With the assent of Bill 96, our team dedicated to issues relating to the reform of the Charter of the French language and other related laws is closely monitoring the evolution of the ongoing legal challenges. Here is an overview of the legal challenges filed so far:
| File number | Date of filing | Main claims | Link to procedure |
| 500-17-121195-229 | June 1, 2022 |
In an application for judicial review and declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Charter of the French language as amended by Bill 96, particularly the provision concerning the interpretation of the English and French versions of the laws in the event of semantic conflict,[1] those relating to the selection process for judges,[2] the language in which judgments[3] are published, the certified and mandatory translation of pleadings filed in a language other than French by legal persons,[4] internal communications,[5] the OQLF’s monitoring powers with regard to English language school boards[6] and other obligations of communication with the civil administration.[7] The plaintiffs wish to have these provisions declared inoperative. The plaintiffs rely on section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which guarantees the right to equal access to justice in English and in French, judicial bilingualism before provincial and federal courts, and on the right to manage and control English language education under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
Click here |
|
500-17-121419-223 |
June 21, 2022 |
In an application for judicial review, the plaintiffs also challenge the constitutionality of the provisions relating to the certified and mandatory translation of pleadings filed in English by legal persons[8] and ask that they be invalidated (and suspended pending the proceedings), based on section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The application for the stay was heard on August 5, 2022. |
Click here |
| August 12, 2022 | The request for a stay was granted: the coming into force of sections 9 and 208.6 of the Charter of the French Language is suspended. | Click here | |
| 500-17-121965-225 | August 9, 2022 | In an application for judicial review, the applicants challenge the constitutionality of provisions[9] that prohibit requiring a person to be appointed to the office of judge to have knowledge or a specified level of knowledge of a language other than French without the authorization of the Ministers of Justice and French Language. The application is based, in particular, on the principle of judicial independence and sections 92(4) and 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
|
Click here |
| September 7, 2022 | In this case, the applicants filed an amended application for judicial review to claim the nullity of a notice of selection published for a position of judge at the Court of Québec without requiring proficiency in English, a requirement which had been expressed by the Chief Justice. The plaintiffs request that the Court order the suspension of the contested selection notice and the resulting selection and appointment procedure for the duration of the proceedings. | Click here | |
| January 23, 2023 | The request for a stay was granted: the Court ordered to suspend all initiatives related to the nomination procedure for the position to be filled in the Court of Québec pursuant to the notice of selection in question until a final judgement on the application for judicial review is rendered. | Click here | |
| 500-17-122176-228 | September 6, 2022 | In an application for judicial review, the applicants challenge the constitutionality of provisions[10] relating to
on the basis of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They claim the non-application of the provisions on civil, administrative and penal sanctions to the offices of lawyers and notaries on the basis of professional secrecy,[11] they challenge the validity of the constitutional amendment[12] and the use of the notwithstanding clauses,[13] which they consider illegal.
|
Click here |
| 500-17-122854-220 | October 31, 2022 | In an application for judicial review, the plaintiffs challenge the validity of the provision that requires businesses to be represented before the OQLF only by a member of their management.[14] Alternatively, they ask that the Court declare that the OQLF must communicate with the member of management that the plaintiff enterprise has designated. The plaintiffs also request an interlocutory injunction pending final judgment. | Click here |
| March 27, 2023 | The Superior Court rejected the application for an interlocutory injunction and maintained the application of s. 139.1 with respect to the applicants pending a decision on the merits, judging that the inconvenience of suspending such a provision would be greater for the OQLF than for the plaintiffs. | Click here | |
| 200-17-034684-233 | April 20, 2023 | In an application for judicial review, the applicants challenged the validity of provisions which require professional orders to communicate only in French, in writing or orally, with members or candidates for the practice of the profession,[15] the provision that removes the absolute presumption of appropriate knowledge of French for candidates and give professional orders more discretion in determining such knowledge,[16] those on the language of instruction in kindergarten, elementary and secondary school and the minimum knowledge of French required of a student at the end of secondary school,[17] those on the language of college and university education and on the control of the total number of students in French and English institutions.[18] They ask that such provisions be declared unconstitutional. Finally, they are seeking a declaration that the impugned provisions infringe on the equality rights of the members of the First Nations communities they represent in unjustifiable ways. | Click here |
[2] Ibid., s. 12 and 13; Courts of Justice Act, as amended by Bill 96, s. 88.1; Regulation respecting the selection procedure of candidates for the office of judge of the Court of Québec, municipal court judge and presiding justice of the peace, as amended by Bill 96, s. 6, 9, 9.1 and 25.
[3] Charter of the French language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 10–11.
[4] Ibid., s. 9 and 208.6.
[5] Ibid., s. 26 and 41.
[6] Ibid., s. 128.6 and s.
[7] Ibid., s. 14, 17, 18, 18.1, 19 and 22.
[8] Ibid., s. 9 and 208.6.
[9] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 12; Courts of Justice Act, as amended by Bill 96, s. 88.1; Regulation respecting the selection procedure of candidates for the office of judge of the Court of Québec, municipal court judge and presiding justice of the peace, as amended by Bill 96, s. 3, 6, 7, 9, and 9.1.
[10] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 7.1, 9, 12, 13, and 208.6; Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Bill 96, s. 508 and 652, Courts of Justice Act, as amended by Bill 96, s. 1.1, 88.1; Regulation respecting the selection procedure of candidates for the office of judge of the Court of Québec, municipal court judge and presiding justice of the peace, as amended by Bill 96, s. 9(5.1), 9.1, 25(1)(2).
[11] Bill 96, s. 114.
[12] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 166.
[13] Ibid., s. 213-214; Bill 96, s. 216-217.
[14] Ibid., s. 139.1.
[15] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 32
[16] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 35.
[17] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, s. 72, 84.
[18] Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, ss. 88.0.1, 88.0.2, 88.0.3, 88.0.5, 88.0.6, 88.0.7, 88.0.8, 88.0.10, 88.0.17 and 88.0.18.
