Supreme Court of Canada says arguments by two motorists arguing it is are inconsistent with historical documents they relied on.
OTTAWA—The Supreme Court of Canada says Alberta is not constitutionally required to enact its laws in English and French.
In a 6-3 split decision, the court ruled that the arguments in favour of bilingual legislation brought forward by two appellants were inconsistent with the historical documents they relied on.
The ruling ends a legal fight that has spanned more than a decade, beginning when Alberta’s Gilles Caron received a traffic ticket in 2003.
Caron ended up merging his legal challenge with that of another driver, Pierre Boutet, who was also charged with a traffic offence.
The men argued legislative bilingualism extended to modern Alberta based on an assurance given by Parliament in 1867 and in the 1870 order which led to the creation of the province.
They won their case in provincial court.
But that ruling was overturned on appeal.
The majority of the Supreme Court found Caron and Boutet’s position would require the court to believe the status of legislative bilingualism in Alberta was fundamentally misunderstood by “virtually everyone” involved in the Commons debate when the province was created.
“The legislative history post-1870 cannot support an inference regarding the 1870 order that is helpful to the appellants,” the court said. “Furthermore, the provincial judge’s legal conclusion based on these arguments is in error.
“There is simply no evidence that this joint administration was part of the implementation of a constitutional guarantee. The evidence is, in fact, entirely to the contrary.”
Roger Lepage, a Saskatchewan lawyer who has handled Caron’s case from the start, said he was disappointed with the outcome.
He took some solace in the fact that three justices agreed with the arguments.
“We were able to convince three of the nine judges that there was a solemn promise that had been made and it was a constitutional guarantee,” Lepage said. “Having said that, the majority rules.
“It is disappointing for us in Western Canada.”
Lepage said he finds it unacceptable that Canada protected the anglophone minority in Quebec, but chose not to protect the francophone minority outside Quebec.
He urged the new Liberal government to act.
“The Trudeau government now should fund the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments to make sure that all the laws are now translated.”
In a 1988 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found the power to legislate language belongs to both the federal and provincial levels of government, under their respective legislative authority.
The same year, Alberta passed its Languages Act which says “all acts and regulations may be enacted, printed and published in English only.”
Cour suprême du Canada – demandes d’autorisation
Pierre Boutet, et al. c. Sa Majesté la Reine, et al., 2014 CanLII 43393 (CSC) – 2014-07-31
- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta v. Gilles Caron, 2009 CanLII 44620 (CSC) – 2009-08-27
Court of Appeal
- R. v. Caron, 2011 ABCA 385 (CanLII) – 2011-12-21 Cité par 1 document
- R. c. Caron, 2010 ABCA 343 (CanLII) – 2010-11-15 Cité par 6 documents
- R. c. Caron, 2009 ABCA 34 (CanLII) – 2009-01-30 Cité par 5 documents
- R. v. Caron, 2008 ABCA 111 (CanLII) – 2008-03-19 Cité par 2 documents
Court of Queen’s Bench
- R. c. Caron, 2007 ABQB 632 (CanLII) – 2007-10-22 Cité par 5 documents
- R. c. Caron, 2007 ABQB 262 (CanLII) – 2007-04-19 Cité par 5 documents
- Code criminel, LRC 1985, c C-46 — 657.3; 657.3(3) Cité par 100 971 documents
- Constitutionnelle de 1982, Loi, Annexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada (R-U), 1982, c 11 — 7; 11; 16; 24(1) Cité par 31 879 documents
- Linguistique, Loi, RSA 2000, c L-6 Cité par 21 documents
- Motor Vehicle Administration Act, RSA 2000, c M-23 Cité par 83 documents
- Provincial Offences Procedure Act, RSA 2000, c P-34 — 2 Cité par 209 documents
- Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 Cité par 1 035 documents
- Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation, Alta Reg 304/2002 Cité par 74 documents