Solski v. Quebec (Attorney General), (2005) 331 N.R. 256 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 331 N.R. 256 (SCC);2005 SCC 14;[2005] SCJ No 14 (QL);129 CRR (2d) 341;250 DLR (4th) 421;138 ACWS (3d) 56;[2005] 1 SCR 201;JE 2005-637;331 NR 256

Solski v. Que. (A.G.) (2005), 331 N.R. 256 (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. MR.030

Edwidge Casimir (appellant) v. Attorney General of Quebec (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones, Commission nationale des parents francophones, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques, Association des conseillers(ères) des écoles publiques de l'Ontario, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada and Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc. (intervenors)

(29297; 2005 SCC 14; 2005 CSC 14)

Indexed As: Solski v. Quebec (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

March 31, 2005.

Summary:

The Solski, Casimir and Lacroix families applied for a certificate of eligibility allow­ing their children to attend minority English language instruction in Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Education's designated person denied their applications because the children had not received the "major part" of their instruction in English as required by s. 73(2) of the Charter of the French Language (Que.) (CFL). The Solskis and the Lacroix appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ). The Solskis also applied to the Quebec Superior Court for a declaration that s. 73(2) of the CFL was inconsistent with s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Casimirs did not appeal to the ATQ but sought declaratory relief in Quebec Superior Court, challenging the con­stitutionality of s. 73 of the CFL. The ATQ dismissed the appeals by the Solskis and the Lacroix.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2001] R.J.Q. 218 allowed the Solskis' application. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed. The Solskis did not con­test the appeal. The Quebec Court of Ap­peal authorized an intervention by the Casi­mir and Lacroix families.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2002] R.J.Q. 1285, allowed the ap­peal. Edwidge Casimir was authorized by Deschamps, J., to be substituted to the Sols­kis as a party. Edwidge Casimir appealed. The Lacroix did not file an application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the ap­peal in part. The court held that s. 73(2) of the CFL was constitutionally valid but had to be read so that the term "major", with respect to the "major part" criteria, was given a qualitative rather than a quantitative meaning. The court ruled that the Casimir and Lacroix children qualified for minority English language instruction.

Civil Rights - Topic 2884

Language - Education - Minority language education rights - General - The Supreme Court of Canada said that s. 23 of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided a comprehensive code of minority language education rights which afforded special status to minority English- or French- language communities - The court added that while this "entrenched inequal­ity" could be the product of political com­promise and negotiation, this did not mean that s. 23 rights were to be construed nar­rowly - The court concluded that it had con­firmed on several occasions that lan­guage rights had to be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner consistent with the preservation and promotion of both official language communities in Canada - See paragraphs 20 to 24, 29 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 2894

Language - Education - In French or Eng­lish - Section 73(2) of Quebec's Charter of the French Language (CFL) provided that a child of a Canadian citizen could go to English school in Quebec if the child re­ceived the "major part" of his elementary or secondary school instruction in English in Canada - Section 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms pro­vided that "Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving pri­mary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language" - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that s. 73(2) of the CFL was constitutionally valid when read down to mean that the "major part" criteria involved a qualitative rather than a strict quantitative assessment of a child's educa­tional experience - Factors to consider for that assessment included: (1) how much time was spent in a minority language pro­gram; (2) at what stage of education was the choice of language of instruction made; (3) what programs were or had been avail­able; and (4) did learning disabilities or other difficulties exist.

Civil Rights - Topic 2894

Language - Education - In French or Eng­lish - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a child who received 50% of her edu­ca­tion in English and 50% in French in the con­text of a French immersion program was actually receiving education for An­glophones and had a stronger link with the Eng­lish linguistic community than the French - As a result, she was entitled to continue her education in Quebec's minor­ity lan­guage, English, under s. 23(2) of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 73(2) of Quebec's Charter of the French Language - See paragraphs 49 and 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 2894

Language - Education - In French or Eng­lish - Section 73(2) of Quebec's Charter of the French Language (CFL) provided that a child of a Canadian citizen could go to English school in Quebec if the child re­ceived the "major part" of his elementary or secondary school instruction in English in Canada - In 2002, the Quebec National Assembly enacted legislation that provided that English-language instruction received in an unsubsidized private school and un­der a temporary certificate of eligibility had to be disregarded from the "major part" calculation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Quebec must be taken not to have disregarded that instruction in the "major part" calculation prior to the 2002 legislation - See paragraphs 51 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

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

Mahe et al. v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, consd. [para. 2].

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. 2].

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

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, consd. [para. 3].

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; 2000 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 3].

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Lan­guages (Can.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282; 2002 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 6].

Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards et al. v. Quebec (Attorney Gen­eral) et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66; 54 N.R. 196, consd. [para. 7].

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. 7].

Okwuobi v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 331 N.R. 300; 2005 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 15].

Okwuobi v. Lester B. Pearson School Board - see Okwuobi v. Quebec (Attor­ney General) et al.

Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 20].

Affaires sociales - 288, [1999] T.A.Q. 269, refd to. [para. 25].

S.A. v. Comité de révision sur la langue d'enseignement, [2001] T.A.Q. 935, refd to. [para. 25].

J.B. v. Comité de révision sur la langue d'enseignement, [2002] T.A.Q. 15, refd to. [para. 25].

Clark v. Canadian National Railway Co. and New Brunswick, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 680; 89 N.R. 81; 89 N.B.R.(2d) 116; 226 A.P.R. 116, refd to. [para. 36].

Derrickson v. Derrickson et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; 65 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 23 [para. 1].

Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-11, sect. 73 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bastarache, Michel, Language Rights in Canada (2nd Ed. 2004), pp. 21 to 23 [para. 4, English version].

Bastarache, Michel, Les droits linguistiques au Canada (2 e éd. 2004), 1, pp. 24, 25, 26 [para. 4, French version].

Bastarache, Michel, Language Rights in Canada (1987), p. 263 [para. 8, English version].

Bastarache, Michel, Les droits linguistiques au Canada (1987), p. 277 [para. 8, French version].

Beaudoin, Gérald-A., and Mendes, Errol P., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 16-12 [para. 30].

Braën, André, Les droits scolaires des minorités de langue officielle au Canada et l'interprétation judiciaire (1988), 19 R.G.D. 311, pp. 317, 319 [para. 8].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, Vol. 3, 1st Sess., 32nd Parlia­ment (October 6, 1980), p. 3286 [para. 30].

Foucher, Pierre, Language Rights and Education, in Bastarache, Michel, Lan­guage Rights in Canada (1987), p. 263 [para. 8, English version].

Foucher, Pierre, Les droits linguistiques en matière scolaire, dans Bastarache, Michel, Les droits linguistiques au Can­ada (1987), p. 277 [para. 8, French ver­sion].

Foucher, Pierre, Les droits scolaires des minorités linguistiques, in Beaudoin, Gérald-A., and Mendes, Errol P., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 16-12 [para. 30].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Com­mons Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Can­ada (4th Ed. 1997), p. 401 [para. 36].

Proulx, Jean-Pierre, Les normes périjuridi­ques dans l'idéologie québécoise et cana­dienne en matière de langue d'enseigne­ment (1988), 19 R.G.D. 209, p. 219 [para. 8].

Ryan, Claude, L'impact de la Charte cana­dienne des droits et libertés sur les droits linguistiques au Québec, [2003] R. du B. (Numéro spécial) 543, p. 551 [para. 23].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 367 [para. 36].

Counsel:

Brent D. Tyler and Walter C. Elmore, for the appellant;

Benoît Belleau, Dominique A. Jobin and Carole Soucy, for the respondent;

Claude Joyal and Marc Tremblay, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Can­ada;

Colin K. Irving and Douglas Mitchell, for the intervenor, the Commissioner of Of­ficial Languages for Canada;

Michel Doucet and Christian E. Michaud, for the intervenors, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones and Commission nationale des parents francophones;

Michelle Vaillancourt, Margot Blight and Mark C. Power, for the intervenors, Association franco-ontarienne des con­seils scolaires catholiques and Asso­cia­tion des conseillers(ères) des écoles publiques de l'Ontario;

Ronald F. Caza and Joël M. Dubois, for the intervenors, Fédération des commun­autés francophones et acadiennes du Canada and Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Brent D. Tyler, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Bernard Roy & Associés, Montréal, Que­bec, and Department of Justice, Mont­réal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Department of Justice Canada, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Irving Mitchell & Associates, Westmount, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Commis­sioner of Official Languages for Canada;

Patterson Palmer, Moncton, New Bruns­wick, for the intervenors, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones and Commission nationale des parents francophones;

Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, Association franco-ontarien­ne des conseils scolaires catholiques and Association des conseillers(ères) des écoles publiques de l'Ontario;

Heenan Blaikie, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenors, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada and Fédération des associations de juris­tes d'expression française de common law inc.

This appeal was heard on March 22, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by the court on March 31, 2005.