Charlebois v. Saint John (City), (2005) 342 N.R. 203 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 342 N.R. 203 (SCC);2005 SCC 74

Charlebois v. Saint John (2005), 342 N.R. 203 (SCC)

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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. DE.012

Mario Charlebois (appellant) v. City of Saint John (respondent)

Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick (appellant) v. City of Saint John (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Union of Municipalities of New Brunswick, Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, and Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc. (intervenors)

(30467; 2005 SCC 74; 2005 CSC 74)

Indexed As: Charlebois v. Saint John (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

December 15, 2005.

Summary:

Charlebois filed a Notice of Motion drafted in French, seeking an order compelling the City of Saint John to offer its services equal­ly in both official languages. Charlebois also challenged the constitutional validity of nu­mer­ous provisions of the Official Lan­guages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5, and sought to have them declared invalid. The City replied with a motion to strike. The City drafted its court processes, pleadings and affidavits in English. The Attorney General intervened. The Attorney General filed court processes in French and quoted legal decisions and other documents in English, without transla­tion. Charlebois invoked s. 22 of the Act and protested the use of the English language by the City in its processes, pleadings and af­fi­davits, and by the Attorney General in his ref­erences.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 255 N.B.R.(2d) 396; 668 A.P.R. 396, held that the City was not an "institution" within the meaning of s. 22. Therefore, the City, a respondent in a civil proceeding commenced in French, and its employees and legal coun­sel could use either official language of New Brunswick in court processes, pleadings and affidavits. Also, the Attorney General was en­titled to use references in the English language. The court postponed the hearing of Charlebois's original application to a later date. Charlebois appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a de­cision reported 275 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 722 A.P.R. 203, dismissed the appeal. Charlebois appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dissent­ing, after noting that the appeal was about the interpretation of s. 22 and not its consti­tutionality, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 2706

Language - General principles - Institution of the legislature and government of New Brunswick - Section 22 of the Official Lan­guages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5, provided that an "institution" which was a party in a civil proceeding "shall use, in any oral or written pleadings or any pro­cess issuing from a court, the official lan­guage chosen by the other party" - Section 1 of the Act defined "institution" but did not list municipalities - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that a municipality was not included in the s. 1 definition of "insti­tution" - As a result, a municipality was not bound by the require­ments of s. 22 - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 2723

Language - Court proceedings and pro­cesses - Choice of language by party - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2706 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2723

Language - Court proceedings and pro­cesses - Choice of language by party - Sec­tion 22 of the Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5, stipulated: "Where Her Majesty in right of the Province or an institution is a party to civil proceedings before a court, Her Majesty or the institu­tion concerned shall use, in any oral or writ­ten pleadings or any process issuing from a court, the official language chosen by the other party" - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that "oral or written pleadings" did not include evidence ten­der­ed in the course of proceeding - The court also affirmed that s. 22 did not create an obligation to translate case law cited or incorporated in a book of authorities - See paragraphs 7, 53.

Statutes - Topic 1411

Interpretation - Construction where mean­ing is not plain - General principles - Avoid­ance of conflict with Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a liberal and purposive approach to the interpretation of constitutional language guarantees and statutory language rights should be adopted in all cases, this did not mean that the ordinary rules of statutory in­terpretation had no place - Applied to this case, this meant that Charter values had no role to play where a contextual and purposive analysis of the Official Lan­guages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5, "re­moved all ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word 'institution'" defined in s. 1 of the Act - See paragraphs 23 and 24.

Statutes - Topic 2603

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - Intention from whole of sec­tion or statute - [See Statutes - Topic 2617 ].

Statutes - Topic 2617

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - Harmonization of statutes (incl. presumption of coherence) - Section 22 of the Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5, provided that an "institu­tion" which was a party in a civil proceed­ing "shall use, in any oral or written plead­ings or any process issuing from a court, the official language chosen by the other party" - Section 1 of the Act defined "in­stitution" but did not list municipalities - Sections 35 to 38 imposed certain language obligations on municipalities but did not in­clude the obligation found in s. 22 - The Supreme Court of Canada, in an appeal that involved the interpretation of s. 22 and not its constitutionality, stated that it was open to the Legislature to extend the s. 22 requirements only to those bodies listed under s. 1, leaving it up to municipalities to opt in pursuant to s. 37 - As a matter of statutory interpretation, that was the only interpretation that created no illogical or incoherent consequences when read in the con­text of the statute as a whole - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Charlebois v. Moncton (City) (2001), 242 N.B.R.(2d) 259; 628 A.P.R. 259 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 12, 29].

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, refd to. [paras. 23, 30].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, consd. [para. 23].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, 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; 599 A.P.R. 44; 2000 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Bruns­wick Inc. and Association des 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. 35].

Lalonde et al. v. Commission de restruc­tura­tion des services de santé (Ont.) (2001), 153 O.A.C. 1; 56 O.R.(3d) 505 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 40].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 40].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 40].

Sommers v. R., [1959] S.C.R. 678, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Gautreau (1989), 101 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 254 A.P.R. 1 (T.D.) revd. (1990), 109 N.B.R.(2d) 54; 273 A.P.R. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Haché (E.) (1993), 139 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 357 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Montreal (City) v. MacDonald, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460; 67 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Potvin (M.) (2004), 187 O.A.C. 285; 69 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Simard (1995), 87 O.A.C. 114; 27 O.R.(3d) 116 (Eng.); 27 O.R.(3d) 97 (Fr.) (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. O-0.5, sect. 1, sect. 22 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 311, 312 [para. 46, English version]; 333, 334 [para. 42, English version].

Coté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois (3rd Ed. 1999), pp. 392, 393, 394 [para. 46, French version]; 421, 422 [para. 42, French version].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 10].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 368 [para. 39].

Counsel:

Mario Charlebois, appearing on his own behalf;

Michel Doucet and Mark C. Power, for the appellant Association des juristes d'ex­pression française du Nouveau-Bruns­wick;

Mélanie C. Tompkins and Marie-France Major, for the respondent;

Alain Préfontaine, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Gaétan Migneault, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Chantal A. Thibodeau, for the intervener the Union of Municipalities of New Brunswick;

Johane Tremblay and Christine Ruest, for the intervener the Commissioner of Offi­cial Languages of Canada;

Antoine F. Hacault and Karine Pelletier, for the intervener Fédération des associ­ations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Université de Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, for the appellant Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick;

Mélanie C. Tompkins, Saint John, New Brunswick, for the respondent;

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Barry Spalding, Saint John, New Bruns­wick, for the intervener the Union of Mu­nicipalities of New Brunswick;

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada;

Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.

This appeal was heard on October 20, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastara­che, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on De­cember 15, 2005 and the following reasons were filed:

Charron, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Fish, Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 25;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 26 to 56.