Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., (2003) 312 N.R. 1 (SCC)
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | November 06, 2003 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (2003), 312 N.R. 1 (SCC);2003 SCC 62 |
Doucet-Boudreau v. N.S. (2003), 312 N.R. 1 (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: [2003] N.R. TBEd. NO.009
Glenda Doucet-Boudreau, Alice Boudreau, Jocelyn Bourbeau, Bernadette Cormier-Marchand, Yolande Levert and Cyrille Leblanc, in their name and in the name of all Nova Scotia parents who are entitled to the right, under Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have their children educated in the language of the minority, namely the French language, in publicly funded French language school facilities, and Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse Inc. (appellants) v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, Conseil scolaire acadien provincial (CSAP), Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de Common Law Inc. (FAJEFCL) et Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones (intervenors)
(28807; 2003 SCC 62; 2003 CSC 62)
Indexed As: Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
November 6, 2003.
Summary:
Parents who wished their children to be schooled in the French language applied under s. 23 of the Charter for an order directing the province and French school board to provide publicly funded homogeneous French programs and facilities at the secondary school level for five separate regions (Chéticamp, Isle Madame, Clare, Argyle and Kingston/Greenwood). The province submitted that s. 23 Charter rights were being met where the province was committed to providing such programs and facilities, notwithstanding a delay in implementation. The parents submitted that promises did not constitute compliance with s. 23.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2000), 185 N.S.R.(2d) 246; 575 A.P.R. 246, held that the s. 23 parents had a legal right to have their children educated in French homogeneous programs at French homogeneous facilities at the secondary level, paid out of public funds, and provided without unreasonable delay. The province and French school board were directed to use their best efforts to comply with the directive by certain dates. The trial judge retained jurisdiction to hear progress reports by the province on the status of their "best efforts" to provide the school facilities by dates fixed by him. The delayed implementation of homogeneous schools was contrary to the purpose and intent of s. 23. The province was not entitled to wait for a consensus among s. 23 parents. Section 23 did not require consensus or approval. The province appealed that part of the order where the trial judge retained jurisdiction to hear the progress reports on the ground that he lacked jurisdiction to do so.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Freeman, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2001), 194 N.S.R.(2d) 323; 606 A.P.R. 323, allowed the appeal. The trial judge could not extend his jurisdiction to monitor implementation of the Charter remedy he granted. In any event, the extension of jurisdiction by the trial judge was both unwarranted and unnecessary. The parents appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel, Deschamps, Major and Binnie, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's order that he retained jurisdiction to hear progress reports on the status of the Province's efforts in providing school facilities by the required dates. Section 24(1) of the Charter required effective, responsive remedies that guaranteed full and meaningful protection of Charter rights, which may require the introduction of novel remedies where appropriate and just.
Civil Rights - Topic 8369.2
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Retention of jurisdiction to enforce compliance with -A trial judge ruled that the province's continual delay in providing French language schools in five areas of the province violated s. 23 of the Charter - The remedy granted under s. 24(1) was an order that the province use its best efforts to provide such programs and facilities by specified dates - The trial judge remained seized of the case to monitor compliance - The province was required to periodically report on the progress of implementation - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was functus officio and lacked authority to extend his jurisdiction to monitor compliance with the remedy granted - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's decision, as the remedy (including the reporting requirement) was appropriate and just in the circumstances - The court held that s. 24(1) required the court to issue "effective, responsive remedies that guarantee full and meaningful protection of Charter rights and freedoms" - This may require the introduction of novel remedies that the court considered appropriate and just in the circumstances - Reviewing courts must show considerable deference to the choice of remedy, should not use hindsight to perfect a remedy and should interfere only where there was an error of law or principle - The remedy crafted, in the face of the risk that a mere declaration would be an ineffective remedy where the province was delaying in giving effect to the parents' rights, meaningfully vindicated the parents' rights by encouraging prompt compliance without drawing the court outside its proper role - See paragraphs 60 to 88.
Civil Rights - Topic 8504
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Enforcement - Jurisdiction - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8369.2 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8544
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Appropriate and just remedy - Section 24(1) of the Charter provided for remedies that the court considered "appropriate and just in the circumstances" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "an appropriate and just remedy ... is one that meaningfully vindicates the rights and freedoms of the claimants. ... An ineffective remedy ... is not a meaningful vindication of the right and therefore not appropriate and just. ... an appropriate and just remedy must employ means that are legitimate within the framework of our constitution democracy. ... the courts must not, in making orders under s. 24(1), depart unduly or unnecessarily from their role of adjudicating disputes and granting remedies that address the matter of those disputes. ... an appropriate and just remedy is a judicial one which vindicates the right while invoking the function and powers of a court. It will not be appropriate for a court to leap into the kinds of decisions and functions for which its design and expertise are manifestly unsuited. ... an appropriate and just remedy is one that, after ensuring that the right of the claimant is fully vindicated, is also fair to the party against whom the order is made. The remedy should not impose substantial hardships that are unrelated to securing the right. ... evolution may require novel and creative features when compared to traditional and historical remedial practice because tradition and history cannot be barriers to what reasoned and compelling notions of appropriate and just remedies demand. In short, the judicial approach to remedies must remain flexible and responsive to the needs of a given case." - See paragraphs 52 to 59.
Courts - Topic 2189.1
Jurisdiction - Loss or termination of jurisdiction upon fulfilling function (functus officio) - Charter remedies - A trial judge declared that the province violated parent's minority language rights under s. 23 of the Charter by failing to promptly provide French language secondary schools in five areas of the province - The trial judge remained seized of the matter to monitor compliance - The province was required to periodically report on the progress of implementation - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was functus officio - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's order, including the reporting requirement, as an appropriate and just remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter - Statutes or common law rules (including the doctrine of functus officio), could not pre-empt the remedial discretion in s. 24(1) - In any event, the doctrine did not apply where the reporting requirement did not alter a final judgment or undermine the provision of a stable basis for launching an appeal - The doctrine existed to allow finality of judgments from courts which were subject to appeal -The trial judge's decision remained final and appealable - See paragraphs 75 to 82.
Courts - Topic 3040
Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - Moot issues - The trial judge found that the province violated parents' s. 23 Charter rights by failing to provide French homogeneous programs at French homogeneous facilities at the secondary level, paid out of public funds - As a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the province and French school board were directed to use their best efforts to provide such facilities by certain dates - The trial judge retained jurisdiction to hear progress reports by the province on the status of their "best efforts" to provide the school facilities by dates fixed by him - On appeal, the trial judge was found to lack jurisdiction to remain seized of the matter to hear reports (functus officio) - The parents appealed - By now, report hearings had been held and the school facilities had been provided - The province submitted that the appeal was now moot - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the appeal was moot, but that the considerations in Borowski suggested that the appeal should be heard - The appropriate adversarial context still existed - Although there was concern for conserving scarce judicial resources, such expenditure was warranted in this rare case that was evasive of review - Guidance was needed on the important question of the nature and extent of s. 24 remedies - See paragraphs 16 to 22.
Practice - Topic 7468
Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - Against the Crown or governmental bodies - Parents were required to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to enforce their s. 23 Charter language minority rights, which the province recognized, but continually delayed in bringing to fruition - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "we would award full costs to the appellants on a solicitor-client basis throughout, including the costs for the reporting hearings. The appellants are parents who have, despite their numerous efforts, been consistently denied their Charter rights. The province failed to meet its corresponding obligations to the appellant parents despite it clear awareness of the appellants' rights. Accordingly, in looking at all the circumstances, our view is that solicitor-client costs should be awarded." - See paragraph 90.
Practice - Topic 8858
Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - [See Courts - Topic 3040 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 9, 118].
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 17].
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 2085 v. Winnipeg Builders' Exchange, [1967] S.C.R. 628, refd to. [para. 20].
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 20].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 23].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 23].
Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161, refd to. [para. 23].
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. [paras. 23, 121].
Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345, refd to. [paras. 24, 126].
Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'Ecole Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 26].
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. 26].
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. 27].
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. [para. 27].
Marchand v. Simcoe (County) Board of Education (1986), 29 D.L.R.(4th) 596 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 29].
Marchand v. Simcoe (County) Board of Education (No. 2) (1987), 44 D.L.R.(4th) 171 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 29].
Lavoie et al. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) and Board of Education of Cape Breton District (1988), 84 N.S.R.(2d) 387; 213 A.P.R. 387; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 586 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].
Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques romaines de Dufferin et Peel et al. v. Ontario (Ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 25; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 704 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1996), 30 O.R.(3d) 681 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Conseil Scolaire Fransaskois de Zenon Park et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., [1999] 3 W.W.R. 743; 170 Sask.R. 103 (Q.B.), affd. [1999] 12 W.W.R. 742; 172 Sask.R. 257; 185 W.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Association Française des Conseils Scolaires de l'Ontario v. Ontario (1988), 66 O.R.(2d) 599 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
L'Association des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. G81; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 534 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].
Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158, refd to. [para. 33].
Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 33].
Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 33].
Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 33, 108].
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [paras. 33, 108].
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].
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. 42].
Reference Re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.) - see Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding.
Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43].
Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 46, 107].
Reference Re Young Offenders Act and Youth Court Judges, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 252; 121 N.R. 81; 89 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 278 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 46].
Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75; 192 N.R. 161; 70 B.C.A.C. 1; 115 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 48].
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 49].
Mareva Compania Naviera, S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers, S.A., [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 Ch. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [paras. 71, 144].
Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 347, refd to. [para. 71].
Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1417, refd to. [para. 71].
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. 71].
British Columbia (Association des parents francophones) v. British Columbia (1996), 139 D.L.R.(4th) 356 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 71].
Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. and L'Association des Conseillers Scolaires Francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 (1983), 48 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 126 A.P.R. 361 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 71].
Attorney-General v. Birmingham, Tame and Rea District Drainage Board, [1910] 1 Ch. 48 (C.A.), affd. [1912] A.C. 788 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 72].
Kennard v. Cory Brothers and Co., [1922] 1 Ch. 265, affd. [1922] 2 Ch. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].
Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 78, 113].
Reekie et al. v. Messervey et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 219; 104 N.R. 387, refd to. [para. 79].
Sonoco Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Local 433 (1970), 13 D.L.R.(3d) 617 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].
Sporting Club du Sanctuaire Inc. et autres v. 2320-4365 Québec Inc., [1989] R.D.J. 596; 35 Q.A.C. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].
Supermarchés Jean Labrecque Inc. v. Tribunal du Travail, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 219; 78 N.R. 201; 9 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 103].
Supermarchés Jean Labrecque Inc. v. Flamand - see Supermarchés Jean Labrecque Inc. v. Tribunal du Travail.
Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 107].
Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al. (2003), 306 N.R. 34 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 107].
Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 108].
Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299, refd to. [para. 109].
Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.
St. Nazaire Co., Re (1879), 12 Ch. D. 88, refd to. [para. 113].
Swire, Re (1885), 30 Ch. D. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Paper Machinery Ltd. v. Ross (J.O.) Engineering Corp., [1934] S.C.R. 186, refd to. [para. 113].
Grillas v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1972] S.C.R. 577, refd to. [para. 114].
R. v. Hamilton (E.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 363; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].
R. v. Rhingo (L.) - see R. v. Hamilton (E.).
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, refd to. [para. 120].
Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1989), 59 D.L.R.(4th) 247 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 122].
Blaikie et al. v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 312; 36 N.R. 120, refd to. [para. 123].
Wells v. Newfoundland and Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 199; 245 N.R. 275; 180 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 548 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 123].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24(1) [para. 15].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bennett, Frank, Receiverships (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 21-37, 443-45 [para. 71].
Bogart, W.A., "Appropriate and Just": Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Question of Judicial Legitimacy (1986), 10 Dalhousie L.J. 81, pp. 92-94 [para. 73].
Brun, Henri, and Tremblay, Guy, Droit constitutionnel (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 756, 757 [para. 108].
de Smith, Stanley A., Woolf, Harry, and Jowell, Jeffrey L., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Ed. 1995 and First Cum. Supp. 1998), pp. 432-436 [para. 103].
Dussault, René, and Borgeat, Louis, Administrative Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1985), vol. 4, pp. 279-282 [para. 103].
Gillespie, Nora, Charter Remedies: The Structural Injunction (1989-90), 11 Advocates' Q. 190, pp. 217, 218 [para. 73].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.) (2002 Update - Release 1), vol. 1, p. 7-24 [para. 107].
Jacob, Jack I.H., The Fabric of English Civil Justice (1987), p. 13 [para. 136].
Manfredi, Christopher Philip, Judicial Power and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism (1993), generally [para. 35].
McLachlin, Beverley M., The Charter: A New Role for the Judiciary? (1991), 29 Alta. L. Rev. 540, pp. 554-556, 557 [para. 122].
Morton, F.L., and Knopff, Rainer, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party (2000), generally [para. 35].
Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), p. 233 [para. 103].
Oosterhoff, A.H., Wills and Succession (5th Ed. 2001), pp. 27, 28 [para. 71].
Pépin, Gilles, and Ouellette, Yves, Principes de contentieux administratif (2nd Ed. 1982), p. 221 [para. 115].
Petter, Andrew, The Politics of the Charter (1986), 8 Supreme Court L.R. 473, generally [para. 35].
Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1994) (2002 Looseleaf Update - Release 9), paras. 13.50-13.80 [para. 73]; 13.60 [para. 71].
Roach, Kent, The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue (2001), generally [para. 35].
Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd Ed. 1992) (2002 Looseleaf Update - Release 10), p. 6-7 [para. 97]; paras. 1.260-1.380 [para. 72]; 1.260-1.490 [paras. 71, 73].
Waters, D.W.M., Law of Trusts in Canada (2nd Ed. 1984), pp. 904-909 [para. 71].
Counsel:
Joel E. Fichaud, Q.C., and Melanie S. Comstock, for the appellants;
Alexander M. Cameron, for the respondent;
Bernard Laprade and Christopher Rupar, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Janet E. Minor and Vanessa Yolles, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;
Gabriel Bourgeois, Q.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;
Deborah Paquette, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador (written submissions only);
Laura C. Snowball and Subrata Bhattacherjee, for the intervenor, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada;
Michel Doucet and Christian E. Michaud, for the intervenor, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones;
Roger J.F. Lepage and Peter T. Bergbusch, for the intervenor, Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de Common Law Inc.;
Noella Martin and Janet M. Stevenson, for the intervenor, Conseil scolaire acadien provincial.
Solicitors of Record:
Patterson Palmer, Halifax, N.S., for the appellants;
Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S., for the respondent;
Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;
Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;
Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Nfld. and Lab., for the intervenor, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador;
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada;
Patterson Palmer, Moncton, N.B., for the intervenor, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones;
Balfour Moss, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervenor, Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de Common Law Inc.;
Merrick Holm, Halifax, N.S., for the intervenor, Conseil scolaire acadien provincial.
This appeal was heard on October 4, 2002, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On November 6, 2003, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Iacobucci and Arbour, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 90;
LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting (Major and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 91 to 147.
To continue reading
Request your trial