Montréal (City) v. MacDonald, (1986) 67 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 01, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 67 N.R. 1 (SCC);1986 CanLII 65 (SCC);[1986] SCJ No 28 (QL);27 DLR (4th) 321;[1986] 1 SCR 460;25 CCC (3d) 481;67 NR 1

Montréal v. MacDonald (1986), 67 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]

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

Duncan Cross MacDonald (appellant) v. City of Montreal (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, the Society Franco-Manitobaine, Alliance Quebec and Alliance for Language Communities in Quebec (intervenors)

(No. 17528)

Indexed As: Montréal (City) v. MacDonald

Supreme Court of Canada

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

May 1, 1986.

Summary:

By summons issued from the Municipal Court of the City of Montreal, MacDonald was summoned to appear before that court on a given date to answer to a charge of speeding contrary to a City bylaw. The summons was exclusively in the French language. MacDonald secured an English translation, pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial. MacDonald admitted having exceeded the speed limit. His sole defence, which he argued in English both orally and in writing, was that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed against him because the summons (which included the charge) was not made in English and violated his fundamental rights as an English speaking person under s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. S. 133 provided that either French or English may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any Federal or Quebec court.

The Montreal Municipal Court dismissed MacDonald's challenge to its jurisdiction and convicted him of speeding contrary to the bylaw. MacDonald appealed to the Superior Court by way of trial de novo.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [1982] C.S. 998, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. MacDonald applied for leave to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 108 of the Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-15.

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed MacDonald's application for leave to appeal without recorded reasons. MacDonald applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Appeal Court's refusal to hear his appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, notwithstanding that the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal. The court, however, Wilson, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and affirmed MacDonald's conviction. The court held that the Quebec courts were empowered by s. 133 of the Constitution Act to issue a unilingual French summons to an English speaking person.

Wilson, J., held that the unilingual summons offended s. 133, would have set aside the conviction and have prohibited the Municipal Court from proceeding with the charge until MacDonald was furnished with an authentic translation duly certified by the court.

Civil Rights - Topic 2704

Language - Language rights v. rules of natural justice - The Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133, provided that Federal and Quebec courts may issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that compliance with s. 133 "may very well fall short of the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness. These requirements protect not language rights but other rights, referred to as legal rights in the Charter, which s. 133 was never intended to safeguard in the first place and to which it is entirely unrelated" - See paragraph 103.

Civil Rights - Topic 2704

Language - Language rights v. rules of natural justice - The Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133, provided that the Quebec and Federal Courts may issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it would constitute an error either to import the requirements of natural justice into the language rights of s. 133 ... or vice versa ... Both types of rights are conceptually different" - The court continued by stating that language rights such as those protected by s. 133 are peculiar to Canada and are based on political compromise rather than on principle and lack the universality, generality and fluidity of basic rights resulting from the rules of natural justice - See paragraph 112.

Civil Rights - Topic 2704

Language - Language rights v. rules of natural justice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is axiomatic that everyone has a common law right to a fair hearing, including the right to be informed of the case one has to meet and the right to make full answer and defence. ... But the right of the defendant to understand what it is going on in court and to be understood is not a separate right, nor a language right, but an aspect of the right to a fair hearing" - See paragraph 109.

Civil Rights - Topic 2721

Language - Court proceedings or processes - Unilingual summons - The Municipal Court of the City of Montreal issued a summons in French only to an English speaking person requiring him to appear to answer a speeding charge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the issuance of a unilingual summons (which included the charge against the person) did not offend s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which empowered the courts of Quebec to issue processes in either English or French - See paragraphs 1 to 134.

Civil Rights - Topic 2721

Language - Court proceedings and processes - Unilingual court processes - The Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133, provided, inter alia, that either English or French may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any Federal or Quebec court - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 133 empowered the named courts to use unilingual processes, that a person was not entitled to a process in his choice of language and that the rights protected by s. 133 are those of the speaker rather than the receiver of the process - See paragraphs 1 to 122.

Civil Rights - Topic 3113

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Due process - Right to understand proceedings - An English speaking Quebecer was alleged to have been speeding and was issued a summons in French only by the Montreal Municipal Court - He obtained an English translation, pleaded not guilty and argued his case in English - He did not suggest that he was unable to understand the charge - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the question of the validity of a Quebec statute which opted out of ss. 2 to 7 and 15 of the Charter was presently before the court - The court, however, for purposes of this appeal held that if the Charter sections applied in Quebec, the defendant's rights as guaranteed by the Charter were not violated in this case - See paragraphs 101, 113 to 117.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1007

Interpretation of Constitution Act - Judicial restraint respecting political compromises - Language - The Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 provided inter alia, that Quebec and Federal courts may issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the limited but precise scheme for the use of language provided by s. 133 was a constitutional minimum, not a maximum, and could be complimented by Federal or Provincial legislation or constitutional amendment - The court stated however, "it is not open to the court under the guise of interpretation, to improve upon, supplement or amend this historical constitutional compromise" - See paragraph 99.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1012

Interpretation of Constitution Act - Liberal interpretation - Limitations - The Supreme Court of Canada cautioned that no interpretation of a constitutional provision, however broad, liberal, purposive or remedial can have the effect of giving the text a meaning which it cannot reasonably bear and which would even express the converse of what it says - See paragraph 65.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Unilingual court processes - S. 133 provided, inter alia, that either English or French may be used in any process issuing from any Federal or Quebec Court - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 133 empowered the named courts to issue unilingual processes, that a person was not entitled to a process in his choice of language and that the rights protected by s. 133 are those of the speaker rather than the receiver of the process - See paragraphs 1 to 122.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Court process - What constitutes - The defendant was alleged to have been speeding and was issued a summons which included the charge against him - No separate charge was issued - The defendant argued that the summons, being a command of the Sovereign calling him to appear, was ministerial in nature and not a process issuing from the court - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument and held that the summons which included the charge was a process of the court for the purpose of s. 133 of the Constitution Act, which empowered the court in question to issue the process in either English or French - See paragraphs 34 to 52.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that s. 133 requires records and journals of the federal Parliament and the [Quebec] Legislature, and the statutes passed by those bodies to be in English and French - The court also agreed that "in other cases (debates in Parliament and the Legislature, and proceedings in Federal and Quebec courts), there is a choice of [English or French] ... If there is a right to use either language, there can be no obligation to use the other. Still less can there be an obligation to use both" - See paragraphs 24, 54, 55.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - S. 133 allowed the Federal and Quebec courts to use either English or French in any process issued by those courts - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed that the right to use either language in a pleading or process must be applied as much to the person receiving the process as to the issuer - The court agreed that "such an interpretation is not possible for it makes a nonsense of the words used [in s. 133]" - See paragraphs 24, 54.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Criminal proceedings - S. 133 provided, inter alia, that either English or French may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any Federal or Quebec court - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission that s. 133 gave any person, anglophone or francophone, the right to be summoned before any Federal or Quebec court by a process issued in his own language at least where the state is a party to the proceedings as penal or criminal proceedings - See paragraphs 53, 54.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Criminal v. civil proceedings - S. 133 empowered the Federal and Quebec courts to issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the suggestion that under s. 133 the initiator of civil processes retains the right to choose language but in criminal proceedings the accused has the right to be summoned in a language of his choice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that this distinction between civil and criminal proceedings is in no way warranted by the language of s. 133 - See paragraphs 75 to 81.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Court processes need not be bilingual - S. 133 provided that Federal or Quebec courts may issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 133 empowered the name to courts to issue unilingual processes (i.e. summons) - The court stated that the issuance of bilingual summons, although permissible and maybe desirable, was not required by the plain meaning of s. 133 - See paragraphs 64 to 74.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Interpretation of s. 133 - "Duality of rules" - s. 133 provided, inter alia, that either English or French may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from a Federal or Quebec court - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the notion that s. 133 in effect provided two separate rules, one for the languages that may be used by any person in court and the other for the languages that may be used in any pleading or process, "whether by a person or not" - The court stated that there was but one rule and not a "duality of rules" emanating from s. 133 - See paragraph 58.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Not a complete scheme of language rights - S. 133 provided, inter alia, that Federal or Quebec courts may issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that s. 133 introduced a potentially complete or at least potentially comprehensive scheme of language rights - See paragraphs 93, 96, 97.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - No right to be understood in language of choice - s. 133 provided that the Federal or Quebec courts may issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 133 has not introduced a comprehensive scheme or system of official bilingualism, even potentially, but a limited form of compulsory bilingualism at the legislative level, combined with an even more limited form of optional unilingualism at the option of the speaker in Parliamentary debates and at the option of the speaker, writer or issuer in judicial proceedings or processes" - The court continued "it does not guarantee that the speaker, writer or issuer of proceedings or processes will be understood in the language of his choice by those he is addressing" - See paragraph 98.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7750

Language rights - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133 - Effect of - Interpretation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the limited but precise scheme for the use of language provided by s. 133 was a constitutional minimum, not a maximum, and could be complimented by Federal or Provincial legislation or by constitutional amendment - The court stated, however, "it is not open to the court, under the guise of interpretation, to improve upon, supplement or amend this historical constitutional compromise" - See paragraph 99.

Criminal Law - Topic 2941

Jurisdiction - Loss or suspension of - Acts resulting in - Where summons or charge invalid - A defendant was given a summons which included the charge against him - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that if the summons was a nullity, that would only affect the power of the court to render judgment by default; it would not affect the court's jurisdiction once the accused was somehow before the court - The court continued, that what does affect the court's jurisdiction is the validity of the charge - See paragraphs 45 to 47.

Practice - Topic 4

Rules of court - Language of practice rules - The Supreme Court of Canada stated two reasons why the rules of practice of the Quebec courts must be enacted in both English and French; (1) the legislative nature of the rules and, (2) the necessity to safeguard the right of all litigants as well as that of all and each judge to address others in the language of their choice in judicial proceedings and processes - See paragraph 60.

Practice - Topic 9091

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by Supreme Court of Canada - Where provincial appeal court refused to hear appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed its position on the jurisdiction of the court to review the decision of a provincial appeal court not to grant leave to appeal from a judgment at trial - The court stated that it had jurisdiction and should not hesitate to interfere with discretionary decisions of appeal courts on those rare occasions when it perceives legal principles of national and more particularly, constitutional significance to be at stake - See paragraphs to 130, 139 to 148 - The court stated "to the extent that the Court's earlier decisions in Ernewein [30 N.R. 316] and Nicholson [37 N.R. 395] are inconsistent with this view, ... they should not be followed" - See paragraph 145.

Practice - Topic 9091

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by Supreme Court of Canada - Where provincial appeal Court refused to hear appeal - A defendant who was convicted of speeding applied to the Quebec Court of Appeal for leave to appeal his conviction, raising the question of the constitutionality of a Quebec court issuing a process in French only (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133) - The Quebec Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal because it decided the same issue in another case - The defendant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave and heard the appeal rather than send the matter back to the Court of Appeal - The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the discretion of an appeal court not to grant leave where the appeal raised a major constitutional issue - See paragraphs 123 to 130, 139 to 148.

Statutes - Topic 1624

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Prior statutes respecting same subject matter - The Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133, provided that the Federal or Quebec courts could issue processes in either English or French - The Supreme Court of Canada examined the historical background of s. 133 - See paragraphs 81 to 91, 167 to 120 - The court held that the historical record contradicted the submission that processes of the court had to issue in a language chosen by the receiver of the process - See paragraph 91.

Cases Noticed:

MacDonald v. Ville de Montreal, [1982] C.S. 998 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bilodeau v. Attorney General of Manitoba, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 393; 17 Man.R.(2d) 438 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 18, 20, 120, 186, 188].

Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639; 30 N.R. 316 (S.C.C.), reconsidered [paras. 19, 20, 139, 140, 144, 145, 147, 148].

Nicholson v. Haldimand Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 92; 37 N.R. 395, reconsidered [paras. 19, 20, 139, 140, 145].

Walsh v. City of Montréal, [1980] C.S. 1054; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 299, apprvd. [paras. 23, 29, 55, 64, 126, 136, 146, 147, 186, 188].

Shaw v. City of Montréal (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 19, consd. [paras. 28, 29].

Blaikie et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016; 30 N.R. 225, consd. [paras. 54, 57, 62, 99, 111, 133, 137, 149, 182, 183, 184, 192].

Blaikie et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 312; 36 N.R. 120, consd. [paras. 54, 59, 73, 99, 137, 149, 150, 167, 180, 184, 186].

Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182, consd. [paras. 90, 96, 99, 159, 181].

R. v. Reale, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 624; 8 N.R. 164, refd to. [para. 105].

Unterreiner v. R. (1980), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 373 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 105].

Sadjade v. R., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 361, refd to. [para. 105].

Paul v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 452, refd to. [para. 126].

Forest v. Registrar of Court of Appeal of Manitoba, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 347, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Joseph (1900), 6 C.C.C. 144 (Que. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 146].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97, [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 151].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 165].

Holme v. Guy (1877), 5 Ch. D. 901, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 166, 187].

Veuillette v. R. (1919), 58 S.C.R. 414, refd to. [para. 171].

Mercure v. Attorney General of Saskatchewan, [1986] 2 W.W.R. 1; 44 Sask.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher, [1979] 3 All E.R. 21 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 181].

Marbury v. Madison (1803), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, refd to. [para. 187].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for Quebec, [1912] A.C. 571, refd to. [para. 187].

Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 193].

R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268; 32 N.R. 520, refd to. [para. 193].

Potma and R., Re (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 383, refd to. [para. 193].

R. v. Talon (1945), 5 R. du B. 201, refd to. [para. 174].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Attorney General of Ontario, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 151].

Statutes Noticed:

Act for the Division of the Province of Lower Canada, for Amending the Judicature thereof, and for Repealing Certain Laws Therein Mentioned, 1793, 34 Geo. III, c. 6, sect. 29, [para. 172].

Act for the establishment of a better Court of Appeal in Lower Canada, 1843 (Can.), 7 Vict., c. 18, sect. 1 [para. 176]; sect. 10 [para. 84, 176].

Act respecting Municipalities and Roads in Lower Canada, C.S.L.C. 1860, c. 24, sect. 5(17), sect. 7(2), sect. 27(14) [paras. 75, 83].

Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982, S.Q. 1982, c. 21 [para. 101].

Act respecting the Court of Queen's Bench, C.S.L.C. 1860, c. 77, sect. 28 [paras. 87, 179].

Act respecting the ordinary Procedure in the Superior and Circuit Courts, C.S.L.C. 1861, c. 83, [paras. 88, 179].

Act to amend the Act intituled, An Act to regulate the summoning of Jurors in Lower Canada, 1851 (Can.), 14 & 15 Vict., c. 89, [para. 178].

Act to amend the Law relative to the Administration of Justice in Lower Canada, 1846 (Can.), 9 Vict., c. 29 [paras. 85, 177].

Act to amend the Laws relative to the Courts of Original Civil Jurisdiction in Lower Canada, 1849 (Can.), 12 Vict., c. 38, sect. 19 [paras. 86, 177].

Act to establish a Superior Court of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, and to regulate the Court of Appeal, 1794 (U.C.), 34 Geo. 3, c. 2, sect. 9 [para. 173].

Act to provide for the translation into the French Language of the Laws of this Province, and for other purposes connected therewith, 1841 (Can.), 4 & 5 Vict., c. 11, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 3 [para. 175].

Act to repeal certain Acts and Ordinances therein mentioned, and to make better provision for the Administration of Justice in Lower Canada, 1843 (Can.), 7 Vict., c. 16, sect. 18, [paras. 74, 83].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 2(e) [para. 193]; sect. 2(g) [para. 105].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 15 [paras. 101-117, 192, 193]; sect. 11(a) [para. 100]; sect. 14 [paras. 105, 110]; sect. 33 [para. 110].

Charter of the City of Montreal, S.Q. 1959-60, c. 102, generally [para. 35]; sect. 1126 [para. 38]; sect. 1140 [para. 36].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 133 [para. 2 et seq.].

Constitution Act, 1871, R.S.C. 1970, App. II, No. 11 [para. 67].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 31(3) [paras. 139, 145].

Manitoba Act, 1870, R.S.C. 1970, App. II, No. 8, sect. 23 [paras. 18, 62, 67, 186].

Municipal Code of the Province of Quebec, S.Q. 1870, c. 68, sect. 224 [para. 75].

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. O-2 [para. 56].

Ordinance to regulate the proceedings, in certain cases, in the Court of King's Bench, and to give the subject the benefit of Appeal from Large Fines, 1787 (Que.), 27 Geo. 3, c. 1 [para. 170].

Ordinance to regulate the proceedings in the courts of civil judicature, and to establish Trials by Juries in actions of a commercial nature and personal wrongs to be compensated in damages, 1785 (Que.), 25 Geo. III, c. 2 [paras. 73, 83, 169, 174].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, sect. 41(1) [paras. 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 148].

Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-15, sect. 108 [paras. 15, 35, 146].

Union Act, 1840 (U.K.), 3 & 4 Vict., c. 35 (reproduced R.S.C. 1970, App. II, No. 4) [para. 175].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Austin on Jurisprudence (5th Ed.) [para. 153].

Beaudoin, G.A., Le décor historique et constitutionnel (1983), 14 R.G.D. 227 [para. 97].

Bowker, W.F., Basic Rights and Freedoms: What are they? (1959), 37 Can. Bar Rev. 43, [para. 158].

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Studies No. 10, The Law of Languages in Canada (1971), p. 50 [para. 172].

Coode, G., On Legislative Expression, (2nd Ed. 1852) [para. 162].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 8, 9 [para. 162].

Hart, H.L.A., Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence (1954), 70 L.Q. Rev. 37, 48 [para. 152].

Hegel, G.W., Philosophy of Right (1942) [para. 155].

Hohfeld, W.N., Fundamental Legal Conceptions (1923), p. 27 [para. 152].

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, (2nd Ed.), vol. 2 [para. 150].

Lederman, W.R. The Nature and Problems of a Bill of Rights (1959), 37 Can. Bar Rev. 4, 5, 6 [para. 157].

Marx, H., Language Rights in the Canadian Constitution (1967), 2 R.J.T. 239, 241 [para. 168].

Nantel, M., La langue française au Palais (1945), 5 R. du B. 201 [para. 174].

Royal Commission Inquiry Into Civil Rights (1968) [para. 157].

Salmond on Jurisprudence (11th Ed. 1957), p. 271 [para. 156].

Stone, J., The Province and Function of Law (1946), p. 356 [para. 154].

Tremblay, A., The Language Rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in W. Tarnopolsky and G.A. Beaudoin eds., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), pp. 445, 446 [para. 192].

Weiler, P., Rights and Judges in a Democracy: A New Canadian Version (1984), 18 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 51, 55 [para. 165].

Counsel:

Walter J. Roustan and Henry S. Brown, for the appellant;

Neuville Lacroix, for the respondent;

James M. Mabbutt, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Réal-A. Forest and Lucie Angers, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Joseph Eliot Magnet, for La Société Franco-Manitobaine;

Stephen A. Scott, for Alliance Québec, Alliance for language communities in Quebec.

This appeal was heard on December 18 and 19, 1984, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on May 1, 1986, and the following opinions were filed:

Beetz, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 129;

Dickson, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 130 to 134;

Wilson, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 135 to 196.

Estey, McIntyre, Lamer and Le Dain, JJ., concurred with Beetz, J.