para. 26].

Jones v. Attorney General of New Bruns­wick - see Official Languages Act, Re.

Blaikie v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016; 30 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 26].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 26].

Montréal (City) v. MacDonald, [19­86] 1 S.C.R. 460; 67 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Bilodeau v. Manitoba (Attorney General), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 449; 67 N.R. 108; 42 Man.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 27].

Reference Re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.) - see Reference Re Roman Catholic Se­parate High Schools Funding.

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 28].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 28].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'École Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Al­berta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 28].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference (No. 2), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 212; 133 N.R. 88; 76 Man.R.(2d) 124; 10 W.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 28].

Reference Re Public Schools Act (Man.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839; 149 N.R. 241; 83 Man.R.(2d) 241; 36 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 29].

Arsenault-Cameron et al. v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3; 249 N.R. 140; 184 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 559 A.P.R. 44, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, consd. [para. 46].

Lalonde et al. v. Commission de restruc­turation des services de santé (Ont.) (1999), 131 O.A.C. 291; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 263 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2001), 153 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Eurig Estate v. Ontario Court (General Division), Registrar, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 565; 231 N.R. 55; 114 O.A.C. 55, refd to. [para. 57].

Bacon v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. et al. (1999), 180 Sask.R. 20; 205 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Hogan et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al. (2000), 189 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 571 A.P.R. 183; 183 D.L.R.(4th) 225 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Paré (1986), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 260 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Simard (H.) (1995), 87 O.A.C. 114; 27 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 101].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 101].

Harrison v. University of British Colum­bia; Connell v. University of Bri­tish Columbia, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 451; 120 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 101].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 101].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 101].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298, refd to. [para. 103].

Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 103].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 103].

Public School Boards Association (Alta.) et al. v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 409; 260 N.R. 127; 266 A.R. 201; 228 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 103].

Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Town) (1999), 125 O.A.C. 139; 179 D.L.R.(4th) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

McCutcheon v. Toronto (City) (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 652 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Haché (E.) (1993), 139 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 357 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), consd. [para. 104].

R. v. Gautreau (1989), 101 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 254 A.P.R. 1 (T.D.), consd. [para. 105].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 114].

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 126].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (At­torney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 130].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 16(2), sect. 16(3), sect. 16.1(1), sect. 16.1(2), sect. 17(2), sect. 18(2), sect. 19(2), sect. 20(2), sect. 32(1) [para. 15].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 133 [para. 15].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 15].

Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, An Act Recognizing the, S.N.B. 1981, c. O-1.1, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 3 [para. 15].

Manitoba Act, 1870, S.C. 1870, c. 3, sect. 23 [para. 15].

Official Languages of New Brunswick Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. O-1, sect. 2(a), sect. 2(b), sect. 11 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bastarache, Michel, Language Rights in Canada (1986), generally [para. 69].

Bastarache, Michel, The Principle of Equality of the Official Languages, in Language Rights in Canada (1986), p. 524 [para. 69].

Beaudoin and Tarnopolsky, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), p. 559 [para. 69].

Braën, André, Language Rights, in Bas­tarache, Michel, Language Rights in Canada (1986), generally [para. 69].

Elliott, Robin, References, Structural Ar­gumentation and the Organizing Princi­ples of Canada's Constitution (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 67, pp. 117 to 118 [para. 58].

Foucher, Pierre, et Snow, Gérard, Le ré­gime juridique des langues dans l'ad­ministration publique au Nouveau-Bruns­wick (1983), 24 C. de D. 81, generally [para. 105].

New Brunswick, Journals of the Legis­lative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, 1992 Session (December 4, 1992), pp. 4708 to 4721 [para. 78].

New Brunswick, Towards Equality of Official Languages in New Brunswick (1982), pp. 337 to 384 [para. 127]; 371 [para. 85]; 427 [para. 116].

Pelletier, B., Bilan des droits linguistiques au Canada (1995), 55 R. du B. 611, generally [para. 69].

Tremblay, André, Language Rights in Beaudoin and Tarnopolsky, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), p. 559 [para. 69].

Counsel:

Mario Charlebois, appeared in person;

Terrence E. LeBlanc, for the respondents, Mowat and the City of Moncton;

Gabriel Bourgeois and Gaëtan Mignault, for the intervener, the Province of New Brunswick;

Michel Doucet, for the intervener, Asso­ciation des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick;

Christian Michaud et Bruno Roy, for the intervener, Société des Acadiens et Aca­diennes du Nouveau-Brunswick;

Jean Eugène Trahan et Joanne Tremblay, for the intervener, the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This appeal was heard on January 25, 2001, by Daigle, C.J.N.B., and Ayles and Larlee, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The Court's decision was issued on De­cember 20, 2001, by Daigle, C.J.N.B.