Mercure v. Saskatchewan, (1988) 83 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 83 N.R. 81 (SCC);[1988] 2 WWR 577;83 NR 81;1988 CanLII 107 (SCC);48 DLR (4th) 1;[1988] 1 SCR 234;39 CCC (3d) 385;65 Sask R 1

Mercure v. Sask. (1988), 83 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Andre Mercure v. The Attorney General of Saskatchewan and La Federation des Francophones Hors Quebec, L'Association Canadienne-Francaise de L'Alberta, L'Association Culturelle Franco-canadienne de la Saskatchewan and the Attorney General of Alberta and Freedom of Choice Movement

(19688)

Indexed As: Mercure v. Saskatchewan

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

February 25, 1988.

Summary:

The accused Mercure was charged with speeding contrary to the Saskatchewan Vehicles Act. Before entering a plea, the accused (whose native tongue was French) requested that the trial judge conduct the entire proceedings in French. He also requested to be provided with copies, printed in the French language, of certain statutes, which were relevant to the defence of the charge.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court in a judgment reported [1981] 4 W.W.R. 435; 44 Sask.R. 43, dismissed the application and convicted the accused. The accused appealed by way of stated case.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 44 Sask.R. 22, dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that s. 110 of the North-West Territories Act was continued in part in Saskatchewan under s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Act, entitling the accused to use French in court without a duty on the judge or anyone else to use French in the proceeding, but disentitling the accused to copies of the statutes in French. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada per La Forest, J., with Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., concurring, allowed the appeal. The court held that s. 110 of the North-West Territories Act was continued in Saskatchewan under s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Act, but that it was not entrenched, so that it was open to Saskatchewan to pass an Act in both languages removing the bilingualism requirement. Pending that, an accused was entitled to testify in French and have his testimony recorded in French. However, there was no right to a translator for him, except as might be required for a fair trial. Further, Saskatchewan statutes were required to be enacted, printed and published in English and French, rendering the Saskatchewan statutes invalid. However, to preserve the principle of the rule of law the court applied the de facto doctrine and gave the province a reasonable time to translate, print and publish the statutes in French or, alternatively, to pass a statute in both languages removing the bilingualism requirement.

Estey, J., dissenting (McIntyre, J., concurring) was of the opinion that s. 110 of the North-West Territories Act did not become part of Saskatchewan law and, if it did, was spent immediately upon the province establishing its own institutions, leaving no French language rights in provincial institutions.

Civil Rights - Topic 2702

Language - Use of language in court proceedings - Section 110 of the North-West Territories Act provided that either English or French could be used by any person in proceedings before the courts - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 110 was continued in Saskatchewan by s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Act, entitling an accused to testify in French and to have his testimony recorded in French - However, there was no right to a translator for him, except as might be required for a fair trial, which would not be a language right, but one arising out of due process - Further, there was no duty on the judge to proceed in French - See paragraphs 52 to 60 - However, s. 110 was not entrenched and could be modified unilaterally by Saskatchewan - Thus, it was open to Saskatchewan within a reasonable time to pass the statute in English and French removing the bilingualism requirement in Saskatchewan - See paragraph 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 2704

Language - General principles - Language rights v. rules of natural justice - The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 110 of the North-West Territories Act, which was continued in Saskatchewan under s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Act, there was a right to testify in French, but no right to a translator - However, the court noted that a translator might be required for a fair trial, which would not be a language right, but one arising out of due process - See paragraphs 57 to 58.

Civil Rights - Topic 2761

Language - Translation of statutes - General - Section 110 of the North-West Territories Act provided that all ordinances made under the Act must be printed in both English and French - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 110 was continued in Saskatchewan by s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Act, requiring Saskatchewan statutes to be enacted, printed and published in English and French - However s. 110 was not entrenched and could be modified unilaterally by Saskatchewan - Thus, it was open to Saskatchewan within a reasonable time to pass the statute in English and French removing the bilingualism requirement in Saskatchewan - See paragraph 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 2808

Language - Assistance of an interpreter - Right to - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2702 above].

Constitutional Law - Topic 114

Rule of law - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the statutes of Saskatchewan were invalid, because they were not printed in both English and French, but to preserve the principle of the rule of law the court applied the de facto doctrine and gave the province a reasonable time to translate, print and publish the statutes in French - Alternatively, because the bilingualism requirement was not entrenched, the court stated that the requirement could be statutorily removed within a reasonable time - See paragraphs 65 to 66.

Constitutional Law - Topic 115

De facto doctrine - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 114 above].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7794

Language rights - Saskatchewan Act, 1905 - Bilingual statutes - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2761 above].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7798

Language rights - Saskatchewan Act, 1905 - Language rights in courts - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2702 above].

Statutes - Topic 6226

Operation and effect - Effect on earlier statutes - Implied repeals - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a statute is repealed by implication only "if the entire subject-matter has been so dealt with in subsequent statutes that, according to all ordinary reasoning, the particular provisions in the prior statute could not have been intended to subsist" - See paragraph 40.

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(3d) 83, consd. [paras. 11, 42, 45, 53, 65, 75, 142].

R. v. Lefebvre (1986), 74 A.R. 81; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 124, refd to. [paras. 14, 20, 137].

Edwards v. Attorney General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), consd. [para. 16].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016; 30 N.R. 225, consd. [paras. 16, 34, 49].

Toll v. Canadian Pacific R.W. Co. (1908), 8 W.L.R. 795 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

Schultz v. Wolske (1966), 75 W.W.R.(N.S.) 411 (Alta. S.C.), consd. [para. 19].

Stevens v. Quinney (1979), 101 D.L.R.(3d) 289 (Sask. Q.B.), consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Tremblay (1985), 41 Sask.R. 49; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 454 (Sask. Q.B.), consd. [paras. 20, 37].

Reference Re French Language Rights of Accused in Saskatchewan Criminal Proceedings, [1987] 5 W.W.R. 577; 58 Sask.R. 161 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [paras. 20, 37].

R. v. Paquette (1985), 63 A.R. 258; 40 Alta. L.R.(2d) 38 (Q.B.), affd. 81 A.R. 12; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Lefebvre (1982), 21 Alta. L.R.(2d) 65 (Q.B.), affd. (1986), 74 A.R. 81; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 124 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Murphy (1968), 69 D.L.R.(2d) 530 (N.B.C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

Re Poulin (1968), 64 W.W.R.(N.S.) 705 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 27].

M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819), 17 U.S. 316; 4 Wheat 316; 4 L. ed. 579, consd. [para. 29].

Strachan v. Lamont (1906), 4 W.L.R. 411, overruled [para. 29].

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2; 77 N.R. 321; 23 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 34].

Canadian National Transportation Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 38].

The India (1865), 12 L.T.N.S. 316, appld. [para. 40].

Seward v. The "Vera Cruz" (1884), 10 App. Cas. 59 (H.L.), consd. [para. 40].

Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, [1933] S.C.R. 629, appld. [para. 41].

Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182, consd. [paras. 42, 109, 131].

Societe des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, consd. [paras. 42, 45, 46, 56, 97].

Hoskyn v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1979] A.C. 474 (H.L.), consd. [para. 42].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 43].

Montreal v. MacDonald, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460; 67 N.R. 1, consd. [paras. 53, 109].

Bilodeau v. Manitoba (Attorney General), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 449; 67 N.R. 108; 42 Man.R.(2d) 242, dist. [para. 59].

Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe, [1965] A.C. 172, appld. [para. 63].

Attorney General for New South Wales v. Trethowan, [1932] A.C. 526 (P.C.), consd. [para. 64].

Harris v. Minister of the Interior, [1952] 2 S.A.L.R. (N.S.) 428 (Sth. Africa App. Div.), consd. [para. 64].

Forest v. Attorney General of Manitoba, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1032; 30 N.R. 213, consd. [para. 142].

Statutes Noticed:

Act further to amend the law respecting the North-West Territories, S.C. 1986, c. 25, sect. 3.

Act that all Proceedings in Courts of Justice within that Part of Great Britain called England, and in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, shall be in the English Language 1731, 4 Geo. 2, c. 26 (G.B.) [paras. 27, 39].

Act to amend Schedule A to the Revised Statutes, 1906, S.C. 1907, c. 44.

Act to amend the Acts respecting the North-West Territories, S.C. 1891, c. 22, sect. 18.

Alberta Act, S.C. 1905, c. 3; R.S.C. 1970, App. II, c. 19, sect. 16 [para. 22].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 7, sect. 14, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 19, sect. 20 [para. 56].

Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865 (U.K.), 28 & 29 Vict., c. 63, sect. 5 [para. 64].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(14) [paras. 49, 101]; sect. 93 [paras. 50, 105]; sect. 101 [paras. 3, 15, 109, 111]; sect. 129 [para. 33]; sect. 133 [paras. 15, 102]; sect. 146 [paras. 9, 12, 77].

Constitution Act, 1871 (U.K.), 34 & 35 Vict., c. 28; R.S.C. 1970, App. II, c. 11, sect. 2 [paras. 12, 78, 109, 111]; sect. 4 [paras. 12, 16, 78, 109, 111]; sect. 5 [paras. 12, 78]; sect. 6 [paras. 12, 113].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 43 [para. 49]; sect. 45 [para. 49].

Court of Appeal Act, S.S. 1915, c. 9 [para. 84].

District Courts Act, S.S. 1907, c. 9 [para. 84].

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200 A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316, art. 27 [para. 45].

Interpretation Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. I-11. Judicature Act, S.S. 1907, c. 8, sect. 3, sect. 4 [paras. 84, 112].

King's Bench Act, S.S. 1915, c. 10 [para. 84].

Legislative Assembly Act, S.S. 1906, c. 4 [paras. 36, 83, 101, 136].

Magistrates Act, S.S. 1906, c. 19 [para. 84].

Manitoba Act, 1870, S.C. 1870, c. 3; R.S.C. 1970, App. II, c. 8, sect. 23 [paras. 11, 99].

Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, S.C. 1912, c. 32 [para. 134].

North-West Territories Act, 1869, S.C. 1869, c. 3 [para. 13].

North-West Territories Act, 1875, S.C. 1875, c. 49, generally [para. 13]; ss. 13, 59 [para. 78].

North-West Territories Act, 1877, S.C. 1877, c. 7, sect. 11 [paras. 13, 79].

North-West Territories Act, 1880, S.C. 1880, c. 25, sect. 94 [para. 18].

North-West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, sect. 110 [paras. 3, 18, 79].

North-West Territories Amendment Act, 1905, S.C. 1905, c. 27, sect. 2 [para. 37]; sect. 6 [para. 134]; sect. 8 [paras. 37, 110, 111].

Official Languages of the New Brunswick Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. O-1, sect. 13(1) [para. 56].

Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, 1905-1930.

Parliament Act, 1911 (U.K.), 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 13 [para. 63].

Police Magistrates' Act, S.S. 1907, c. 14 [para. 84].

Provincial Court Act, 1978, S.S. 1978, c. 42 [now R.S.S. 1978 (Supp.), c. P-30.1] [para. 84].

Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Act, S.C. 1907, c. 43.

Rupert's Land Act, 1868 (U.K.), 31 & 32 Vict., c. 105; R.S.C. 1970, App. II, No. 6 [para. 9].

Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order, June 23, 1870, R.S.C. 1970, App. II, No. 9 [para. 9].

Saskatchewan Act, S.C. 1905, c. 42; R.S.C. 1970, App. II, c. 20, sect. 3 [paras. 50, 81, 102, 113]; sect. 10; sect. 11; sect. 12 [paras. 83, 101]; sect. 13 [para. 83]; sect. 14 [paras. 28, 49, 82]; sect. 15 [para. 83]; sect. 16 [paras. 25, 49, 81, 112]; sect. 17 [paras. 50, 105]; sect. 18; sect. 20.

Saskatchewan Evidence Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. S-16.

Summary Offences Procedure Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. S-63.

Surrogate Courts Act, S.S. 1907, c. 10 [para. 84].

Temporary Government of Rupert's Land Act, 1869, S.C. 1869, c. 3; R.S.C. 1970, App. II, No. 7 [para. 9].

Vehicles Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. V-3, sect. 139(4) [paras. 2, 73].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Statistics Canada, Canada Year Book 1988 (1987), pp. 2-20 [para. 146].

Canada, Canada Year Book 1912 (1913), p. 25 [para. 144].

Debates of the House of Commons, 4th Sess., 3rd Parl., 40 Vict., 1877, p. 1872 [para. 14].

Debates of the Houses of Commons, 4th Sess., 6th Parl., 53 Vict., 1890, pp. 756, 857, 1002 [paras. 14, 18].

Debates of the Houses of Commons, 1st Sess., 10th Parl., 5 Edw. 7, 1905, pp. 8240, 8242 [para. 22]; 8458 [para. 17]; 8531 [paras. 14, 22]; 8534 et seq. [para. 17]; 8548; 8554; 8571, 8572 [para. 143]; 8576 [paras. 14, 143]; 8577 [para. 21]; 8579 [paras. 15, 22, 114]; 8580, 8608 [para. 114]; 8607 [para. 14]; 8610; 8843 [para. 22]; 8850 [paras. 21, 22]; 8851 [para. 21].

Debates of the Senate, 4th Sess., 3rd Parl., 40 Vict., 1877, p. 319 [paras. 14, 55].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Composition of Legislation (2nd Ed. Rev. 1976), p. 110 [para. 20].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 234 [para. 40]; 183-185 [para. 41].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 262-264 [para. 63]; 342-343 [para. 142].

Jennings, Sir Ivor, The Law and the Constitution (3rd Ed. 1943), pp. 138-145 [para. 63].

Kerr, Robert W., Regina v. Murphy and Language Rights Legislation (1970), 20 U.N.B.L.J. 35 [para. 27].

Sheppard, Claude-Armand, The Law of Languages in Canada (1971) [paras. 8, 10, 11, 20].

Silver, Arthur I., The French-Canadian Idea of Confederation, 1864-1900 (1982) [paras. 14, 17].

Tabory, Mala, Language Rights as Human Rights' (1980), 10 Israel Y.B. on Human Rights 167 [para. 45].

Wade, Mason, The French Canadians 1760-1967 (Revised Ed. 1968), vol. 1, p. 397 [para. 10]; 405 [para. 17].

Wheare, Kenneth Clinton, The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status (5th Ed. 1953), pp. 74-79 [para. 64].

Counsel:

Michel Bastarache and Roger Lepage, for the appellant and interveners (principal parties);

Robert G. Richards and Cheryl Crane, for the respondent;

Joseph Eliot Magnet, for the Freedom of Choice Movement;

Peter T. Costigan and J. Robert Black, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Michel Bastarache, Ottawa, Ontario, for the interveners (principal parties);

Joseph Eliot Magnet, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Freedom of Choice Movement;

Kenneth W. MacKay, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondent;

Peter T. Costigan, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.

This case was heard on November 26 and 27, 1986, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 25, 1988, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

La Forest, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 70;

Estey, J., dissenting (McIntyre, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 71 to 149.

Chouinard, J., took no part in the judgment.