Date: 20220128  
Dockets: A-182-18  
A-186-18  
Citation: 2022 FCA 14  
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]  
CORAM:  
NOËL C.J.  
DE MONTIGNY J.A.  
RIVOALEN J.A.  
Docket: A-182-18  
BETWEEN:  
THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL  
LANGUAGES  
Appellant  
and  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND THE  
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE  
COMMISSION  
Respondents  
and  
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH  
COLUMBIA, THE ASSOCIATION DES  
JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE  
DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK AND THE  
QUEBEC COMMUNITY GROUPS  
NETWORK  
Page: 2  
Interveners  
Docket: A-186-18  
BETWEEN:  
LA FÉDÉRATION DES FRANCOPHONES  
DE LA COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE  
Appellant  
and  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND THE  
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE  
COMMISSION  
Respondents  
and  
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH  
COLUMBIA, THE ASSOCIATION DES  
JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE  
DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK AND THE  
QUEBEC COMMUNITY GROUPS  
NETWORK  
Interveners  
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 27 and 28, 2021.  
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 28, 2022.  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:  
THE COURT  
Date: 20220128  
Dockets: A-182-18  
A-186-18  
Citation: 2022 FCA 14  
Docket:A-182-18  
Appellant  
CORAM:  
NOËL C.J.  
DE MONTIGNY J.A.  
RIVOALEN J.A.  
BETWEEN:  
THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL  
LANGUAGES  
and  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND THE  
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE  
COMMISSION  
Respondents  
and  
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH  
COLUMBIA, THE ASSOCIATION DES  
JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE  
DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK AND THE  
QUEBEC COMMUNITY GROUPS  
NETWORK  
Page: 2  
Interveners  
Docket: A-186-18  
BETWEEN:  
LA FÉDÉRATION DES FRANCOPHONES  
DE LA COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE  
Appellant  
and  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND THE  
CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE  
COMMISSION  
Respondents  
and  
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH  
COLUMBIA, THE ASSOCIATION DES  
JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE  
DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK AND THE  
QUEBEC COMMUNITY GROUPS  
NETWORK  
Interveners  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT  
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 4  
THE FACTS.................................................................................................................................. 6  
DECISION UNDER APPEAL................................................................................................... 29  
Page: 3  
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES .............................................................................................. 37  
A.  
The appellants and their supporting interveners ............................................................ 37  
The FFCB....................................................................................................................... 37  
The Commissioner ......................................................................................................... 40  
The AJEFNB.................................................................................................................. 41  
The QCGN ..................................................................................................................... 41  
The respondents and the Attorney General of B.C. ....................................................... 42  
ESDC and the Commission............................................................................................ 42  
The Attorney General of B.C......................................................................................... 45  
B.  
ANALYSIS AND DECISION.................................................................................................... 46  
A.  
B.  
C.  
D.  
Standard of review ......................................................................................................... 46  
Interpretation of language rights .................................................................................... 46  
Part IV of the OLA......................................................................................................... 47  
Part VII of the OLA ....................................................................................................... 50  
The context surrounding Part VII................................................................................... 51  
The purpose of subsections 41(1) and (2)...................................................................... 52  
The wording of the provisions in Part VII ..................................................................... 55  
The interpretation of the trial judge................................................................................ 57  
Was the obligation under Part VII met?......................................................................... 65  
The complaints............................................................................................................... 65  
The Commissioner’s report............................................................................................ 66  
Are the complaints well-founded? ................................................................................. 67  
What would be an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances? ......................... 74  
E.  
DISPOSITION ............................................................................................................................ 77  
Page: 4  
INTRODUCTION  
[1]  
The Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and the Commissioner of  
Official Languages (the appellants, and the FFCB and the Commissioner, respectively) are both  
appealing a decision (2018 FC 530) rendered by Justice Gascon of the Federal Court (trial judge)  
whereby the FFCB’s application for a remedy pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Official  
Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.) (the OLA), was dismissed.  
[2]  
The proceeding arises from four complaints endorsed by the Commissioner alleging that  
the respondents, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), since renamed  
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), and the Canada Employment Insurance  
Commission (the Commission) (collectively the respondents or the federal institutions) failed to  
meet their language obligations under Parts IV and VII of the OLA and under subsection 20(1)  
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being  
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the Charter), in entering into and  
implementing the Canada–British Columbia Labour Market Development Agreement signed in  
February 2008 (the Agreement). The Agreement was entered into pursuant to section 63 of the  
Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the EIA).  
[3]  
The trial judge refused to grant the remedy sought by the FFCB, finding that under the  
Agreement, British Columbia (B.C. or the province) was not acting “on … behalf” of ESDC and  
the Commission as required under section 25 of Part IV of the OLA and that these entities took  
sufficient positive measures to fulfil their duties under Part VII, specifically section 41.  
 
Page: 5  
[4]  
In support of its appeal, the FFCB maintains that on the basis of the law and the evidence  
the trial judge was bound to conclude that the Agreement as well as the employment benefits and  
support measures that it authorizes violate subsection 20(1) of the Charter and Parts IV and VII  
of the OLA.  
[5]  
The Commissioner takes issue with the portion of the decision that deals with Part VII.  
He maintains that although the trial judge correctly stated the principles applicable to the  
interpretation of language rights, he did not take into account Parliament’s intention to make  
federal institutions accountable for their obligations under Part VII on a case-by-case basis.  
[6]  
The respondents ask that we dismiss the appeals on the ground that Part IV does not  
apply to B.C. and that the evidence supports the trial judge’s conclusion that they took sufficient  
positive measures to satisfy the obligation under Part VII of the OLA.  
[7]  
The Attorney General of B.C., in his capacity as intervener, asks that we uphold the trial  
judge’s decision, whereas the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) and the Association  
des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick (AJEFNB) invite us to set it aside,  
each substantially agreeing with the position of the parties they support.  
[8]  
For the reasons set out below, we are of the view that the trial judge correctly concluded  
that Part IV of the OLA and subsection 20(1) of the Charter do not apply to B.C. in its  
implementation of the Agreement. However, he misinterpreted the obligation cast upon federal  
institutions under Part VII of the OLA.  
Page: 6  
After conducting our own analysis on the basis of the applicable legal test, we conclude  
that the federal institutions failed to meet their obligation towards B.C.’s French linguistic  
[9]  
minority community under Part VII of the OLA and that the complaints are to that extent well-  
founded. It follows that the appeals, insofar as they pertain to the breach of the Part VII  
obligation, must be allowed.  
[10] The relevant provisions of the EIA, of the OLA and of the Charter, as they read at the  
time of the complaints, are appended to these reasons.  
THE FACTS  
[11] The battle waged by B.C.’s French linguistic minority community with respect to  
language rights in relation to employment assistance services in the province dates back to the  
1990s. It is worthwhile to go back to its origins and trace its history up to the filing of the  
complaints in 2011 in order to understand the issues involved.  
[12] In 1993, the federal government announced its intention to conduct a major reform of  
social programs across the country. One of the goals was to establish a new approach to  
employment assistance services that would be more coordinated, that would be locally managed  
and that would better meet the needs of local communities. The ultimate purpose was for the  
federal government to withdraw from this field of activity in favour of the provinces, while  
providing the financial support that would allow them to assume this role. This initiative  
ultimately led to the adoption of the EIA on June 30, 1996.  
 
Page: 7  
[13] Part II of the EIA provided for the various partnership models envisaged by the reform.  
Subsection 57(3) authorized the Commission to establish employment benefits and support  
measures (benefits and measures) under three types of intergovernmental agreements:  
a co-management agreement that provided for greater cooperation between the two levels  
of government. Under this type of agreement, the Commission retained responsibility for  
establishing and ensuring the provision of benefits and measures. There was therefore no  
transfer of funds, but the province was involved in the design and management of the  
benefits and measures, usually through a joint management committee (subs. 57(2) of the  
EIA);  
an agreement allowing the Commission to mandate the provinces to administer the  
benefits and measures themselves “on … behalf” of the Commission (s. 62 of the EIA);  
a full devolution agreement under which provinces had to design and administer their  
own benefits and measures, with federal financial support, provided that the measures  
introduced by the provinces were “similar” to those offered by the Commission and  
consistent with the purpose and guidelines set out in Part II of the EIA (s. 63 of the EIA).  
[14] When the EIA was enacted, it was clear that the OLA would apply to the delivery of  
employment assistance services in the provinces under the first type of agreement since the  
Commission continued to assume this responsibility directly, as well as under the second type of  
Page: 8  
agreement since in this context the provinces were required to act “on … behalf” of the  
Commission within the meaning of section 25 of the OLA (see also the Affidavit of Mark  
Goldenberg, paras. 79 to 81, Appeal Book, p. 6292). As we shall see, the application of the OLA  
to the third type of agreement was not as clear, and the matter was settled a few years later by the  
courts, which held that the OLA did not apply to employment assistance services provided by the  
provinces under this type of agreement (Lavigne v. Canada (Human Resources Development),  
2001 FCT 1365, [2002] 2 F.C. 165 [Lavigne FC], affd. in Lavigne v. Canada (Minister of  
Human Resources Development), 2003 FCA 203, (2003) 308 N.R. 186 [Lavigne FCA]). As will  
be seen, the FFCB takes issue with the correctness of those decisions in the context of the present  
appeals.  
[15] Following the publication of the bill that led to the adoption of the EIA, official language  
minority communities with the support of the Commissioner expressed concerns about their fate  
if this third option were chosen. Shortly before the bill became law, the Commissioner wrote the  
Minister of HRSDC pointing out that the bill did not reflect or take into account the commitment  
made by the federal government to enhance the vitality and support the development of official  
language minority communities, pursuant to Part VII of the OLA (ibid, Exhibit MG-7: Appeal  
Book, pp. 7174 and 7175).  
[16] It was in response to these concerns that the guideline now set out in paragraph 57(1)(d.1)  
of the EIA was added to the bill to require participating provinces to provide service recipients  
with “availability of assistance under the benefits and measures in either official language where  
there is significant demand for that assistance in that language”. The clauses that were inserted to  
Page: 9  
give effect to this guideline in the devolution agreements that were subsequently signed with the  
provinces and territories came to be known as “linguistic clauses”.  
[17] Despite the addition of this guideline, the French linguistic minority community in B.C.  
remained fearful of the potential effects of a full devolution agreement. A few months after the  
enactment of the EIA, the president of the FFCB, Diane Côté, wrote to the then Minister of  
HRSDC, Pierre Pettigrew, expressing concern about the potential harm to this community:  
[TRANSLATION]  
In British Columbia, past experience with the ability, and even the  
willingness, of British Columbia government authorities to provide  
adequate mechanisms to meet the aspirations of the Francophone  
community gives us reason to believe that the level of service  
provided to our community will only deteriorate if labour market  
development programs are entrusted to the province. For example,  
section 530 of Canada’s Criminal Code allows for a trial in the  
official language of the accused’s choice. However, the  
administration of the courts is the responsibility of the provincial  
Ministry of the Attorney General, and the latter is still unable,  
seven years after the legislative provisions providing for it came  
into force, to respond adequately to this language right. You will  
therefore understand that without an administrative agreement that  
clearly guarantees and defines the language rights of the  
French-speaking population in British Columbia, we are quite  
justified in having concerns about the province’s commitment on  
this issue.  
(Affidavit of Duncan Shaw, Exhibit DS-18: Appeal Book,  
pp. 9804 and 9805)  
[18] One of the areas of concern was that, under the third option, there was no obligation on  
the provinces to enhance the vitality and the development of official language minority  
Page: 10  
communities, as required by section 41 of the OLA, and no recourse to the Commissioner was  
provided in this regard. The FFCB’s letter ends as follows:  
[TRANSLATION]  
. . . We fear that the situation will be most difficult for the  
French-speaking population in British Columbia if the agreement  
currently being negotiated does not include precise language  
regarding the parties’ responsibilities in language matters. We ask  
that you intervene immediately with your negotiators to give them  
specific instructions on the necessary elements with respect to  
language rights that should be an essential condition for signing an  
agreement with British Columbia.  
I believe that the government must act on this issue and reiterate its  
commitment to Canada’s linguistic duality by ensuring that such  
administrative agreements leave no room for interpretation by the  
provinces as to the services we are entitled to expect in our official  
language.  
(ibid)  
[19] These concerns were alleviated somewhat two months later when the federal government  
and B.C. initially opted to sign a co-management agreement (Canada–British Columbia Labour  
Market Agreement (1997)) which, as noted above, ensured the continued application of the OLA  
in the delivery of employment assistance services in B.C.  
[20] This co-management agreement was entered into on April 25, 1997, and was in effect for  
just over ten years. Under the terms of the agreement, the federal government retained  
responsibility for the establishment of benefits and measures while B.C. participated in their  
design and management. B.C. was also involved in setting objectives and priorities (Final  
Investigation Report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages dated April 2013,  
Page: 11  
p. 3; Affidavit of Hovan Baghdassarian, paras. 45 to 59: Appeal Book, pp. 2298 and 2699 to  
2702).  
[21] The services offered by the Commission under the co-management agreement  
complemented certain employment programs already offered by B.C. (Affidavit of Hovan  
Baghdassarian, paras. 8 to 21: Appeal Book, pp. 2687 to 2692). To avoid duplication of financial  
assistance, clients eligible for both were referred to HRSDC by the province (Affidavit of  
Duncan Shaw, paras. 96 and 104: Appeal Book, pp. 8644 and 8646).  
[22] Under the linguistic clause (art. 7.2 of the co-management agreement), clients in certain  
areas where demand was significant (i.e. Vancouver (including New Westminster), Victoria,  
Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Penticton, Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo) could be  
served in both official languages (Affidavit of Viviane Beaudoin, para. 10: Appeal Book,  
pp. 4391 and 4392).  
[23] The provision of “employment assistance services” was carried out primarily through  
specific organizations involved in the community, with the financial support of the Commission.  
In order to ensure that these services were available to members of the French linguistic minority  
community in their language, the Commission provided funding to Francophone organizations  
(Affidavit of Hovan Baghdassarian, para. 60; Affidavit of Duncan Shaw, paras. 62, 67 and 70 to  
72: Appeal Book, pp. 2702 and 8636 to 8638).  
Page: 12  
[24] Following the entry into force of the co-management agreement, the participation of  
Francophone organizations increased substantially and became an important tool for the  
promotion of linguistic duality in the province. Francophone organizations took great pride in  
developing a wide range of assisted and unassisted services that they offered to members of the  
Francophone community seeking employment (Affidavit of Réal Roy, para. 10; Affidavit of  
Duncan Shaw, paras. 73 to 75: Appeal Book, pp. 1825, 8638 and 8639).  
[25] As regards unassisted services or “self-service” activities, Francophone organizations  
provided tools to job seekers such as computer resources giving them access to databases for job  
searches and the preparation of applications, a library of reference material and job banks  
tailored to Francophones (Affidavit of Christian Francey, paras. 35, 36 and 44; Affidavit of  
Yvon Laberge, paras. 27 to 31; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, para. 13; Affidavit of Lise Morin,  
paras. 6 to 8: Appeal Book, pp. 415, 418, 778, 779, 1559, 1697 and 1698).  
[26] Clients of the Francophone organizations also had access to multiple “assisted” services  
and activities; they were referred to in this way because they were offered under the supervision  
of employment counsellors. These included the following:  
Case management: an employment counsellor or coach would meet with the client to  
identify the client’s employment needs. Together with the client, the counsellor would  
develop a return-to-work action plan and would follow up with the client. Assistance  
could be provided, for example, in résumé preparation or career planning, but also in  
Page: 13  
applying for employment insurance benefits. Follow-up included in-person and telephone  
meetings as well as communication of new job opportunities.  
Group workshops: job search and career planning group workshops were organized and  
covered topics such as skills development, cover letter/résumé preparation, networking  
and interview techniques.  
Online services: clients were given the opportunity to communicate virtually with an  
employment counsellor.  
Job fairs: once or twice per year, job fairs were organized in Vancouver to bring together  
French-speaking employees and potential employers that offered a bilingual work  
environment.  
Employment cafés: as a networking activity, an employer could be invited to give a  
presentation to individuals interested in the field.  
Regional response: an employment counsellor based in the major centres could travel to  
more remote areas, as needed, to provide employment assistance services in French in  
that community.  
Page: 14  
Guidance counsellors: a guidance counsellor was available to answer questions about  
employment status or career choices and to help understand and overcome obstacles to  
job searches.  
(Affidavit of Christian Francey, paras. 37 to 44; Affidavit of Yvon Laberge, paras. 32 to  
43; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, paras. 14 and 15, Affidavit of Lise Morin, paras. 9 to 15:  
Appeal Book, pp. 416 to 418, 779 to 781, 1559, 1698 and 1699)  
[27] The FFCB, the recognized representative of the interests of the French linguistic minority  
community in the province, had a lot to do with this. Five organizations, all members of the  
FFCB, received funding from the Commission for their involvement in the provision of  
employment assistance services: Collège Éducacentre (Éducacentre), Société francophone de  
Victoria (SFV), La Boussole – Centre communautaire francophone (La Boussole), Centre  
francophone de services à l’emploi de l’Okanagan (CFSEO), and Centre d’intégration pour  
immigrants africains (CIIA). These organizations served different areas, specifically, Vancouver,  
Victoria, Prince George, Kelowna, Penticton and New Westminster. While distinct from each  
other, they shared as a common thread their fundamentally Francophone character.  
[28] At the time of the coming into force of the EIA, the role of these organizations in B.C.  
was still in its infancy. It was through the partnership with HRSDC following the signing of the  
co-management agreement that some of these organizations were able to open their doors and  
others to expand the scope of their services. To this end, the organizations entered into annually  
renewed contracts with HRSDC, which described in detail the employment assistance services  
that they were to offer to the Francophone linguistic minority community and providing for the  
Page: 15  
necessary funding (Affidavit of Christian Francey, paras. 7 to 9; Affidavit of Yvon Laberge,  
paras. 18, 19 and 23; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, paras. 8 to 10; Affidavit of Lise Morin, paras. 2  
to 5; Final Investigation Report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages dated  
April 2013, pp. 1 and 3; Affidavit of Duncan Shaw, para. 75, Exhibits DS-9 and DS-14: Appeal  
Book, pp. 407, 408, 776, 777, 1558, 1559, 1697, 2296, 2298, 8639, 9266 to 9394 and 9558).  
[29] Despite the co-management agreement and the continued involvement of Francophone  
organizations in the delivery of employment assistance services, an eventual full devolution to  
B.C. remained an issue of concern. Indeed, the co-management agreement provided that B.C.  
could make a request towards that end at any time, if it saw fit to do so (art. 17.3 of the co-  
management agreement).  
[30] On January 12, 1998, the FFCB sent a letter to HRSDC outlining the safeguards it  
expected in the event of full devolution and asked the Minister to [TRANSLATION] “undertake not  
to sign any agreement with B.C. which does not provide for measures to meet the requirements  
of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, particularly section 41” (Affidavit of Duncan Shaw,  
Exhibit DS-18: Appeal Book, pp. 9806 and 9807). The letter states that the [TRANSLATION]  
“Francophone community’s immediate concern is that the provincial government does not  
appear willing to put in place a mechanism of cooperation that would have the effect of better  
identifying the needs of our community and proposing initiatives to address them.”  
Page: 16  
[31] On June 11, 1998, after learning that B.C. had officially requested the full devolution of  
labour market development measures, the FFCB again raised its concerns with  
Minister Pettigrew:  
[TRANSLATION]  
The past and present actions of our provincial government leaders,  
led by Premier Glen Clark, cannot help but raise serious concerns  
about the level of service in our official language that the  
provincial government would provide. The way to alleviate our  
concerns is to include specific clauses in any devolution agreement  
that address the issue of the application of the Official Languages  
Act.  
(ibid: Appeal Book, pp. 9812 and 9813)  
[32] The letter reiterates that specific guarantees are required [TRANSLATION] “because of the  
high risk that once the provincial government is responsible for delivery of the measures . . . it  
will not respect the services to which we should have access in our language.” The FFCB  
concluded by stressing that, in the absence of sufficient guarantees, it would be preferable for the  
federal government to remain responsible for its share of employment assistance services in  
B.C.:  
[TRANSLATION]  
If the provincial government cannot be persuaded to accept a  
maximum level of responsibility for applying the Official  
Languages Act, I would like to know if it would be possible for the  
federal government to remain responsible for measures inherent to  
the development of labour markets for the Francophone  
community. . . .  
I believe that you have had the opportunity to understand the  
unfavourable political context in which British Columbia’s  
Page: 17  
Francophone community finds itself and to see the lack of  
consideration, in any form, that we receive from provincial  
political authorities. Without strong leadership on your part,  
Canada will not be able to pride itself of its official bilingual status  
from coast to coast.  
(ibid)  
[33] The Minister replied on August 26, 1998, indicating that for each province that opts for a  
full devolution, the agreements provide for [TRANSLATION] “firm commitments on official  
languages” and that this was a [TRANSLATION] “priority” in the negotiations. In particular, he  
explained that the linguistic clauses would require that programs and services be offered in  
English upon request in Quebec and in both official languages in New Brunswick to reflect the  
particular circumstances of each province (ibid: Appeal Book, pp. 9810 and 9811).  
[34] This response raised significant concerns, the FFCB being of the opinion that the content  
of the linguistic clauses should rather be geared to address the fragility of the linguistic minority  
community in the province where the devolution takes place. In its October 16, 1998 letter, the  
FFCB wrote the following:  
[TRANSLATION]  
It goes without saying that if the agreement were limited to  
linguistic clauses that reflect the prevailing linguistic reality of the  
provincial government, the content would be meagre for the  
Francophone community of our province. For us, it is important  
that the Francophone public have access to quality services in their  
language, and have recourse to the Commissioner of Official  
Languages in cases where service is not available.  
Moreover, I would like you to confirm that special initiatives for  
our development, such as the Éducacentre training project, the  
Chambre de commerce franco-colombienne’s entrepreneurship  
Page: 18  
centre or the Francophone associations’ employment projects, will  
always be accessible in accordance with the spirit of section 41 of  
the Official Languages Act. . . .  
(ibid: Appeal Book, pp. 9814 and 9815)  
[35] In his February 18, 1999 response, the Minister of HRSDC referred again to the linguistic  
clause and explained that the official language minority community in B.C. has nothing to worry  
about:  
[TRANSLATION]  
. . . I can only restate my firm intention to ensure that a new  
Canada-British Columbia labour market development agreement  
will ensure that programs and services are available in French  
where demand justifies it.  
. . . As I have personally assured you, your community will be  
informed of the linguistic clauses in any future Canada-British  
Columbia agreement before that agreement is signed.  
(ibid: Appeal Book, pp. 9816 and 9817)  
[36] Shortly before then, in April 1998, the Task Force on Government Transformations and  
Official Languages was established following a recommendation made by the Commissioner.  
The Task Force, in conducting its review, became aware of the particular situation of the French  
linguistic minority community in B.C. and it shared its observations with Minister Pettigrew:  
[TRANSLATION]  
During these consultations, almost all the associations visited  
identified labour market development agreements as being one of  
the most important transformations to have occurred within  
government in recent years that impacts significantly on official  
Page: 19  
language minority communities. I would like to draw your  
attention more particularly to the representations made by the  
FFCB concerning talks between your Department and British  
Columbia to allow the province to take more responsibility for  
active employment measures supported by employment insurance  
funds.  
Indeed, FFCB representatives expressed to the Task Force  
members their deep concern regarding access, in French, to the  
services and programs concerned once responsibility for delivery is  
transferred to the province. The FFCB raises British Columbia’s  
political context and how little consideration the provincial  
government gives to the Francophone community. It would like a  
firm commitment on your part that you will require the province to  
undertake to respect the Official Languages Act. It is not the role of  
the Task Force to interfere in the ongoing negotiations with British  
Columbia. We feel it is appropriate, however, for your Department  
to require a firm commitment from the province with regard to  
providing programs and services in French.  
The Task Force cannot ignore this request and we are sharing it  
with you, knowing that your kind attention can be counted on,  
regarding the way forward on this matter.  
(Affidavit of Mark Goldenberg, Exhibit MG-16: Appeal Book,  
pp. 7519 and 7520)  
[37] The Minister of HRSDC responded to the Task Force by restating his commitment  
[TRANSLATION] “to ensuring that the rights of official language communities are protected in all  
agreements” and, with regard to B.C., that if an agreement were to be signed, it would include  
[TRANSLATION] “clear commitments that will allow access to programs and services in both  
official languages where the significance of the demand warrants it” (ibid: Appeal Book,  
pp. 7521 and 7522).  
[38] These exchanges came to a standstill for a time before resuming in full force eight years  
later following the tabling in the House of the March 19, 2007 budget. On that occasion, the  
Page: 20  
federal government announced that it was offering a complete transfer of employment assistance  
programs to all provinces that had yet to sign a full devolution agreement.  
[39] On April 27, 2007, the FFCB sent an email to HRSDC’s Skills and Employment Branch,  
expressing the concerns raised in the province by the start of the federal-provincial negotiations  
towards a full devolution of employment assistance programs in favour of B.C. The email  
explains the importance of the continued participation of the Francophone organizations in order  
to meet the needs of the Francophone community:  
[TRANSLATION]  
Through the federal government’s support for official language  
communities, through the support of your Department, a certain  
number of Francophone organizations offer a broad . . . range of  
employment services—some for years, including at the Collège  
Éducacentre and at La Boussole, and others recently negotiated,  
including at the Centre d’intégration des immigrants africains.  
These support programs are essential for our community, and their  
effectiveness no longer needs to be demonstrated. The figures are  
available for consultation, as you know.  
We believe that the relationship between the Francophone  
community and the provincial government is good. The  
Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat, through the Office of  
Francophone Affairs and its minister, has opened up many doors  
for us, but there is no doubt that this devolution of power could be  
catastrophic and call into question all of this programming. We  
know that during negotiations, the federal government can impose  
a linguistic clause designed to twist the arm of the provincial  
government and the provincial department(s) that will be  
responsible for managing these programs. This clause must be  
legally enforceable, and the provincial government must not be  
able to ignore it. We also know that in British Columbia, unlike in  
New Brunswick, our community has no official status; everything  
is left to the discretion and good will of the provincial government.  
We also know, from experience, that even federal funds destined to  
provide services to Francophones are not always allocated to  
Page: 21  
Francophone organizations for the delivery of these services. The  
Francophone immigration file in our province is the most flagrant  
example of this. I would like to start the dialogue and share these  
concerns with you. I know that in British Columbia, some  
employees in your Department are already aware that the  
Francophone community is ready to do everything in its power to  
ensure that the programs that we successfully deliver will not be  
threatened or questioned in any way. I have received a few calls,  
which allowed me to share the determination of the entire  
Francophone community.  
(Affidavit of Réal Roy, Exhibit B: Appeal Book, pp. 1889 and  
1890)  
[40] On May 14, 2007, the president of the FFCB sent another letter, this time directly to the  
Minister of HRSDC at the time, Monte Solberg. The letter reiterated the importance of the  
ongoing participation of Francophone organizations in the delivery of employment assistance  
services in B.C.:  
One of the success stories of our community is related to a  
partnership we have developed over the years with the federal  
government, with the ministry you are now in charge of, Human  
Resources and Social Development. Employment related programs  
as designed by your ministry have being [sic] offered by  
Francophone staff in Francophone institutions for the last 15 years.  
The number of Francophone service providers has increased every  
year and the number of Francophone clients supported in a crucial  
period of their lives is also growing constantly.  
. . .  
We would like to believe that during the negotiations that will take  
place, you will include a linguistic clause that the province has an  
obligation, a duty to respect, an executory clause that could not be  
overridden. The provincial ministry managing those programs  
would bear the same responsibility as its federal counterpart  
previously did.  
It is true that the Francophone community of British Columbia is  
supported by its provincial government and by the Minister  
Page: 22  
responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honorable John van  
Dongen.  
But we are aware that the devolution of powers has its drawbacks,  
the funding of Francophone immigration services remains an issue  
for our community, as you well know. In British-Columbia  
settlement services for Francophone immigrants are still  
exclusively the responsibility of service providers from the  
community at large.  
(ibid: Exhibit C: Appeal Book, pp. 1892 and 1893)  
[41] Three months later, Minister Solberg reiterated the position taken by the federal  
government over the years, namely that a linguistic clause corresponding to the text of  
paragraph 57(1)(d.1) of the EIA would ensure the protection of B.C.’s Francophone linguistic  
minority community (ibid, Exhibit D: Appeal Book, p. 1895).  
[42] The last noteworthy exchange during the period that led to the full devolution took place  
at a meeting in September 2007, when the FFCB tried to alert federal officials in charge of the  
final negotiations to the particular plight of the French linguistic minority community in B.C. and  
to the importance of including an [TRANSLATION] “airtight” linguistic clause in an eventual  
agreement (ibid, Exhibit E: Appeal Book, p. 1899).  
[43] The full devolution of employment assistance services finally took place a few months  
later. The Agreement was signed by the parties (B.C. being represented by its responsible  
minister and Canada being represented by the Commission and HRSDC) on February 20, 2008.  
The Agreement provides that it will become effective on February 2, 2009, a date that coincides  
with the date on which the co-management agreement ceases to be in effect (arts. 2.4 and 3.1 of  
the Agreement). B.C. was the second last jurisdiction in the country to assume full and exclusive  
Page: 23  
responsibility for employment assistance services, Yukon being the last (Affidavit of  
Mark Goldenberg, paras. 119 and 120: Appeal Book, p. 6300).  
[44] The Agreement is open ended and remains in place to this day. It may be terminated at  
any time with two years’ notice, in which case the parties agree to work together to ensure that  
services to clients will not be unduly affected or interrupted (arts. 23.0 and 24.0 of the  
Agreement). The Agreement may also be amended at any time with the mutual consent of the  
parties (art. 25.0 of the Agreement).  
[45] With regard to the use of official languages in the provision of services, the Agreement  
includes a linguistic clause pursuant to which B.C. agrees to ensure that the services being  
offered are accessible in either official language where significant demand warrants (arts. 5.2 and  
5.3 of the Agreement). B.C. also agrees to consult the French linguistic minority community “on  
the provision of . . . Benefits and Measures” that it would be called upon to manage (art. 5.4 of  
the Agreement).  
[46] The transition between the signing and the coming into force of the Agreement was  
extended until B.C. implemented its Employment Program of British Columbia (EPBC) and its  
“one-stop shop” model in April 2012. During this period, B.C. kept Francophone organizations  
involved in the provision of employment assistance services and extended their funding, which  
stood around $2.4 million per year (Affidavit of Christian Francey, paras. 13 and 14, Affidavit of  
Yvon Laberge, paras. 20, 21 and 23; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, para. 11; Affidavit of Réal Roy,  
Page: 24  
Exhibit M; Affidavit of Hovan Baghdassarian, paras. 88 to 90, 95 and Exhibit HB-13: Appeal  
Book, pp. 409, 777, 1559, 2193, 2709, 2710, 3392 and 3393).  
[47] This extended transition period was used by B.C. to undertake a series of consultations at  
several levels in order to improve the transformation it envisaged (Business Transformation  
Project). This initiative led to consultations with the representatives of the French linguistic  
minority community, as required by article 5.4 of the Agreement (Affidavit of Hovan  
Baghdassarian, paras. 64 to 73; Affidavit of Duncan Shaw, paras. 170 to 173: Appeal Book,  
pp. 2703 to 2706, 8663 and 8664).  
[48] It was proposed under B.C.’s new model that the province be split into 73 geographic  
areas and that a request for proposals be issued in order to designate single providers that would  
be responsible for offering the full range of employment services in each of these areas. To  
qualify, the single providers had to have the capacity to serve a variety of specialized  
populations, including Francophones, immigrants, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples  
and youth (Affidavit of Christian Francey, paras. 19 and 24 to 27; Affidavit of Yvon Laberge,  
paras. 45, 51 to 57 and Exhibit H; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, paras. 25 and 26: Appeal Book,  
pp. 411 to 413, 782 to 784, 1486 to 1551, 1561 and 1562).  
[49] In order to preserve their role in the provision of employment assistance services to  
B.C.’s linguistic minority community, the five Francophone organizations proposed that they  
form a consortium whose function would be to offer a distinct model designed “by and for” the  
Francophone community. The consortium would be funded by a separate envelope. This  
Page: 25  
proposal was presented in September 2010 and promptly rejected by B.C. in the following month  
(Affidavit of Christian Francey, paras. 18 and 20 to 23; Affidavit of Yvon Laberge, paras. 46 to  
50; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, paras. 27 to 30; Affidavit of Réal Roy, paras. 52 to 55 and Exhibit  
P: Appeal Book, pp. 410 to 412, 782, 783, 1562, 1563, 1839, 1840 and 2206 to 2213).  
[50] According to B.C., the consortium was not necessary in order to ensure services in  
French because the single providers would assume this responsibility in each area where this  
requirement had to be met. B.C. instead suggested that the Francophone organizations could  
attempt to offer their services pursuant to subcontracting agreements with the single providers  
(Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, paras. 31 and 32; Affidavit of Réal Roy, paras. 57 to 62 and 75;  
Affidavit of Hovan Baghdassarian, paras. 76 to 81 and Exhibit HB-10: Appeal Book, pp. 1563,  
1840 to 1842, 1846, 2706, 2707 and 3326 to 3338).  
[51] In the fall of 2010, B.C., relying on a series of reasons pertaining to efficiencies,  
informed five of the centres that were staffed by the Francophone organizations that they would  
no longer be receiving funding (Affidavit of Yvon Laberge, para. 24; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba,  
para. 33; Affidavit of Lise Morin, para. 17; Affidavit of Réal Roy, para. 56, Exhibit Q; Final  
Investigation Report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, pp. 1 and 4,  
Affidavit of Hovan Baghdassarian, Exhibit HB-15: Appeal Book, pp. 778, 1563, 1700, 1840,  
2215, 2296, 2299 and 3421 to 3468). The FFCB again asked the federal government to  
intervene.  
Page: 26  
[52] In a letter sent in January 2011 to the Minister of HRSDC at the time, Diane Finley, the  
FFCB was indignant about the devastating consequences that the closure of the five centres  
would have on the French linguistic minority community. The Minister responded five months  
later, entirely avoiding the issue surrounding the continued participation of the Francophone  
organizations. Minister Finley indicated that the linguistic clause would be respected and invited  
the FFCB to raise issues pertaining to the method of delivery of employment assistance services  
with the B.C. government:  
. . .  
The Government of Canada expects that the Government of British  
Columbia will honour its official language commitments under the  
Canada-British Columbia LMDA. Human Resources and Skills  
Development Canada officials have received assurances from the  
provincial government on several occasions that it will continue to  
provide French language labour market services where numbers  
warrant.  
Should you continue to have concerns related to labour market  
service delivery in British Columbia, I would encourage you to  
contact the Minister responsible, the Honourable Harry Bloy,  
British Columbia Minister of Social Development and Minister  
Responsible for Multiculturalism.  
. . .  
(Affidavit of Réal Roy, Exhibit U: Appeal Book, pp. 2237 and  
2238)  
[53] It became clear to everyone, following this last response, that only a good will gesture on  
the part of B.C. could have allowed the Francophone organizations to preserve their role in the  
provision of employment assistance services in the province. Indeed, the linguistic clause, which  
the federal government brandished over the years as the ultimate response to the concerns of  
Page: 27  
Francophone organizations, did not require B.C. to preserve their participation in any way. The  
only obligation imposed on B.C. by this clause was to ensure that the services would be available  
in both official languages at the point of contact with the public, where demand warrants  
(arts. 5.2 and 5.3 of the Agreement).  
[54] A few days after receiving Minister Finley’s response, the FFCB filed its complaint with  
the Commissioner. It is worth reproducing the essential components of the complaint in full:  
[TRANSLATION]  
. . .  
Please accept this letter as a complaint filed by the FFCB with the  
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages further to the  
cancellation, in five B.C. centres, of employment services  
previously offered to Francophones through agreements signed  
with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.  
It affects La Boussole in Vancouver, Kelowna, Penticton and  
Prince George and the Centre d’intégration des immigrants  
africains in New Westminster.  
Further to the devolution of federal government powers to the  
provincial government under a bilateral agreement, the British  
Columbia Ministry of Social Development notified these  
organizations of the withdrawal of their funding in 2011 and of the  
fact that they would no longer be able to offer employment  
services to Francophone clients.  
The signed agreement, however, contained a linguistic clause to  
the effect that the federal department must ensure compliance by  
guaranteeing that services are maintained, the importance of which  
is well established. The demand for these services remains pressing  
even when there are now no organizations that can meet this  
demand.  
The federal Department of Human Resources and Skills  
Development accepted no responsibility and demonstrated a lack  
of commitment. This provincial decision, which Ottawa cannot  
ignore, is a serious infringement of the rights of Francophones in  
Page: 28  
British Columbia. This decision will have devastating  
consequences for Francophones and on the community in which  
these individuals live and will negatively affect the development  
and vitality of our community.  
. . .  
(Affidavit of Réal Roy, Exhibit CC: Appeal Book, pp. 2271 and  
2272)  
[55] Three other complaints had been filed in the preceding months. Like the one filed by the  
FFCB, each target the end of the funding for the Francophone organizations and their resulting  
disengagement, to the detriment of the French linguistic minority community (Affidavit of Serge  
Dancoste, Exhibit A; Affidavit of Tanniar Leba, Exhibit B; Affidavit of Duncan Shaw, Exhibits  
DS-38 and DS-39: Appeal Book, pp. 337 to 339, 1576, 10281 to 10288).  
[56] It should be noted that after the complaints were filed, the attempts made by the  
Francophone organizations to continue their activities, within the model introduced by B.C. in  
April 2012, failed miserably. Some obtained occasional subcontracts, but scant funding led to the  
dismissal of almost all of their employees. Even the SFV, the only one of the five Francophone  
organizations that obtained a subcontract to operate its own centre, was forced to dismiss half of  
its employees and sublet part of its office space.  
[57] After conducting his investigation, the Commissioner concluded that the complaints were  
well-founded under both Part IV and Part VII of the OLA. According to his final report,  
published in April 2013, HRSDC did not ensure, as required under Part IV of the OLA, that B.C.  
was in fact offering employment assistance services in both official languages in the areas where  
there was significant demand. As for Part VII, the Commissioner concluded that the federal  
Page: 29  
institutions were aware of the concerns of B.C.’s linguistic minority community but did not  
bother to assess the potential impact that the model envisaged by B.C. would have on the vitality  
of the Francophone community following the signing of the Agreement. Moreover, the federal  
institutions took no measures in order to allow them to counter the negative impact of the  
implementation of the Agreement in the event that it would adversely affect B.C.’s French  
linguistic minority community (Final Investigation Report of the Office of the Commissioner of  
Official Languages dated April 2013, pp. 17 to 19: Appeal Book, pp. 2312 to 2314).  
[58] The application before the Federal Court was filed in August 2013 but was suspended to  
allow the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement. The matter was finally heard in May  
2017, and the decision dismissing the application was rendered on May 23, 2018. The appeals  
were set to be heard in May 2020 on consent, but the public health crisis intervened before they  
could be heard. The parties subsequently insisted on the appeals being argued in person with the  
result that the hearing did not take place until October last.  
DECISION UNDER APPEAL  
[59] The trial judge’s reasons consist of 157 pages and 300 paragraphs. The following is a  
summary of the essential points.  
[60] The trial judge notes at the outset of the analysis that two agreements were signed by the  
Government of Canada and B.C. in February 2008—the other being the Canada–British  
Columbia Labour Market Agreement—but that only the one involving labour market  
 
Page: 30  
development (the Agreement) was at issue before him (Reasons, para. 14). He explains that at  
the time, funding approximating $300 million was paid annually by the federal institutions to  
B.C. pursuant to this Agreement.  
[61] According to the trial judge’s reading of the complaints, they were aimed at the new  
employment assistance services program (the EPBC) and the “one-stop shop” model  
implemented by B.C. in April 2012 (Reasons, paras. 22 to 25). After identifying these two  
initiatives as the source of the complaints, he reviews the Commissioner’s final report, which  
concluded that the complaints were well-founded (Reasons, paras. 29 and 30).  
[62] The trial judge then addresses the application filed by the FFCB and describes the  
applicable legal regime and the principles that guide the interpretation of language rights  
(Reasons, paras. 31 to 53). He continues by explaining why, in assessing the validity of the  
complaint filed by the FFCB, he must limit his review to the facts as they stood at the time it was  
filed (Reasons, paras. 66 to 82). He concludes this discussion by faulting the FFCB for having  
filed its complaint hastily, given that the EPBC and the “one-stop shop” model were introduced  
after it was filed (Reasons, para. 83).  
[63] The judge then examines the complaints in the light of Part IV of the OLA and asks  
whether, for the purpose of the Agreement, B.C. is acting “on … behalf” of the federal  
institutions as these words appear in section 25. He first dismisses the FFCB’s argument that  
unemployment insurance is an exclusive federal jurisdiction. In so doing, he relies on Lavigne  
FC, as affirmed by Lavigne FCA, and explains why, in his view, these decisions were not  
Page: 31  
overtaken by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Reference re: Employment Insurance Act (Can.),  
ss. 22 and 23, 2005 SCC 56, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 669 [Reference re EIA], and Confédération des  
syndicats nationaux v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 SCC 68, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 511 [CSN]  
(Reasons, paras. 87 to 89 and 101 to 118).  
[64] Rather, the trial judge concludes that the measures contemplated by the Agreement come  
within concurring jurisdictions. They fall under both the federal jurisdiction over unemployment  
insurance under subsection 91(2A) and the provincial jurisdictions under subsections 92(13) and  
(16) and section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C.  
1985, App. II, No. 5 (Constitution Act, 1867). Thus, both the federal government and the  
provinces, including B.C., can legitimately act within the field of activity covered by the  
Agreement under their respective jurisdictions (Reasons, paras. 146 to 151).  
[65] The fact that the benefits and measures contemplated by the Agreement are not provided  
under a B.C. statute, contrary to the situation in Lavigne FC, does not change the fact that  
employment assistance services provided under the Agreement are within B.C.’s jurisdiction  
considering the mandate given by the province to the minister who signed the Agreement on its  
behalf (Reasons, para. 151).  
[66] The trial judge also rejects the Commissioner’s argument that even if there is concurrent  
jurisdiction, the analysis of the “degree of control” that the federal institutions exercise over B.C.  
pursuant to the Agreement—following this Court’s analysis in DesRochers v. Canada, 2006  
FCA 374, [2007] 3 F.C.R. 3 [DesRochers FCA]—leads to the conclusion that they exercise  
Page: 32  
sufficient control to hold that B.C. is acting “on [their] behalf”. In his view, if control exists, it is  
essentially financial (Reasons, paras. 90 to 94). The provisions of the Agreement and the manner  
in which the benefits and measures are administered by B.C. do not support the conclusion that  
B.C. is acting under the control of the federal institutions (Reasons, paras. 158 to 178).  
[67] The trial judge then addresses the question as to whether B.C., by creating and offering  
its own benefits and measures under the Agreement, is exercising its own legislative authority.  
He concludes that such is the case (Reasons, paras. 119 to 134) since the “Commission only  
funds these measures: it does not determine, deliver or administer them” (Reasons, para. 135; see  
also para. 138).  
[68] In short, the Agreement is a funding agreement pursuant to which transfer payments are  
made for the development of the labour market in the province and under which the management  
of employment assistance services is left under the exclusive control of the province, which  
provides them in the course of a valid exercise of its own jurisdiction. It follows that B.C. is  
acting neither “on … behalf” of the federal institutions nor under their control. Consequently,  
Part IV of the OLA does not apply to it (Reasons, paras. 180 to 182).  
[69] The trial judge then addresses the complaints with Part VII in mind. In his view, there is  
no doubt that the federal institutions were subject to the obligation set out in Part VII and that  
this continues to be the case, even in the context of the Agreement. He concludes, however, that  
according to his interpretation of subsection 41(2) of the OLA and his assessment of the  
Page: 33  
evidence, the federal institutions took sufficient positive measures to meet this obligation  
(Reasons, paras. 183 to 185).  
[70] After refusing the Commissioner’s invitation to use the policy adopted by Canadian  
Heritage (Guide for Federal Institutions on Part VII (Promotion of English and French) of the  
Official Languages Act, 2007 (the Guide)) as a tool of statutory interpretation (Reasons,  
paras. 186 and 187), he summarizes the parties’ arguments (Reasons, paras. 188 to 201). The  
trial judge begins his analysis by emphasizing the distinction between Part IV and Part VII of the  
OLA. In his view, Part VII, in contrast with Part IV, enacts duties but does not create  
corresponding rights (Reasons, para. 204). Moreover, subsection 82(1) does not give Part VII  
paramountcy over any other legislation, contrary to other parts of the OLA, particularly Part IV  
(Reasons, para. 205).  
[71] The trial judge then turns to the text of subsections 41(1) and (2) of the OLA. In his view,  
the duty to take “positive measures” (“des mesures positives”, with emphasis on the use of the  
word “des” in the French text) is undefined and signals that some deference must be given as to  
the choice of the measures (Reasons, para. 208). Moreover, the measures must be “positive”, that  
is, meant to have a positive effect. That said, “[t]here is no explicit or implicit threshold  
in subsection 41(2). The subsection simply imposes a general duty to take ‘positive measures’”  
(Reasons, para. 210). Moreover, “the qualifier ‘positives’ (in the French text) [is used] without  
providing further clarification or restrictions” (Reasons, para. 213).  
Page: 34  
[72] The trial judge continues his textual analysis by pointing to the second sentence of  
subsection 41(2), which makes clear that the implementation of Part VII must be carried out  
while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces (Reasons, para. 218). He goes on to  
reject the Commissioner’s submission that, in order to meet the obligation under Part VII, federal  
institutions must be attentive to official language minority communities and must assess the  
impact of their decisions on those communities. According to the trial judge, this approach was  
rejected by the Federal Court in Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du  
Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 999, [2012] 2 F.C.R. 23 [FCFA] (Reasons,  
paras. 216, 217 and 242).  
[73] The trial judge then turns to subsection 41(3) of the OLA, which provides that the  
Governor in Council may make regulations “prescribing the manner in which any duties of those  
institutions under this Part are to be carried out” (Reasons, para. 219). In his view, the fact that  
no regulations have been adopted means that the obligation under Part VII lacks the specificity  
needed to require federal institutions to take specific measures (Reasons, paras. 220 and 221).  
According to him, this is the view that was expressed by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, who  
sponsored the bill that led to the adoption of An Act to amend the Official Languages Act  
(promotion of English and French), S.C. 2005, c. 41 (Act to amend the OLA, 2005) (Reasons,  
paras. 222, 230 to 232 and 293).  
[74] In the trial judge’s view, the general duty to act does not create an obligation to take  
“measures that would directly ensure the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority  
communities or the advancement of both official languages” (Reasons, para. 226). That  
Page: 35  
obligation would be too specific. Even the corollary duty “to act in such a way so as not to  
hinder” remains vague and imprecise: “without regulations specifying its scope and scale,  
subsection 41(2) cannot include the requirement of increased specificity or connection with  
particular programs or factual situations . . .” (Reasons, paras. 227 and 235; see also paras. 249 to  
253). Moreover, the obligation under Part VII could not be “directly related to the specific  
factual framework of the complaint filed with the Commissioner . . .” (Reasons, para. 244).  
[75] Finally, the trial judge considers whether, in light of the general obligation under  
Part VII, the FFCB’s complaint was well-founded at the time it was filed, that is, on June 15,  
2011 (Reasons, para. 259). On the basis of his reading of the complaint, the negative measures at  
issue would have been taken by B.C., not by the federal institutions. Specifically, the negative  
impact on the French linguistic community is attributable to the implementation by the province  
of the EPBC and its “one-stop shop” model (Reasons, para. 281), neither of which were in place  
on June 15, 2011 (Reasons, paras. 282 to 288).  
[76] In any event, the trial judge concludes that sufficient positive measures were taken by the  
federal institutions prior to June 15, 2011. These include the insertion of the consultation clause  
in article 5.4 of the Agreement, the consultations that took place thereafter, the guidelines  
provided by Canadian Heritage and various initiatives taken by ESDC within its institutional  
mandate. In order to highlight the importance he attributes to these measures, he writes (Reasons,  
para. 276):  
There is a vast watershed of measures. The flow starts further  
upstream with principles and guidelines at the level of Canadian  
Page: 36  
Heritage and ESDC. It cascades downward, subsequently irrigating  
an array of more local initiatives . . . .  
[77] In the trial judge’s view, these measures, together with the linguistic clause, contributed  
“positively to the vitality and development of the French-speaking community in [B.C.] . . .”,  
such that the obligation under Part VII was met (Reasons, para. 260; see also paras. 261 to 279).  
[78] At the end of his analysis, the trial judge recognizes that these measures do not remedy  
the specific problem pertaining to B.C.’s decision to do away with the participation of the  
Francophone organizations. The trial judge also recognizes that positive measures to counter this  
adverse effect would have contributed even more to the growth and vitality of the Francophone  
linguistic minority community in B.C. However, in the absence of regulations specifying their  
obligation under Part VII, the federal institutions could not be sanctioned for their omission  
(Reasons, para. 268).  
[79] The trial judge therefore dismissed the FFCB’s application under Part VII. His ultimate  
conclusion is that “there was no failure to comply . . . when the FFCB filed its complaint . . .”  
(Reasons, para. 299).  
Page: 37  
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES  
A.  
The appellants and their supporting interveners  
The FFCB  
[80] According to the FFCB, the trial judge erred in law in his application of both Part IV and  
Part VII. Had he adopted the correct interpretation of either part, he would necessarily have  
found that the complaints had merit at the time they were filed (Memorandum of the FFCB,  
paras. 66 to 88).  
[81] Regarding Part IV, the FFCB submits that the trial judge erred in limiting his analysis to  
section 25 of the OLA and to the question of whether B.C. was acting under the control of the  
federal institutions. He was required to also consider subsection 20(1) of the Charter since the  
purpose of Part IV is to give effect to this provision (Memorandum of the FFCB, paras. 13 and  
14).  
[82] The FFCB relies on Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R.  
624, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 577 [Eldridge] and DesRochers v. Canada (Industry), 2009 SCC 8, [2009]  
1 S.C.R. 194 [DesRochers SCC] which, it submits, establish the rule that federal institutions  
cannot avoid their constitutional obligation by entrusting the implementation of a specific federal  
program to a province. The FFCB contends that this is the precise role assigned to B.C. pursuant  
to the Agreement, as it must provide the services and measures in a manner consistent with the  
guidelines of the EIA (Memorandum of the FFCB, paras. 15 to 24).  
     
Page: 38  
[83] In the alternative, the FFCB, citing paragraph 51 of DesRochers FCA in support,  
maintains that regardless of Eldridge, the trial judge should have found that B.C. was acting  
under the control of the federal institutions given the considerable supervisory authority that they  
exercised (Memorandum of the FFCB, para. 25).  
[84] Thus, Part IV applies to B.C. even though it has concurrent constitutional jurisdiction to  
legislate in matters relating to employment benefits. The trial judge also erred in relying on  
Lavigne FC to establish that B.C. was acting within its own jurisdiction. According to the FFCB,  
although Lavigne FC is authority for the proposition that a section 63 agreement does not  
constitute a delegation of power to the provinces, it does not follow that “the OLA does not  
apply to benefits and measures” offered by B.C. pursuant to the Agreement (Memorandum of the  
FFCB, paras. 26 to 29; citing Reasons, para. 95).  
[85] Regarding Part VII, the FFCB submits that section 41 of the OLA imposes concrete  
obligations on federal institutions and establishes parameters that are sufficiently clear to be the  
subject of review by the courts (Memorandum of the FFCB, para. 31).  
[86] In this respect, the trial judge erred in concluding that the obligation cast on federal  
institutions to take positive measures does not impose a specific obligation. He also erred in  
giving undue weight to the absence of regulations. This approach renders Part VII meaningless  
since it implies that any step taken by the federal institutions would suffice, regardless of its  
relationship to the issue raised by a complaint (Memorandum of the FFCB, paras. 30 and 36 to  
69).  
Page: 39  
[87] According to the FFCB, the obligation to enhance the vitality of linguistic minority  
communities requires more than simple consultations; it requires, at minimum, that consideration  
be given to their needs and concerns. To this end, the obligation set out in section 41 requires  
federal institutions to adopt mechanisms to verify the impact of the measures taken. Federal  
institutions may choose these mechanisms, but having none is not an option (Memorandum of  
the FFCB, paras. 40 to 42 and 50 to 54).  
[88] Finally, the trial judge should not have limited the scope of Part VII on the basis of his  
rejection of the ratchet principle, and this, despite the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in  
Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 56 O.R. (3d) 505, 208  
D.L.R. (4th) 577 [Lalonde]. The fact that the Charter does not “constitutionalize” the measures  
taken in order to advance linguistic equality (Lalonde, para. 92) does not prevent the enactment  
of legislation to that effect, and that is precisely what section 41 seeks to achieve in requiring  
federal institutions to act so as to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities  
and not hinder them (Memorandum of the FFCB, paras. 43 to 49).  
[89] As to the relief, the FFCB essentially asks that we remedy the failure of the federal  
institutions to meet the obligations imposed on them by Parts IV and VII of the OLA. In  
particular, it proposes that the responsibility of providing services in French be entrusted to  
Francophone organizations that have a mandate to serve the Francophone community in B.C.  
and that would take its needs into account (Memorandum of the FFCB, para. 91).  
Page: 40  
The Commissioner  
[90] The Commissioner does not question the trial judge’s findings insofar as Part IV is  
concerned. As to Part VII, the Commissioner emphasizes that the trial judge’s interpretation  
renders the Part VII obligation too general to be justiciable. Relying on the administrative policy  
published by Canadian Heritage and parliamentary debates, the Commissioner maintains that this  
obligation applies in the context of every decision or initiative taken by a federal institution.  
Thus, subsection 41(2) imposes an obligation to verify the impact that those decisions and  
initiatives can have on official language minority communities and counter their negative impact  
by the adoption of positive measures, if need be (Memorandum of the Commissioner, paras. 12  
to 48).  
[91] The Commissioner also refers to subsection 58(1) of the OLA and to Picard v. Canada  
(Commissioner of Patents), 2010 FC 86, [2011] 2 F.C.R. 192 [Picard] to assert that only an  
analysis of the precise factual situation underlying a complaint would be consistent with the  
statutory mandate conferred on the courts by subsection 77(1) of the OLA and consistent with a  
broad and liberal interpretation of language rights (Memorandum of the Commissioner, paras. 49  
to 58; citing Picard, para. 68).  
[92] Finally, the Commissioner is of the view that the government measure targeted by the  
complaint is the 2008 Agreement and the negative impact that it had on the Francophone  
community. It follows that facts evidencing this negative impact are relevant, whether they took  
 
Page: 41  
place before or after the complaint was filed (Memorandum of the Commissioner, paras. 76 to  
81; citing section 77 of the OLA).  
The AJEFNB  
[93] The intervener the AJEFNB generally supports the arguments raised by the appellants.  
With respect to Part IV, it submits that Lavigne FC must be repudiated because that decision  
allows questions relating to the division of powers to override constitutional obligations  
regarding language rights (Memorandum of the AJEFNB, paras. 65 to 71).  
[94] Moreover, Lavigne FC would be inconsistent with Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du  
Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Canada, 2008 SCC 15, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 383 [SANB]. According to  
the AJEFNB, this decision stands for the proposition that as soon as one level of government  
cooperates with another order of government by acting voluntarily in the areas of jurisdiction of  
its partner, it is subject to the latter’s linguistic obligations. According to the AJEFNB, this is  
what B.C. does pursuant to the Agreement (Memorandum of the AJEFNB, paras. 59 to 64).  
The QCGN  
[95] The intervener the QCGN shares the appellants’ vision and understanding of the Part VII  
obligation and insists that this is the only interpretation that is consistent with the principle of  
substantive equality and the objective set out in paragraph 2(b) of the OLA to give effect to  
section 16 of the Charter (Memorandum of the QCGN, paras. 6 to 47).  
   
Page: 42  
[96] According to the QCGN, the trial judge erred in concluding that Part VII cannot be used  
to revive Part IV obligations. On the contrary, Part VII contemplates going beyond Part IV  
obligations when such an approach is necessary to avoid harm to linguistic minority  
communities and to comply with the principle of substantive equality (Memorandum of the  
QCGN, paras. 48 to 58; citing Reasons, para. 206).  
B.  
The respondents and the Attorney General of B.C.  
ESDC and the Commission  
[97] According to the respondents, the trial judge correctly held that the complaint filed by the  
FFCB was premature. The respondents submit that the complaint did not target the Agreement,  
but was rather aimed at the anticipated reduction in funding for the Francophone organizations  
and the fear that services in French would no longer be offered after the introduction of the  
EPBC (Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 35 to 41).  
[98] The respondents add that B.C. cannot be made subject to the obligations imposed on the  
federal institutions under Part IV of the OLA because B.C. is acting within its own jurisdiction.  
Indeed, although the benefits and measures are funded by the federal institutions, they are  
designed by B.C. and are not created by the Agreement or by section 63 of the EIA  
(Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 46 to 49).  
[99] The absence of provincial legislation authorizing the implementation of the Agreement  
does not alter the situation in any way, since the benefits and measures are offered pursuant to  
   
Page: 43  
the explicit mandate given by B.C. to its Minister of Economic Development, as a signatory to  
the Agreement. Since Parliament’s jurisdiction over official languages is ancillary to its areas of  
legislative authority, B.C. cannot be made subject to the obligations of either the OLA or  
subsection 20(1) of the Charter (Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 50 to 59; citing R. v.  
Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, 173 D.L.R. (4th) 193, para. 14 [Beaulac]).  
[100] The respondents maintain that the trial judge properly followed the reasoning set out in  
Lavigne FC, since that decision was affirmed on appeal (Lavigne FCA) and the facts were  
essentially the same (Memorandum of the Respondents, para. 69).  
[101] Like the one at issue in Lavigne FC, the Agreement is a general funding framework that  
does not direct B.C. as to what to do. If there are any conditions, they are derived from the  
federal government’s spending power and B.C. is bound only to the extent that it agrees to abide  
by these conditions. In this context, the suggestion that B.C. is acting on behalf of the  
respondents disregards the division of powers and would impose on the provinces linguistic  
obligations that they do not have (Memorandum of the Respondents, para. 68; Reply  
Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 33 to 37).  
[102] Regarding Part VII of the OLA and more precisely subsection 41(2), the respondents  
argue that in requiring federal institutions to take “positive measures” (des mesures positives in  
the French text), Parliament did not intend to dictate the precise measures that they should take  
or the specific methodology that they should use in order to meet the commitment to enhance the  
vitality of official language minority communities (Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 70  
Page: 44  
to 74). Nor can the eminently important objective of the OLA be used to transform an obligation  
of means into an obligation of result (Reply Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 20 to 26).  
[103] In the absence of a regulation made under subsection 41(3) of the OLA, the obligation of  
federal institutions to take positive measures is subject to no specific terms or conditions.  
According to the respondents, the important role that the trial judge attributes to regulations  
respects the hierarchy of norms, and it is rather the courts that would be overstepping their role  
and usurping the role of the executive if they were to impose specific terms (Memorandum of the  
Respondents, paras. 75 to 78; Reply Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 40 and 41).  
[104] According to the respondents, the trial judge was correct in rejecting the ratchet principle,  
since it is inconsistent with the broad discretion afforded to the federal institutions in choosing  
the appropriate positive measures in each case. The objective of advancing substantive equality  
does not have the effect of crystallizing the measures taken to the point where they cannot be  
changed or replaced (Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 79 and 80; Reply Memorandum  
of the Respondents, paras. 12 to 14; citing Lalonde and R. v. MacKenzie, 2004 NSCA 10, 221  
N.S.R. (2d) 51 [MacKenzie]).  
[105] The trial judge was also correct in holding that sufficient positive measures had been  
taken by the federal institutions. First, ESDC consulted with members of the B.C. Francophone  
community both before and after the Agreement was entered into. In addition, a commitment  
was obtained from B.C. to further consult, which it did, not to mention the many other measures  
Page: 45  
taken, independent of the Agreement (Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 82 to 85 and 88,  
citing Reasons, paras. 260 to 279 and art. 5.4 of the Agreement).  
[106] In conclusion, the respondents submit that even if the Court were to find that a violation  
of the OLA existed at the time the complaint was filed, no remedy should be granted since the  
failure targeted by the complaint has since been remedied because French-language services that  
are compliant with the Agreement are now offered in B.C. (Memorandum of the Respondents,  
paras. 87 to 91).  
The Attorney General of B.C.  
[107] The intervener the Attorney General of B.C. chose not to appear at the hearing of the  
appeal in Vancouver, but did file a memorandum. The arguments outlined are limited to Part IV  
and whether B.C. was acting within its own constitutional powers when it entered into and  
implemented the Agreement.  
[108] Specifically, the Attorney General of B.C. argues that the FFCB wrongly asserts that  
B.C., in implementing the Agreement, is giving effect to a specific federal program or acting on  
behalf of the federal institutions. First, the test developed in Eldridge is used for determining  
whether the Charter applies to a private entity, not to a province. Second, the intent behind  
section 63 of the EIA is not to impose a federal scheme on the provinces, but rather to give them  
full control over the creation and implementation of benefits and measures in matters of  
employment assistance (Memorandum of the Attorney General of B.C., paras. 12 to 25; citing  
Eldridge, para. 44).  
 
Page: 46  
ANALYSIS AND DECISION  
A.  
Standard of review  
[109] As we are dealing with two appeals, the standard of review established by the Supreme  
Court in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, is applicable. It follows that  
questions of law, including the determination of the applicable legal principles, are subject to the  
standard of correctness while the application of those principles to the facts in issue is subject to  
the standard of palpable and overriding error in the absence of an extricable legal principle. If the  
trial judge conducts his analysis on the basis of the wrong legal principle, no deference is owed.  
B.  
Interpretation of language rights  
[110] At the outset of his analysis, the trial judge reviewed the principles of interpretation  
applicable to language rights (Reasons, paras. 46 to 53). He pointed out that the OLA is a  
fundamental law that is closely linked to the values and rights set out in the Constitution and, in  
particular, in subsections 20(1) and 16(1) of the Charter, which deal with language of service and  
language of work.  
[111] Therefore, “in all cases” language rights must be interpreted “purposively, in a manner  
consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities” (Reasons,  
para. 48, citing Beaulac, para. 25). That said, the modern approach to statutory interpretation,  
which requires that the words of an Act be read in their entire context and in their grammatical  
and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, its object and the intention of  
     
Page: 47  
Parliament, continues to apply even with respect to language rights (Reasons, para. 52, citing  
Caron v. Alberta, 2015 SCC 56, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 511, para. 38; Thibodeau v. Air Canada, 2014  
SCC 67, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 340, para. 112; Lavigne v. Canada (Office of the Commissioner of  
Official Languages), 2002 SCC 53, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773 [Lavigne SCC], para. 25; Tran v.  
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289 and  
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193, para. 21).  
[112] The appellants do not question the principles of interpretation so described. Only the trial  
judge’s application of these principles to the legal provisions at issue is challenged on appeal.  
C.  
Part IV of the OLA  
[113] The obligations set out in Part IV of the OLA, including the obligation to provide  
services to the public in either official language where demand warrants, apply to the provinces  
when they act in the name of the federal government, or more specifically “on its behalf” (s. 25  
of the OLA).  
[114] Before the trial judge, the FFCB relied on Reference re EIA and CSN to argue that B.C.  
was acting “on … behalf” of the federal institutions because the measures implemented under the  
Agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government in matters relating to  
unemployment insurance (Reasons, para. 89). Instead, the trial judge concluded that the  
provincial legislature has concurrent jurisdiction in such matters, citing in support the decision of  
the Federal Court in Lavigne FC, as affirmed by this Court in Lavigne FCA (Reasons, paras. 87  
to 118).  
 
Page: 48  
[115] The Commissioner, for his part, referred to DesRochers FCA in an effort to persuade the  
trial judge that the “degree of control” exercised by the federal institutions over B.C. under the  
Agreement was sufficient to hold that the province was acting “on … behalf” of those  
institutions for the purposes of section 25 of the OLA (Reasons, para. 90). The trial judge  
rejected this argument pointing out that the federal institutions only supplied the funding and that  
the benefits and measures were provided by B.C. on its own initiative and under its own  
constitutional authority. Specifically, it is B.C. that determines, delivers and administers these  
benefits and measures (Reasons, para. 135) and the province agreed to abide by the conditions  
set out in the Agreement in the exercise of its own legislative authority under subsections 92(13)  
and (16) or section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Again, the trial judge ultimately relied on  
Lavigne FC and Lavigne FCA as well as paragraph 54 of DesRochers FCA to conclude that the  
fact that the federal government provides the funding does not mean that B.C. is acting “on …  
behalf” of the federal institutions (Reasons, paras. 158 to 178).  
[116] Like the trial judge, we are of the view that Lavigne FC and Lavigne FCA preclude the  
application of Part IV. However, the FFCB and the AJEFNB ask that we either repudiate these  
decisions because they were incorrectly decided or ignore them on the basis that they were  
overtaken by Eldridge and SANB.  
[117] Like the Federal Court, we are bound by our own decisions unless they are shown to be  
“manifestly wrong” (Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 370, 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149,  
para. 10). Lavigne FC, upheld by the Court in Lavigne FCA, was decided in a context nearly  
identical to the one at hand and has stood as authority for more than 20 years. Contrary to the  
Page: 49  
assertion made by the FFCB, Lavigne FC—at paragraphs 55 and 80 to 83—answers the precise  
question of whether the OLA applies to benefits and measures provided by a province under the  
type of agreement at issue in the present case (Memorandum of the FFCB, para. 29).  
[118] Adopting a different tack, the AJEFNB submits that those decisions should not be relied  
on because Mr. Lavigne, the complainant in Lavigne FC, was self-represented. The suggestion is  
that the Court did not have the benefit of fulsome arguments. The AJEFNB maintains that  
neither Eldridge nor subsection 20(1) of the Charter were brought to the Court’s attention and  
adds that the Commissioner did not appear in that proceeding.  
[119] These attempts to cast doubt on the correctness of Lavigne FC and Lavigne FCA are  
unpersuasive. While it is true that the Commissioner did not appear, his report was part of the  
record before the Federal Court, and the recommendation that it embodied was followed by the  
Court (Lavigne FC, paras. 12, 13 and 68). As for subsection 20(1) of the Charter, it was indeed  
raised in argument and found not to apply because, like B.C. in this case, Quebec was acting on  
its own account pursuant to the agreement it had entered into (Lavigne FC, paras. 52, 95 and  
105).  
[120] As for Eldridge, its relevance is no more apparent today than it was when Lavigne FC  
and Lavigne FCA were decided. This is because even if we were to accept that based on  
Eldridge, a federal institution cannot evade its constitutional responsibilities by delegating the  
exercise of its powers to a province (Eldridge, para. 42), that issue does not arise here because  
B.C. is exercising its own powers under the Agreement (Lavigne FC, paras. 71 to 87; Lavigne  
Page: 50  
FCA, para. 2). Furthermore, B.C. is not being asked to implement a “specific … program” of the  
federal government (Eldridge, para. 42). Rather, it is invited to occupy exclusively a field of  
activity that was previously shared with the federal government.  
[121] SANB also arises in a context that is completely different from the one at hand. In that  
case, the federal institution in question—the RCMP—assumed by way of contract the  
responsibility of providing police services to the province of New Brunswick. That is the context  
in which it was held that the RCMP was bound by the linguistic obligations imposed by the  
province for which it was acting. In contrast, B.C. is acting for no one else, and the functions that  
it assumes fall within its own jurisdiction.  
[122] It follows that the alleged inconsistency with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court  
does not exist. Without making any assumption about the scope that the Supreme Court might  
give to its own decisions if it were called upon to pronounce on the matter, those decisions do  
not allow us to conclude that Lavigne FC and Lavigne FCA were wrongly decided or that the  
trial judge erred in holding that he was bound by them.  
[123] Therefore, the appeal relating to Part IV of the OLA must fail.  
D.  
Part VII of the OLA  
[124] This is the first time that this Court is called upon to rule on the interpretation to be given  
to Part VII in its current form.  
 
Page: 51  
[125] Part VII conveys the federal government’s commitment to enhance the vitality of the  
English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and sets out the obligation of  
federal institutions to take positive measures towards that end. The appellants submit that the  
trial judge’s interpretation of this obligation is restrictive to the point that no effect can be given  
to the federal government’s commitment.  
[126] It is therefore necessary to determine the meaning to be given to this commitment and to  
the obligation to take positive measures to deliver on it. To this end, we must read the provisions  
embodied by Part VII in their entire context, according to the grammatical and ordinary sense of  
the words, harmoniously with the scheme of the OLA, its object and the intention of Parliament.  
The context surrounding Part VII  
[127] The obligation set out in Part VII is part of the Government of Canada’s formal  
commitment to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of the English and French  
linguistic minority communities, as an integral part of the two official language communities of  
Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society  
(Preamble to the OLA). This commitment is inspired by the principle of the protection of  
minorities and the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French set out in  
subsection 16(3) of the Charter (Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, 161  
D.L.R. (4th) 385, paras. 79 to 82; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, 156 D.L.R. (4th) 385,  
para. 176).  
 
Page: 52  
[128] In Beaulac, the Supreme Court enshrined the notion of substantive equality in our  
understanding of the language rights protected by the OLA, but this notion of equality could not  
at the time be transposed to Part VII of the OLA because the promise that it reflected was  
political, rather than legal. This Court stated the following in Canadian Food Inspection Agency  
v. Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne, 2004 FCA 263, [2004] 4 F.C.R. 276 [Forum des  
maires], five years after Beaulac (Forum des maires, para. 39):  
It is true that the protection of language rights constitutes a  
fundamental constitutional objective and requires particular  
vigilance on the part of the courts, and that the courts must  
generously construe the texts that confer these rights, but it is also  
necessary that these be rights to protect and not policies to  
define. . . . [Emphasis added.]  
This finding led the Court to conclude, at the time, that Part VII was not justiciable (Forum des  
maires, para. 44).  
[129] It is in the wake of this decision that subsections 41(2) and (3) were incorporated into the  
OLA in November 2005 (Act to amend the OLA, 2005), and that Part VII was added to the  
provisions of the OLA that may give rise to a court remedy. These amendments address the  
shortcoming identified in Forum des maires and make Part VII justiciable, thereby transforming  
“policies to define” into “rights to protect”.  
The purpose of subsections 41(1) and (2)  
[130] Subsections 41(1) and (2) set out the obligation created by Part VII. There is no need to  
conduct an extensive search to ascertain their purpose. They faithfully echo the  
 
Page: 53  
quasi-constitutional purpose set out in paragraph 2(b) of the OLA, namely, to support the  
development of English and French linguistic minority communities and advance the equality of  
the two languages. It is with this purpose in mind that we must interpret subsections 41(1)  
and (2).  
[131] We note that, although Part VII has been subject to judicial oversight since 2005, it was  
not added to the parts listed in subsection 82(1) of the OLA that are said to prevail over  
conflicting provisions of any other Act. This is because, unlike these other parts—namely Part I  
(“Proceedings of Parliament”), Part II (“Legislative and Other Instruments”), Part III  
(“Administration of Justice”), Part IV (“Communications with and Services to the Public”) and  
Part V (“Language of Work”)—which provide for specific obligations that the legislator can  
identify with precision and prioritize, Part VII can be applied to an unlimited number of  
situations that do not lend themselves to that kind of exercise.  
[132] Because it is impossible to identify with any precision the situations in which the  
obligation set out in Part VII can apply, the legislator left it to the courts to settle any conflict  
with other legislation. It remains that, like the other parts listed in subsection 82(1), Part VII  
must be interpreted broadly since it shares the same purpose, namely, to support the development  
of official language minority communities and to advance the equality of the two languages  
(para. 2(b) of the OLA).  
[133] It is helpful to consider the purpose of Part VII in light of the Supreme Court’s rich body  
of case law on language rights. In Solski (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 14,  
Page: 54  
[2005] 1 S.C.R. 201 [Solski], the Supreme Court establishes that language rights “cannot be  
analysed in the abstract, without regard for the historical context of the recognition thereof or for  
the concerns that the manner in which they are currently applied is meant to address” (Solski,  
para. 5).  
[134] With this in mind, the concerns that Part VII is meant to address are not unlike those  
protected by the constitutional entitlement to minority language education (s. 23 of the Charter).  
In Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342, 68 D.L.R. (4th) 69 [Mahe], the Supreme Court refers to  
section 23 of the Charter and explains that it seeks “to preserve and promote the two official  
languages of Canada, and their respective cultures, by ensuring that each language flourishes, as  
far as possible, in provinces where it is not spoken by the majority of the population” (Mahe,  
p. 362).  
[135] More recently, in Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British  
Columbia, 2020 SCC 13, 447 D.L.R. (4th) 1 [Conseil scolaire francophone de la C.-B.], the  
Supreme Court refers to the purpose of this provision, stating that it “is intended not only to  
prevent the erosion of official language communities, but also to redress past injustices and  
promote the development of those communities” (Conseil scolaire francophone de la C.-B.,  
para. 15).  
[136] To be clear, the constitutional protection under section 23 of the Charter is not the same  
as that under Part VII of the OLA and the two should not be conflated. Nevertheless, the OLA  
has a special status and is broad in scope in that it governs situations where “the existence of  
Page: 55  
language communities and the manner in which those communities perceive their future” are in  
issue (Solski, para. 4). Given the crucial role of Part VII in promoting bilingualism (Lavigne  
SCC, para. 23), preventing the erosion of language communities is also part of the objectives that  
must guide the “positive measures” to be taken under subsection 41(2).  
[137] Moreover, since 2005 and unlike the situation that prevailed when Forum des maires was  
decided, these measures must also be guided by the standard of substantive equality (DesRochers  
SCC, para. 31). As recognized by the Supreme Court, substantive equality sometimes requires  
that the services received by official language minorities be different from those received by the  
majority. This different treatment is based on the idea that “their particular circumstances and  
needs” must be taken into account (Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, 2000 SCC 1,  
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 3, para. 31).  
The wording of the provisions in Part VII  
[138] In our view, an interpretation of Part VII that gives effect to the grammatical and ordinary  
sense of the words allows for the intended purpose to be achieved.  
[139] According to subsection 41(2): “Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that  
positive measures are taken for the implementation” of the commitment under subsection 41(1),  
namely “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities . . .  
and supporting and assisting their development” and “fostering the full recognition and use of  
both English and French . . .”.  
 
Page: 56  
[140] The phrase “has the duty”, or “[i]l incombe” in the French text, is unequivocal. It requires  
federal institutions to act in order to achieve the purpose set out in paragraph 2(b) and reiterated  
in subsection 41(1). The reference to “measures” (des mesures in the French text) allows federal  
institutions to choose which measures to take, but the obligation to take measures is not thereby  
diminished.  
[141] The word “ensure” implies an obligation that is ongoing. The obligation to take positive  
measures applies so long as a federal institution can act towards achieving the intended purpose.  
[142] It is by the taking of “positive measures” that federal institutions are invited to act. The  
intention is to mobilize the federal administration and use it in order to enhance the vitality of  
official language minority communities through the decisions and initiatives that it is called upon  
to take. The duty to “enhance” necessarily entails a duty not to harm, as the trial judge  
acknowledged (Reasons, paras. 227 to 229; see to the same effect Canada (Official Languages)  
v. CBC/Radio-Canada, 2014 FC 849, [2015] 3 F.C.R. 481, para. 33 [CBC FC], rev’d on other  
grounds 2015 FCA 251, [2016] 3 F.C.R. 55).  
[143] The last sentence of subsection 41(2) specifies, for greater certainty, that the  
implementation of positive measures must be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction of the  
provinces. It goes without saying that the federal government can only regulate official  
languages in areas that are within its jurisdiction. We note that in the present case, any obligation  
set out in the Agreement in order to enhance the vitality of the French linguistic minority  
Page: 57  
community—for example, B.C.’s obligation to consult regarding the measures that it adopts—is  
binding on the province only because it has agreed to comply.  
[144] Lastly, subsection 41(3) allows the Governor in Council to make regulations “prescribing  
the manner in which any duties of [federal] institutions under [Part VII] are to be carried out”.  
The wording contemplates the making of regulations to guide the implementation of the  
obligation set out in Part VII, if the executive considers it useful to do so. Moreover, it is clear  
from the text of subsection 41(2) that the obligation arises under that provision and exists  
independently of the adoption of a regulation.  
The interpretation of the trial judge  
[145] The trial judge’s interpretation of Part VII essentially renders it meaningless. In his view,  
“section 41 does not impose specific and particular duties” (Reasons, para. 216), and in the  
absence of a regulation specifying the “general duty” to take positive measures, this duty lacks  
the specificity that it could and should have (Reasons, para. 221). It follows that the  
implementation of “some positive measures” is sufficient to meet the obligation set out in  
Part VII (Reasons, para. 240), and that there is no “minimum … threshold” to meet (Reasons,  
para. 250). In particular, positive measures cannot be aimed at countering the adverse effect of a  
specific government program or of a particular initiative because such an approach would give  
the obligation a degree of specificity beyond its general scope. Moreover, this would encroach on  
the discretion given to federal institutions under subsection 41(2) to adopt positive measures of  
their choice (Reasons, para. 244). Again, only a regulation could allow for a particular program  
or a specific situation to be targeted by a complaint (Reasons, para. 248).  
 
Page: 58  
[146] With all due respect to the trial judge, his interpretation of Part VII departs from its text,  
ignores its purpose and gives the regulation a significance that the legislator did not contemplate.  
[147] Parliament may delegate to the Governor in Council (the executive) the power to impose  
an obligation by regulation, but this is not the approach set out in Part VII. As the text indicates,  
the obligation to take positive measures is derived from the OLA itself, and it is the manner in  
which this obligation is to be carried out that the Governor in Council “may” prescribe by  
regulation. The obligation to enhance the vitality of linguistic minority communities  
contemplates concrete actions, recognizable on the basis of the intended purpose, without the  
need for further specification by way of a regulation.  
[148] The trial judge construes the remarks made by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier before the  
Standing Senatorial Committee on Official Languages on March 11, 2004, as going the other  
way. In particular, he cites the following passage (Reasons, para. 232):  
At the present time, there are no regulations governing Part VII of  
the Official Languages Act. Consequently, there are none for  
section 41. Having legislation without regulations is like having a  
watchdog with no teeth, or such a tiny one that no one could take it  
seriously. The law must be enforceable, and must therefore have  
regulations. [Emphasis added by the trial judge.]  
[149] The meaning to be given to Part VII does not depend on the opinion given by Senator  
Gauthier, but his view is of interest given the crucial role that he played in bringing about the  
2005 amendment (see in this regard Forum des maires, para. 44). We agree with the  
Commissioner that Senator Gauthier cannot be taken to have said that a regulation was necessary  
Page: 59  
in order to give effect to the obligation set out in Part VII. We note in particular the later passage  
to which the Commissioner refers at paragraph 61 of his memorandum:  
I think it might be useful to state that the amendment seeks only to  
clarify the government’s power to pass regulations. Part VII is the  
only part of the act that does not give the government the explicit  
power to pass regulations. Even Part VI, which deals with  
equitable participation, refers to the government’s commitment, as  
does Part VII. The purpose of my amendment is to correct this  
omission from the act. . . . This is a discretionary power. The  
government is not required to pass any regulations. [Emphasis  
added by the Commissioner.]  
[150] In our view, a full reading of Senator Gauthier’s statements does not support the trial  
judge’s assessment of this position.  
[151] More significantly, the suggestion that a regulation is required in order for specific  
measures to be taken would bring the obligation set out in Part VII to a standstill and defeat its  
purpose rather than contribute to its achievement. The text of subsection 41(3) allows for a  
reading that achieves the intended purpose.  
[152] The suggestion that this obligation cannot target “a federal institution’s program, [a]  
decision-making process, [a] particular initiative, or … a specific factual situation that may have  
been the subject of a complaint” (Reasons, para. 250) is no more defensible. Indeed, it is mostly  
if not exclusively in the context of a specific factual situation that questions can arise as to  
whether the obligation to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities has  
been met. Again, the trial judge’s interpretation of Part VII would render it ineffective.  
Page: 60  
[153] This interpretation is also in direct conflict with subsection 58(1) of the OLA, which  
requires that any complaint alleging a failure to comply with the OLA, including Part VII, must  
refer to the “particular instance or case” underlying the alleged breach. The courts called upon to  
hear applications arising from a complaint must be able to render a decision in light of the  
specific violations of Part VII that are being alleged, since it is the merit of the complaint that is  
the subject of an application under subsection 77(1). It is difficult to conceive how courts could  
rule on a Part VII complaint otherwise than on the basis of the specific violation that it alleges.  
Only an interpretation that disregards the purpose of Part VII could allow for the obligation that  
it imposes to be assessed without taking into account the particular facts that underlie a  
complaint.  
[154] Beyond the inconsistency it creates, the interpretation proposed by the trial judge is  
contrary to Picard, one of two other Federal Court decisions dealing with the Part VII obligation  
(apart from CBC FC). In that case, Justice Tremblay-Lamer explains why the merits of a  
complaint filed pursuant to Part VII must be determined on the basis of a particular decision  
rather than on the basis of the general policy of the federal institution in question (Picard,  
para. 68):  
However, I believe that the courts must limit themselves to the  
factual circumstances relating to a particular decision rather than  
examining the government’s entire language policy every time an  
application under Part VII is brought before them. The courts are  
simply not equipped to assess the government’s language policy as  
a whole: that assessment is political in nature. Parliament is in a  
better position than the courts to make that assessment. However,  
the courts are used to ruling concerning the factual circumstances  
relating to a particular decision, and it is logical to assume that by  
creating a legal remedy for violations of Part VII, Parliament  
intended precisely to call on their expertise in the matter.  
Page: 61  
[155] The trial judge attempts to distinguish this decision on the basis that unlike the case  
before him, the federal institution in Picard (the Patent Office) had not taken any positive  
measures and had done nothing to fulfill the Part VII obligation (Reasons, para. 247, see also  
para. 226). Yet, Justice Tremblay-Lamer does not allude to an absence of positive measures; she  
analyzes the one proposed by the federal institution—making available abstracts of patent  
applications in the other official language—and concludes that this measure was insufficient to  
meet the obligation set out in Part VII (Picard, paras. 12, 62, 63 and 69). It follows that the  
distinction made by the trial judge did not allow him to by-pass Picard. This decision stands  
squarely in his way and gives the Part VII obligation a meaning that is diametrically opposed to  
the one that he gave.  
[156] The trial judge also relies on the other Federal Court decision dealing with Part VII as it  
now reads—FCFA—to conclude that section 41 does not require federal institutions to consider  
the impact that their decisions may have on official language minority communities (Reasons,  
paras. 216, 217 and 242). FCFA, however, does not stand for that proposition.  
[157] FCFA deals with whether Part VII, and in particular subsection 41(2), imposed on  
Statistics Canada the obligation to use the long-form questionnaire in conducting the 2011  
census. This questionnaire had five questions regarding language, rather than the short-form one,  
which had only three. The premise for the application made in that case was that only the  
mandatory long-form questionnaire could provide the federal institutions with the reliable data  
that was necessary to allow them to take positive measures in conformity with their Part VII  
obligation (FCFA, paras. 28 and 29).  
Page: 62  
[158] Justice Boivin, sitting then as a member of the Federal Court, rejected the premise that  
data from the short-form questionnaire “will be unreliable to the point of being unusable”  
(FCFA, para. 35). After making this finding, he went on to conclude that Part VII did not require  
Statistics Canada to use the long-form questionnaire in order to meet the obligation set out in  
Part VII. According to that reasoning, it is clear that if Justice Boivin had found that the short-  
form questionnaire did not provide federal institutions with sufficient information to allow them  
to take positive measures, he would have required that the long-form questionnaire be used.  
[159] Our interpretation of the obligation under Part VII indeed requires federal institutions to  
be aware of and attentive to the needs of official language minority communities across the  
country and to consider the impact that the decisions that they are called upon to take may have  
on these communities. Only then can federal institutions be in a position to act in order to  
enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. This interpretation coincides with  
Canadian Heritage’s understanding of the Part VII obligation as evidenced by the Guide that it  
publishes for federal institutions. According to the version of the Guide that was in force in 2008,  
when the Agreement was signed, federal institutions were to, among other things:  
make employees aware of the needs of official language  
minority communities (page 10);  
determine whether the policies and programs have an impact on  
these communities, including the devolution of services  
(page 11);  
ask themselves certain key questions about the potential impact  
on these communities when making decisions such as  
abolishing a program or eliminating a service point (page 12);  
if it has been established that the initiative could have a negative  
impact on these communities, and if the decision to take this  
Page: 63  
initiative is maintained, identify which measures are planned to  
counteract any disadvantages (page 12);  
if the initiative is likely to involve other levels of government,  
identify the actions that can be taken to ensure the third party’s  
commitment to fostering the development of these communities  
(page 13).  
[160] The new version of the Guide published on May 30, 2019, invites federal institutions to  
abide by essentially the same requirements. However, a notice to the reader inserted in order to  
acknowledge the binding effect of the decision of the trial judge, points out that the indicated  
measures go beyond the scope of section 41 of the OLA.  
[161] The trial judge rejected the Guide, holding that it was evidence that the Commissioner, as  
an intervener, could not file. We are of the view that the Guide expresses an opinion that could  
have informed his decision. Although by no means determinative, the opinion of the government  
entity responsible for the administration of the law that gives rise to an issue of statutory  
interpretation is often consulted by the courts as a interpretive aid (F.N. (Re), 2000 SCC 35,  
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 880, paras. 25 and 26; Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29, 144 D.L.R.  
(3d) 193, p. 37; Schwartz v. Canada, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254, 133 D.L.R. (4th) 289, paras. 23, 25  
and 27). In the case at hand, Canadian Heritage’s understanding of the Part VII obligation and  
the measures set out in the Guide in order to comply with it reflect the point of view of the entity  
responsible for its application (ss. 42 and 43 of the OLA).  
[162] These measures are elaborated by reference to the objective sought, namely, enhancing  
the vitality of official language minority communities. They are consistent with the purpose of  
Page: 64  
the OLA—supporting the development of these communities—a consideration that becomes  
particularly important when interpreting quasi-constitutional provisions (Canada (Attorney  
General) v. Viola (C.A.), [1991] 1 F.C. 373, 123 N.R. 83, p. 386; Lavigne SCC, para. 23). The  
interpretation of Part VII that led Canadian Heritage to adopt these measures is also consistent  
with the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words and takes the legislative context into  
account.  
[163] As suggested by the Commissioner, when interpreted this way, the obligation set out in  
Part VII lends itself to a two-step analysis. Federal institutions must first be sensitive to the  
particular circumstances of the country’s various official language minority communities and  
determine the impact that the decisions and initiatives that they are called upon to take may have  
on those communities. Second, federal institutions must, when implementing their decisions and  
initiatives, act, to the extent possible, to enhance the vitality of these communities; or where  
these decisions and initiatives are susceptible of having a negative impact, act, to the extent  
possible, to counter or mitigate these negative repercussions.  
[164] It is with this approach in mind that the conduct of the federal institutions should be  
assessed in order to determine whether the complaints are well-founded.  
Page: 65  
E.  
Was the obligation under Part VII met?  
The complaints  
[165] Four complaints were filed. Only the one filed by the FFCB was the subject of the  
application before the trial judge, but they all inform the debate (s. 79 of the OLA). The  
complaints must be examined in the historical context that led to their filing and in light of the  
obligation under Part VII of the OLA rather than those set out in Part IV. They each allege  
essentially the same thing: the federal institutions acted to the detriment of the French linguistic  
minority community in allowing B.C. to cut the funding of the Francophone organizations and  
remove them from the role they were playing in the delivery of employment assistance services.  
[166] The complaint filed by the FFCB refers to the employment assistance services that were  
previously offered by the Francophone organizations at five centres in Vancouver, Kelowna,  
Penticton, Prince George and New Westminster. It states that these organizations were notified  
that their funding had been withdrawn such that they would no longer be taking part in the  
delivery of these services.  
[167] According to the FFCB’s complaint, the disengagement of the Francophone  
organizations took place following the devolution in favour of B.C. pursuant to the Agreement.  
The complaint criticizes the federal institutions—only the predecessor to ESDC is mentioned,  
but the Commission fits the bill as well—for having done nothing to prevent the Francophone  
organizations from being excluded from the role they played in the delivery of services for the  
benefit of the members of B.C.’s Francophone minority community. The complaint specifies that  
   
Page: 66  
this occurred despite the fact that the Agreement contained a linguistic clause, thereby alluding  
to the hope, which has since faded, that this clause would compel B.C. to maintain the  
participation of the Francophone organizations in the delivery of employment assistance  
services. It is this continued participation that is at the core of the complaint in the face of the  
federal institutions’ failure to ensure it. The complaint concludes by highlighting the  
[TRANSLATION] “devastating” effect that this disengagement was going to have on B.C.’s French  
linguistic minority community.  
The Commissioner’s report  
[168] After conducting his investigation, the Commissioner concluded that HRSDC had not  
met its obligation under Part VII and that the complaints in that regard were well-founded. In  
particular, HRSDC had failed to assess the impact of the new service delivery model  
implemented by B.C. on the vitality of the province’s French linguistic minority community and  
on its identity building. According to the Commissioner’s report, HRSDC did not even consider  
the possibility of taking measures to offset the probable negative impact resulting from the  
implementation of the Agreement (Final Investigation Report of the Office of the Commissioner  
of Official Languages dated April 2013, p. 20: Appeal Book, p. 2315). The Commissioner also  
criticized HRSDC for not putting in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure that B.C. would  
abide by the linguistic clause.  
[169] As regards the Commissioner’s conclusion pertaining to the linguistic clause, we note  
that the reference made to this clause in the complaint filed by the FFCB is incidental to the  
disengagement of the Francophone organizations. As explained below, the linguistic clause  
 
Page: 67  
could in no way address the concern raised by the complaints. On this point, we note that the  
Commissioner’s report is useful as evidence, but the goal of the application under section 77 of  
the OLA is to verify the merits of complaints, not the merits of the Commissioner’s report  
(DesRochers SCC, paras. 36 and 64; Forum des maires, paras. 17 and 20).  
Are the complaints well-founded?  
[170] The trial judge did not consider the complaints as written because, in his view, the  
Part VII obligation cannot target a particular measure or a precise situation that is the subject of a  
complaint. He therefore did not take into account the actual basis for the complaints in addition  
to conducting his analysis on the basis of the wrong legal principle. We could refer the matter  
back to him for redetermination in accordance with the applicable legal test, but given that the  
complaints are now ten years old and that the evidence is essentially documentary and not  
contentious, the interests of justice compel us to conduct our own analysis and draw our own  
conclusions regarding the merits of the complaints (Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp., [1995] 4  
S.C.R. 634, 129 D.L.R. (4th) 609, para. 33; Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7,  
subpara. 52(b)(i)).  
[171] The complaints must be examined holistically on the basis of the alleged violation, that  
is, the federal institutions’ failure to act in response to B.C.’s decision to end the participation of  
the Francophone organizations in the delivery of employment assistance services after the  
Agreement was signed.  
 
Page: 68  
[172] The evidence shows that it is indeed the Agreement that allowed B.C., three years after  
signing it, to end the participation of the Francophone organizations in the provision of  
employment assistance services. The Agreement gave B.C. the responsibility to design and  
provide these services based on its particular needs and invited it to establish its own model,  
which ultimately led to the withdrawal of the funding previously given to the Francophone  
organizations and to the introduction of its “one-stop shop” model. It is useful to focus on the  
conduct of the federal institutions before and after the Agreement was signed.  
[173] The devolution to B.C. is total. The Agreement gives B.C. exclusive control over how  
employment assistance services are delivered in the province.  
[174] At the request of the federal institutions, a linguistic clause, which ensures the use of the  
official language of the minority community concerned where demand warrants, was inserted  
(art. 5.2 of the Agreement). The Agreement also contains a clause requiring B.C. to consult with  
the Francophone community with respect to the measures that it provides under the Agreement  
(art. 5.4 of the Agreement), an obligation that was complied with.  
[175] As we have seen, the negative impact that a full devolution could have on B.C.’s French  
linguistic minority community was the subject of multiple exchanges between the FFCB and the  
federal government as early as 1997. Suffice it to recall that when the federal government finally  
invited B.C. to take full responsibility for employment assistance ten years later, the FFCB, in a  
final cri de cœur, once again asked that the participation of the Francophone organizations be  
preserved. In the email sent to HRSDC’s Skills and Employment Branch in April 2007, the  
Page: 69  
FFCB pointed out that the support programs offered by the Francophone organizations are  
[TRANSLATION] “essential” and that the Agreement could have a [TRANSLATION] “catastrophic”  
impact on the French linguistic minority community in the absence of adequate protection  
(Affidavit of Réal Roy, Exhibit B: Appeal Book, pp. 1889 and 1890).  
[176] It is not difficult to understand and appreciate the importance of the role that the  
Francophone organizations played in the provision of employment assistance services for B.C.’s  
fragile French-speaking minority community. This unavoidable avenue for the members of that  
community seeking employment and the regular and continuous interaction engendered by the  
involvement of the Francophone organizations—be it in case management, in the provision of  
assisted or unassisted services, of online services or through the organization of group workshops  
and job fairs, etc.—were central to the French linguistic minority community’s identity building.  
It is worth recalling that the federal institutions were keenly aware of those programs and their  
crucial importance for this community, since they and their predecessors had authorized and  
funded these programs over the years (Affidavit of Duncan Shaw, Exhibit DS-9: Appeal Book,  
pp. 9266 to 9394).  
[177] Apart from the vital role French schools play for B.C.’s French linguistic minority  
community as a “setting for socialization” (Conseil scolaire francophone de la C.-B., para. 1), it  
is difficult to imagine a more useful and effective socialization tool than this network of  
employment assistance services for bringing members of the Francophone community together  
and ensuring its survival.  
Page: 70  
[178] In the letter sent to the Minister of HRSDC on May 14, 2007, the president of the FFCB  
stated that the French-speaking community expected B.C. to take on the linguistic obligations  
that were assumed by the federal government before the Agreement was signed (Affidavit of  
Réal Roy, Exhibit C: Appeal Book, pp. 1892 and 1893). The Minister’s response, like those  
received before and after, resorts again to the linguistic clause. He states that the Agreement, like  
all of those signed to date with other provinces or territories, would include a commitment by  
B.C. to offer services in both official languages where demand warrants (ibid, Exhibit D: Appeal  
Book, p. 1895).  
[179] Yet, as events would prove, this clause contemplates but one thing, i.e., that interaction  
with the public take place in French where demand warrants. It does nothing to address the  
concerns raised by the Francophone organizations over the years. Neither the linguistic clause  
nor the commitment to consult the Francophone community required B.C. to preserve in one way  
or another the role of the Francophone organizations or to ensure that the Agreement was  
implemented so as not to adversely affect the French-speaking minority community.  
Surprisingly, nothing was included in the Agreement to allow the federal institutions to intervene  
in the event that it was implemented by B.C. without taking this objective into account.  
[180] Such a clause could have been included. The funding offered to B.C. under the  
Agreement results from an exercise of the spending power under subsections 91(1A) and (3) and  
sections 102 and 106 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which allows the federal government to  
attach certain criteria to the financial assistance it offers to provinces, without thereby intruding  
into the provinces’ areas of jurisdiction (Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1993] 1 S.C.R.  
Page: 71  
1080, 101 D.L.R. (4th) 567; Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525,  
83 D.L.R. (4th) 297; see also Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th ed,. Carswell at  
pp. 160 and 161). The federal institutions acknowledge that they could have included this type of  
clause in the Agreement without exceeding the jurisdiction of the federal government (Reply  
Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 32 to 34), but they did not.  
[181] This, despite the fact that it was clear at the time the Agreement was signed that the OLA  
did not apply to B.C. There was also no doubt that, in the absence of a contractual clause, B.C.  
would be under no obligation to be sensitive to the survival of its French linguistic minority  
community or to the importance of the continued participation of the Francophone organizations  
in the provision of employment assistance services. We note in this respect that at the time of the  
signing of the Agreement, B.C. was one of two, among all the provinces and territories, that had  
not adopted any laws, regulations or formal policies aimed at protecting its official language  
minority community, and that today it is the only one (see the letter sent to the registry by  
counsel for the respondents dated November 5, 2021, that lists the measures taken by the  
provinces and territories in relation to language rights over the years).  
[182] At the same time, the Agreement invited B.C. to establish an integrated range of services  
with a focus on effectiveness, a goal that was difficult to reconcile with the tailored program  
offered to the French linguistic minority community before the Agreement was signed. There  
was thus an obvious tension between the objective of efficiency contemplated by the Agreement  
and the obligation that the federal institutions had, and continue to have, to enhance the vitality  
Page: 72  
of this community and not to hinder it. Needless to say, the federal institutions could not  
disregard this obligation for reasons of efficiency.  
[183] The federal institutions argue—citing MacKenzie, paras. 55 to 57, and Lalonde,  
para. 95—that there is no constitutional imperative requiring that they keep in place the  
employment assistance measures that were provided before the Agreement was signed (Reply  
Memorandum of the Respondents, paras. 12 to 14). They could indeed modify or replace them,  
but unlike the situation prevailing in those two cases, they had to do so in compliance with the  
obligation cast upon them under Part VII to enhance the vitality of the linguistic minority  
community and not to hinder it.  
[184] Given the objective of efficiency and the lack of a contractual provision requiring B.C. to  
be sensitive to the precarious situation of its official language minority community, it should  
come as no surprise that the province, after having taken over the management of employment  
assistance measures under the Agreement, quickly opted for the “one-stop shop” model and  
brought an end to the particularized service that was offered to the French linguistic minority  
community. It is also not surprising that the Francophone organizations were unable to convince  
B.C. to consider the negative impact that this decision would have on this community given that  
B.C. is under no obligation to act so as to protect it or ensure its survival.  
[185] The Minister of HRSDC, Diane Finley, admitted that she was powerless in the face of  
B.C.’s decision in her letter of June 2, 2011, responding to a final attempt by the FFCB to have  
the federal government intervene. After twice stating that B.C. was now solely responsible for  
Page: 73  
the provision of employment assistance services in the province, she advised the FFCB that  
going forward, any concern that it had would have to be raised with the B.C. government  
(Affidavit of Réal Roy, Exhibit U: Appeal Book, pp. 2237 and 2238).  
[186] As the Commissioner concluded following his investigation, the federal institutions did  
not even attempt to assess the impact that the Agreement was going to have on B.C.’s French  
linguistic minority community (Final Investigation Report of the Office of the Commissioner of  
Official Languages dated April 2013, p. 19: Appeal Book, p. 2314). Recognizing that the federal  
institutions may have entertained the hope that B.C. would be more receptive to the plea of the  
community in favour of the continued participation of the Francophone organizations when the  
Agreement was entered into, they had to provide for a right to intervene in the event that B.C.  
was to be unyielding. While Part VII does not preclude the taking of negative measures, it does  
require that they be accompanied by positive measures in order to offset or at least mitigate the  
negative effects. Nothing was done in this respect.  
[187] Given the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Agreement with B.C. in 2008—in  
particular the very precarious situation of the French linguistic minority community in B.C.; the  
importance of the role of the Francophone organizations in the provision of employment  
assistance services for this community; the fact that the federal institutions were keenly aware of  
this role and its importance for this community; the fact that, in accordance with established  
precedents, the OLA would not apply to B.C.; the absence of any provincial laws, regulations or  
formal policies aimed at protecting this community—the federal institutions could not sign the  
Agreement without acknowledging the obligation they had and continue to have towards B.C.’s  
Page: 74  
French linguistic minority community under Part VII, and without giving themselves the means  
to enforce this obligation in the event that the implementation of the Agreement by B.C. was  
carried out to the detriment of this community.  
[188] It is this failure to act that is the subject of the complaints, and based on the evidentiary  
record, one can only conclude that they are well-founded.  
What would be an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances?  
[189] B.C.’s French linguistic minority community has suffered the negative impact of the  
Agreement for ten years now. It is impossible to turn back the clock, but it is still possible to act  
prospectively. In this regard, we note that the obligation set out in Part VII is an ongoing one  
such that the federal institutions are to this day required to act to counter the negative impact of  
the Agreement that they signed on this community.  
[190] The fact that B.C.’s French linguistic minority community is now fragile to the point that  
it is on the verge of disappearing does not justify leaving it to its fate. Just recently, in Conseil  
scolaire francophone de la C.-B., the Supreme Court forcefully and vehemently reminded us that  
the particular vulnerability of B.C.’s French linguistic minority community demands extra  
vigilance when it comes to the violation of its language rights, with a concern focused on the  
present. Both judges of the majority and those in dissent agreed on this point (Conseil scolaire  
francophone de la C.-B., paras. 144, 156 to 159 for the majority and paras. 261 to 264 for the  
dissent). That case concerned rights protected under section 23 of the Charter, but the objective  
of preventing the erosion of official language communities that guided the Supreme Court’s  
 
Page: 75  
analysis in that case must similarly guide our own analysis. It is not surprising that, in both cases,  
the courts have broad discretion to remedy the situation since they can grant any remedy that  
they “[consider] appropriate and just in the circumstances” (subs. 24(1) of the Charter and  
subs. 77(4) of the OLA).  
[191] The power to grant a remedy that is appropriate and just in the circumstances is very  
broad, but only the federal institutions are subject to it. At the present time, the federal  
institutions cannot do anything whatsoever to enhance the vitality of B.C.’s French linguistic  
minority community or to protect it because the Agreement that they signed does not recognize  
their obligation under Part VII of the OLA or provide for any means to ensure that it is complied  
with in the implementation of the Agreement. Nor does the Agreement allow the federal  
institutions to intervene directly in the provision of employment assistance services in B.C. since,  
according to the terms of the Agreement, such matters are under the exclusive control of the  
province.  
[192] The federal institutions cannot remain parties to an agreement that prevents them from  
honouring their ongoing obligation towards B.C.’s French linguistic minority community. It  
follows that, as a first step, the Agreement must be terminated, unless it can be renegotiated so as  
to allow the federal institutions to act in compliance with their obligation under Part VII.  
[193] Second, the remedial action must be ascertained. At this stage, we need not determine  
what the federal institutions could have done, but how to remedy the harm that was caused. As  
we have seen, the negative impact that resulted from the Agreement and from the failure of the  
Page: 76  
federal institutions to take action is the dismantling of the employment assistance services  
network that they had set up with the participation of the Francophone organizations. This  
network was unique in its design and constituted an irreplaceable socialization tool. The task  
being to remedy, to the extent possible, the negative impact of the Agreement on the vitality of  
B.C.’s French linguistic minority community with a focus on its survival, restoring this network  
stands out as the appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances.  
[194] The Agreement imposes time constraints that prevent us from giving immediate effect to  
this remedy. Even though the Agreement may be amended at any time, the parties have agreed  
that two years’ notice, calculated from April 1 of each year, must be given in order to terminate it  
(arts. 1.2, 24.0 and 25.0 of the Agreement). The magnitude of the Agreement and the importance  
of terminating it while ensuring that services to clients are not unduly affected or interrupted  
justify this notice period.  
[195] In light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to order that the remedy be carried out as  
follows: the federal institutions must provide B.C., within 60 days of the date of this judgment,  
the notice referenced in article 24.0 of the Agreement indicating their intention to terminate the  
Agreement in its present form as of April 1, 2024. In the meantime, nothing will prevent the  
federal institutions from trying to amend the Agreement by mutual consent in order to insert  
terms giving them the right to require that the Agreement be implemented in compliance with  
their obligation towards B.C.’s French linguistic minority community under Part VII of the OLA.  
As soon as they are able to act, either under an amended Agreement or after its termination, the  
federal institutions must, to the extent possible, restore the network of employment assistance  
Page: 77  
services with the participation of the Francophone organizations based on the model that existed  
before the signing of the Agreement, while taking into account the current needs of B.C.’s  
French linguistic minority community.  
DISPOSITION  
[196] For the foregoing reasons, the appeals insofar as they relate to the violation of the  
obligation under Part VII of the OLA are allowed with costs in favour of the FFCB, and  
rendering the judgment that the Federal Court should have rendered, the FFCB’s application  
under Part VII is allowed and the remedy described in paragraph 195 is granted pursuant to  
subsection 77(4) of the OLA.  
[197] The Federal Court, consisting of the trial judge or any other judge designated by the  
Chief Justice, remains seized of the application in order to deal with any issue surrounding the  
execution of the remedy thus granted.  
“Marc Noël”  
Chief Justice  
“Yves de Montigny”  
J.A  
“Marianne Rivoalen”  
J.A.  
Certified true translation  
Janine Anderson, Jurilinguist  
 
APPENDIX  
Employment Insurance Act, S.C.  
Loi sur l’assurance-emploi, L.C.  
1996, c. 23  
1996, ch. 23  
PART II  
PARTIE II  
Employment Benefits and National Prestations d’emploi et service  
Employment Service  
national de placement  
Purpose  
Objet  
56 The purpose of this Part is to help 56 La présente partie a pour objet  
maintain a sustainable employment  
insurance system through the  
establishment of employment  
benefits for insured participants and  
the maintenance of a national  
employment service.  
d’aider à maintenir un régime  
d’assurance-emploi durable par la  
mise sur pied de prestations d’emploi  
pour les participants et par le  
maintien d’un service national de  
placement.  
Guidelines  
Lignes directrices  
57 (1) Employment benefits and  
support measures under this Part  
shall be established in accordance  
with the following guidelines:  
57 (1) Les prestations d’emploi et les  
mesures de soutien prévues par la  
présente partie doivent être mises sur  
pied conformément aux lignes  
directrices suivantes :  
(a) harmonization with provincial  
a) l’harmonisation des prestations  
employment initiatives to ensure that d’emploi et des mesures de soutien  
there is no unnecessary overlap or  
duplication;  
avec les projets d’emploi provinciaux  
en vue d’éviter tout double emploi et  
tout chevauchement;  
(b) reduction of dependency on  
unemployment benefits by helping  
individuals obtain or keep  
employment;  
b) la réduction de la dépendance  
aux prestations de chômage au  
moyen de l’aide fournie pour  
obtenir ou conserver un emploi;  
(c) co-operation and partnership with c) la coopération et le partenariat  
other governments, employers, avec d’autres gouvernements, des  
community-based organizations and employeurs, des organismes  
other interested organizations;  
communautaires et tout autre  
organisme intéressé;  
(d) flexibility to allow significant  
d) la flexibilité pour permettre que  
decisions about implementation to be des décisions importantes relatives à  
made at a local level;  
la mise en œuvre soient prises par les  
agents locaux;  
(d.1) availability of assistance under d.1) la possibilité de recevoir de  
the benefits and measures in either l’aide dans le cadre de prestations ou  
Page: 2  
official language where there is  
significant demand for that assistance langues officielles là où l’importance  
in that language; de la demande le justifie;  
de mesures dans l’une ou l’autre des  
(e) commitment by persons receiving e) l’engagement des personnes  
assistance under the benefits and  
measures to  
bénéficiant d’une aide au titre d’une  
prestation d’emploi ou d’une mesure  
de soutien :  
(i) achieving the goals of the  
(i) à s’attacher à la réalisation des  
assistance,  
objectifs visés par l’aide fournie,  
(ii) taking primary responsibility for  
identifying their employment needs  
and locating services necessary to  
(ii) à assumer la responsabilité  
première de déterminer leurs besoins  
en matière d’emploi et de trouver les  
allow them to meet those needs, and services nécessaires pour les  
combler,  
(iii) if appropriate, sharing the cost of (iii) s’il y a lieu, à partager les coûts  
the assistance; and  
de l’aide;  
(f) implementation of the benefits  
f) la mise en œuvre des prestations et  
and measures within a framework for des mesures selon une structure  
evaluating their success in assisting  
persons to obtain or keep  
employment.  
permettant d’évaluer la pertinence de  
l’aide fournie pour obtenir ou  
conserver un emploi.  
Working in concert with provincial Concertation avec les  
governments gouvernements provinciaux  
(2) To give effect to the purpose and (2) Pour mettre en œuvre l’objet et  
guidelines of this Part, the  
les lignes directrices de la présente  
partie, la Commission doit travailler  
de concert avec le gouvernement de  
chaque province dans laquelle une  
Commission shall work in concert  
with the government of each  
province in which employment  
benefits and support measures are to prestation d’emploi ou une mesure de  
be implemented in designing the  
benefits and measures, determining  
soutien doit être mise en œuvre à  
mettre sur pied la prestation ou la  
how they are to be implemented and mesure, à fixer les modalités de sa  
establishing the framework for  
evaluating their success.  
mise en œuvre et à concevoir le cadre  
permettant d’évaluer la pertinence de  
l’aide qu’elle fournit aux  
participants.  
Agreements with provinces  
Accords avec les provinces  
(3) The Commission shall invite the  
(3) La Commission doit inviter le  
government of each province to enter gouvernement de chaque province à  
into agreements for the purposes of  
subsection (2) or any other  
conclure avec elle un accord pour  
l’application du paragraphe (2) ou  
agreements authorized by this Part.  
Page: 3  
tout autre accord prévu par la  
présente partie.  
…
[…]  
Employment benefits for insured  
participants  
Prestations d’emploi pour  
participants  
59 The Commission may establish  
employment benefits to enable  
insured participants to obtain  
59 La Commission peut mettre sur  
pied des prestations d’emploi en vue  
d’aider les participants à obtenir un  
emploi, notamment des prestations  
visant à :  
employment, including benefits to  
(a) encourage employers to hire  
a) inciter les employeurs à les  
them;  
engager;  
(b) encourage them to accept  
employment by offering incentives  
such as temporary earnings  
supplements;  
b) les encourager, au moyen  
d’incitatifs tels que les suppléments  
temporaires de revenu, à accepter un  
emploi;  
(c) help them start businesses or  
c) les aider à créer leur entreprise ou  
become self-employed;  
à devenir travailleurs indépendants;  
(d) provide them with employment  
d) leur fournir des occasions  
opportunities through which they can d’emploi qui leur permettent  
gain work experience to improve  
their long-term employment  
prospects; and  
d’acquérir une expérience de travail  
en vue d’améliorer leurs possibilités  
de trouver un emploi durable;  
(e) help them obtain skills for  
employment, ranging from basic to  
advanced skills.  
e) les aider à acquérir des  
compétences — de nature générale  
ou spécialisée — liées à l’emploi.  
…
[…]  
Support measures  
Mesures de soutien  
60(4) In support of the national  
employment service, the  
Commission may establish support  
measures to support  
60(4) À l’appui du service national  
de placement, la Commission peut  
mettre sur pied des mesures de  
soutien ayant pour but d’aider ou de  
soutenir :  
(a) organizations that provide  
employment assistance services to  
unemployed persons;  
a) les organismes qui offrent des  
services d’aide à l’emploi aux  
chômeurs;  
(b) employers, employee or  
employer associations, community  
groups and communities in  
b) les employeurs, les associations  
d’employés ou d’employeurs, les  
organismes communautaires et les  
collectivités à développer et à mettre  
developing and implementing  
Page: 4  
strategies for dealing with labour  
force adjustments and meeting  
human resource requirements; and  
en application des stratégies  
permettant de faire face aux  
changements au sein de la population  
active et de satisfaire aux exigences  
en matière de ressources humaines;  
(c) research and innovative projects  
c) la recherche et l’innovation afin de  
to identify better ways of helping  
trouver de meilleures façons d’aider  
persons prepare for, return to or keep les personnes à devenir ou rester  
employment and be productive  
participants in the labour force.  
aptes à occuper ou à reprendre un  
emploi et à être des membres  
productifs du marché du travail.  
…
[…]  
Financial assistance  
Soutien financier  
61 (1) For the purpose of  
implementing employment benefits  
and support measures, the  
61 (1) Afin de soutenir la mise en  
œuvre d’une prestation d’emploi ou  
d’une mesure de soutien, la  
Commission may, in accordance with Commission peut, conformément aux  
terms and conditions approved by the modalités approuvées par le Conseil  
Treasury Board, provide financial  
assistance in the form of  
du Trésor :  
(a) grants or contributions;  
a) fournir des subventions et des  
contributions;  
(b) loans, loan guarantees or  
b) consentir des prêts ou se rendre  
suretyships;  
caution de prêts;  
(c) payments for any service  
provided at the request of the  
Commission; and  
c) payer toute personne pour les  
services fournis à sa demande;  
(d) vouchers to be exchanged for  
services and payments for the  
provision of the services.  
d) émettre des bons échangeables  
contre des services et honorer ces  
bons.  
…
[…]  
Agreements for administering  
employment benefits and support  
measures  
Accord d’administration des  
prestations d’emploi et des  
mesures de soutien  
62 The Commission may, with the  
62 La Commission peut, avec  
approval of the Minister, enter into  
l’approbation du ministre, conclure  
an agreement or arrangement for the un accord ou un arrangement avec un  
administration of employment  
benefits or support measures on its  
behalf by a department, board or  
agency of the Government of  
Canada, another government or  
ministère ou organisme du  
gouvernement du Canada, un  
gouvernement ou un organisme  
public canadien ou tout autre  
organisme pour qu’il administre une  
Page: 5  
government agency in Canada or any prestation d’emploi ou une mesure de  
other public or private organization.  
soutien pour son compte.  
Agreements for paying costs of  
similar benefits and measures  
Accords de contribution relatifs à  
des prestations ou des mesures  
similaires  
63 (1) The Commission may, with  
63 (1) La Commission peut, avec  
the approval of the Minister, enter  
l’approbation du ministre, conclure  
into an agreement with a government avec un gouvernement ou un  
or government agency in Canada or  
any other public or private  
organization to provide for the  
payment of contributions for all or a  
portion of  
organisme public canadien, ou tout  
autre organisme, un accord prévoyant  
le versement à celui-ci d’une  
contribution relative à tout ou partie :  
(a) any costs of benefits or measures a) des frais liés à des prestations ou  
provided by the government,  
government agency or organization  
that are similar to employment  
benefits or support measures under  
this Part and are consistent with the  
purpose and guidelines of this Part;  
and  
mesures similaires à celles prévues  
par la présente partie et qui  
correspondent à l’objet et aux lignes  
directrices qui y sont prévus;  
(b) any administration costs that the  
government, government agency or  
organization incurs in providing the  
benefits or measures.  
b) des frais liés à l’administration de  
ces prestations ou mesures par ce  
gouvernement ou organisme.  
…
[…]  
Official Languages Act, R.S.C.  
1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.)  
Loi sur les langues officielles,  
L.R.C. 1985, ch. 31 (4e suppl.)  
Preamble  
Préambule  
[IN BLANK]  
Attendu :  
WHEREAS the Constitution of  
Canada provides that English and  
French are the official languages of  
Canada and have equality of status  
and equal rights and privileges as to  
their use in all institutions of the  
Parliament and government of  
Canada;  
que la Constitution dispose que le  
français et l’anglais sont les langues  
officielles du Canada et qu’ils ont un  
statut et des droits et privilèges égaux  
quant à leur usage dans les  
institutions du Parlement et du  
gouvernement du Canada;  
Page: 6  
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of qu’elle prévoit l’universalité d’accès  
Canada provides for full and equal  
access to Parliament, to the laws of  
Canada and to courts established by  
Parliament in both official languages;  
dans ces deux langues en ce qui a  
trait au Parlement et à ses lois ainsi  
qu’aux tribunaux établis par celui-ci;  
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of qu’elle prévoit en outre des garanties  
Canada also provides for guarantees quant au droit du public à l’emploi de  
relating to the right of any member of l’une ou l’autre de ces langues pour  
the public to communicate with, and communiquer avec les institutions du  
to receive available services from,  
any institution of the Parliament or  
government of Canada in either  
official language;  
Parlement et du gouvernement du  
Canada ou pour en recevoir les  
services;  
AND WHEREAS officers and  
employees of institutions of the  
qu’il convient que les agents des  
institutions du Parlement ou du  
Parliament or government of Canada gouvernement du Canada aient  
should have equal opportunities to  
use the official language of their  
choice while working together in  
pursuing the goals of those  
institutions;  
l’égale possibilité d’utiliser la langue  
officielle de leur choix dans la mise  
en œuvre commune des objectifs de  
celles-ci;  
AND WHEREAS English-speaking  
Canadians and French-speaking  
Canadians should, without regard to  
their ethnic origin or first language  
learned, have equal opportunities to  
qu’il convient que les Canadiens  
d’expression française et  
d’expression anglaise, sans  
distinction d’origine ethnique ni  
égard à la première langue apprise,  
obtain employment in the institutions aient des chances égales d’emploi  
of the Parliament or government of  
Canada;  
dans les institutions du Parlement ou  
du gouvernement du Canada;  
AND WHEREAS the Government of que le gouvernement fédéral s’est  
Canada is committed to achieving,  
with due regard to the principle of  
selection of personnel according to  
merit, full participation of English-  
speaking Canadians and French-  
speaking Canadians in its  
engagé à réaliser, dans le strict  
respect du principe du mérite en  
matière de sélection, la pleine  
participation des Canadiens  
d’expression française et  
d’expression anglaise à ses  
institutions;  
institutions;  
AND WHEREAS the Government of qu’il s’est engagé à favoriser  
Canada is committed to enhancing  
the vitality and supporting the  
development of English and French  
linguistic minority communities, as  
an integral part of the two official  
language communities of Canada,  
l’épanouissement des minorités  
francophones et anglophones, au titre  
de leur appartenance aux deux  
collectivités de langue officielle, et à  
appuyer leur développement et à  
promouvoir la pleine reconnaissance  
Page: 7  
and to fostering full recognition and  
use of English and French in  
Canadian society;  
et l’usage du français et de l’anglais  
dans la société canadienne;  
AND WHEREAS the Government of qu’il s’est engagé à collaborer avec  
Canada is committed to cooperating  
with provincial governments and  
their institutions to support the  
les institutions et gouvernements  
provinciaux en vue d’appuyer le  
développement des minorités  
development of English and French  
linguistic minority communities, to  
francophones et anglophones,  
d’offrir des services en français et en  
provide services in both English and anglais, de respecter les garanties  
French, to respect the constitutional  
guarantees of minority language  
educational rights and to enhance  
opportunities for all to learn both  
English and French;  
constitutionnelles sur les droits à  
l’instruction dans la langue de la  
minorité et de faciliter pour tous  
l’apprentissage du français et de  
l’anglais;  
AND WHEREAS the Government of qu’il s’est engagé à promouvoir le  
Canada is committed to enhancing  
the bilingual character of the  
National Capital Region and to  
encouraging the business  
caractère bilingue de la région de la  
capitale nationale et à encourager les  
entreprises, les organisations  
patronales et syndicales, ainsi que les  
community, labour organizations and organismes bénévoles canadiens à  
voluntary organizations in Canada to promouvoir la reconnaissance et  
foster the recognition and use of  
English and French;  
l’usage du français et de l’anglais;  
AND WHEREAS the Government of qu’il reconnaît l’importance,  
Canada recognizes the importance of parallèlement à l’affirmation du  
preserving and enhancing the use of  
languages other than English and  
statut des langues officielles et à  
l’élargissement de leur usage, de  
French while strengthening the status maintenir et de valoriser l’usage des  
and use of the official languages;  
autres langues,  
…
[…]  
Purpose of Act  
Objet  
Purpose  
Objet  
2 The purpose of this Act is to  
2 La présente loi a pour objet:  
(a) ensure respect for English and  
French as the official languages of  
a) d’assurer le respect du français et  
de l’anglais à titre de langues  
Canada and ensure equality of status officielles du Canada, leur égalité de  
and equal rights and privileges as to statut et l’égalité de droits et  
their use in all federal institutions, in privilèges quant à leur usage dans les  
particular with respect to their use in institutions fédérales, notamment en  
parliamentary proceedings, in  
legislative and other instruments, in  
the administration of justice, in  
ce qui touche les débats et travaux du  
Parlement, les actes législatifs et  
autres, l’administration de la justice,  
Page: 8  
communicating with or providing  
les communications avec le public et  
services to the public and in carrying la prestation des services, ainsi que la  
out the work of federal institutions;  
mise en œuvre des objectifs de ces  
institutions;  
(b) support the development of  
b) d’appuyer le développement des  
English and French linguistic  
minorités francophones et  
minority communities and generally anglophones et, d’une façon  
advance the equality of status and  
use of the English and French  
languages within Canadian society;  
and  
générale, de favoriser, au sein de la  
société canadienne, la progression  
vers l’égalité de statut et d’usage du  
français et de l’anglais;  
(c) set out the powers, duties and  
c) de préciser les pouvoirs et les  
functions of federal institutions with obligations des institutions fédérales  
respect to the official languages of  
Canada.  
en matière de langues officielles.  
…
[…]  
PART IV  
PARTIE IV  
Communications with and Services Communications avec le public et  
to the Public  
prestation des services  
Communications and Services  
Communications et services  
Rights relating to language of  
communication  
Droits en matière de  
communication  
21 Any member of the public in  
21 Le public a, au Canada, le droit de  
Canada has the right to communicate communiquer avec les institutions  
with and to receive available services fédérales et d’en recevoir les services  
from federal institutions in  
accordance with this Part.  
conformément à la présente partie.  
Where communications and  
services must be in both official  
languages  
Langues des communications et  
services  
22 Every federal institution has the  
22 Il incombe aux institutions  
duty to ensure that any member of  
fédérales de veiller à ce que le public  
the public can communicate with and puisse communiquer avec leur siège  
obtain available services from its  
head or central office in either  
official language, and has the same  
duty with respect to any of its other  
offices or facilities  
ou leur administration centrale, et en  
recevoir les services, dans l’une ou  
l’autre des langues officielles. Cette  
obligation vaut également pour leurs  
bureaux — auxquels sont assimilés,  
pour l’application de la présente  
partie, tous autres lieux où ces  
institutions offrent des services —  
situés soit dans la région de la  
Page: 9  
capitale nationale, soit là où, au  
Canada comme à l’étranger, l’emploi  
de cette langue fait l’objet d’une  
demande importante.  
(a) within the National Capital  
[EN BLANC]  
Region; or  
(b) in Canada or elsewhere, where  
there is significant demand for  
communications with and services  
from that office or facility in that  
language.  
[EN BLANC]  
…
[…]  
Services Provided on behalf of  
Federal Institutions  
Services fournis par des tiers  
Where services provided on behalf Fourniture dans les deux langues  
of federal institutions  
25 Every federal institution has the  
duty to ensure that, where services  
are provided or made available by  
25 Il incombe aux institutions  
fédérales de veiller à ce que, tant au  
Canada qu’à l’étranger, les services  
another person or organization on its offerts au public par des tiers pour  
behalf, any member of the public in  
Canada or elsewhere can  
leur compte le soient, et à ce qu’il  
puisse communiquer avec ceux-ci,  
dans l’une ou l’autre des langues  
officielles dans le cas où, offrant  
elles-mêmes les services, elles  
seraient tenues, au titre de la présente  
partie, à une telle obligation.  
communicate with and obtain those  
services from that person or  
organization in either official  
language in any case where those  
services, if provided by the  
institution, would be required under  
this Part to be provided in either  
official language.  
…
[…]  
General  
Dispositions générales  
Obligations relating to  
communications and services  
Obligation : communications et  
services  
27 Wherever in this Part there is a  
duty in respect of communications  
and services in both official  
27 L’obligation que la présente partie  
impose en matière de  
communications et services dans les  
languages, the duty applies in respect deux langues officielles à cet égard  
of oral and written communications  
and in respect of any documents or  
activities that relate to those  
vaut également, tant sur le plan de  
l’écrit que de l’oral, pour tout ce qui  
s’y rattache.  
communications or services.  
Page: 10  
Active offer  
Offre active  
28 Every federal institution that is  
28 Lorsqu’elles sont tenues, sous le  
required under this Part to ensure that régime de la présente partie, de  
any member of the public can  
communicate with and obtain  
available services from an office or  
facility of that institution, or of  
another person or organization on  
behalf of that institution, in either  
official language shall ensure that  
appropriate measures are taken,  
including the provision of signs,  
notices and other information on  
services and the initiation of  
communication with the public, to  
make it known to members of the  
public that those services are  
available in either official language  
at the choice of any member of the  
public.  
veiller à ce que le public puisse  
communiquer avec leurs bureaux ou  
recevoir les services de ceux-ci ou de  
tiers pour leur compte, dans l’une ou  
l’autre langue officielle, il incombe  
aux institutions fédérales de veiller  
également à ce que les mesures  
voulues soient prises pour informer  
le public, notamment par entrée en  
communication avec lui ou encore  
par signalisation, avis ou  
documentation sur les services, que  
ceux-ci lui sont offerts dans l’une ou  
l’autre langue officielle, au choix.  
…
[…]  
PART VII  
PARTIE VII  
Advancement of English and  
French  
Promotion du français et de  
l’anglais  
Government policy  
Engagement  
41 (1) The Government of Canada is 41 (1) Le gouvernement fédéral  
committed to  
s’engage à favoriser  
l’épanouissement des minorités  
francophones et anglophones du  
Canada et à appuyer leur  
développement, ainsi qu’à  
promouvoir la pleine reconnaissance  
et l’usage du français et de l’anglais  
dans la société canadienne.  
(a) enhancing the vitality of the  
English and French linguistic  
minority communities in Canada and  
supporting and assisting their  
development; and  
[EN BLANC]  
(b) fostering the full recognition and [EN BLANC]  
use of both English and French in  
Canadian society.  
Page: 11  
Duty of federal institutions  
Obligations des institutions  
fédérales  
(2) Every federal institution has the  
(2) Il incombe aux institutions  
duty to ensure that positive measures fédérales de veiller à ce que soient  
are taken for the implementation of  
the commitments under  
prises des mesures positives pour  
mettre en œuvre cet engagement. Il  
subsection (1). For greater certainty, demeure entendu que cette mise en  
this implementation shall be carried  
out while respecting the jurisdiction  
and powers of the provinces.  
œuvre se fait dans le respect des  
champs de compétence et des  
pouvoirs des provinces.  
Regulations  
Règlements  
(3) The Governor in Council may  
(3) Le gouverneur en conseil peut,  
make regulations in respect of federal par règlement visant les institutions  
institutions, other than the Senate,  
House of Commons, Library of  
Parliament, office of the Senate  
Ethics Officer or office of the  
Conflict of Interest and Ethics  
Commissioner, prescribing the  
manner in which any duties of those  
institutions under this Part are to be  
carried out.  
fédérales autres que le Sénat, la  
Chambre des communes, la  
bibliothèque du Parlement, le bureau  
du conseiller sénatorial en éthique et  
le bureau du commissaire aux  
conflits d’intérêts et à l’éthique, fixer  
les modalités d’exécution des  
obligations que la présente partie leur  
impose.  
Coordination  
Coordination  
42 The Minister of Canadian  
Heritage, in consultation with other  
ministers of the Crown, shall  
42 Le ministre du Patrimoine  
canadien, en consultation avec les  
autres ministres fédéraux, suscite et  
encourage and promote a coordinated encourage la coordination de la mise  
approach to the implementation by  
federal institutions of the  
en œuvre par les institutions  
fédérales de cet engagement.  
commitments set out in section 41.  
Specific mandate of Minister of  
Canadian Heritage  
Mise en œuvre  
43 (1) The Minister of Canadian  
43 (1) Le ministre du Patrimoine  
Heritage shall take such measures as canadien prend les mesures qu’il  
that Minister considers appropriate to estime indiquées pour favoriser la  
advance the equality of status and  
use of English and French in  
Canadian society and, without  
restricting the generality of the  
foregoing, may take measures to  
progression vers l’égalité de statut et  
d’usage du français et de l’anglais  
dans la société canadienne et,  
notamment, toute mesure :  
(a) enhance the vitality of the  
a) de nature à favoriser  
English and French linguistic  
l’épanouissement des minorités  
francophones et anglophones du  
Page: 12  
minority communities in Canada and Canada et à appuyer leur  
support and assist their development; développement;  
(b) encourage and support the  
learning of English and French in  
Canada;  
b) pour encourager et appuyer  
l’apprentissage du français et de  
l’anglais;  
(c) foster an acceptance and  
appreciation of both English and  
French by members of the public;  
c) pour encourager le public à mieux  
accepter et apprécier le français et  
l’anglais;  
(d) encourage and assist provincial  
governments to support the  
d) pour encourager et aider les  
gouvernements provinciaux à  
favoriser le développement des  
minorités francophones et  
anglophones, et notamment à leur  
offrir des services provinciaux et  
municipaux en français et en anglais  
development of English and French  
linguistic minority communities  
generally and, in particular, to offer  
provincial and municipal services in  
both English and French and to  
provide opportunities for members of et à leur permettre de recevoir leur  
English or French linguistic minority instruction dans leur propre langue;  
communities to be educated in their  
own language;  
(e) encourage and assist provincial  
e) pour encourager et aider ces  
governments to provide opportunities gouvernements à donner à tous la  
for everyone in Canada to learn both possibilité d’apprendre le français et  
English and French;  
l’anglais;  
(f) encourage and cooperate with the f) pour encourager les entreprises, les  
business community, labour  
organizations, voluntary  
organisations patronales et  
syndicales, les organismes bénévoles  
organizations and other organizations et autres à fournir leurs services en  
or institutions to provide services in français et en anglais et à favoriser la  
both English and French and to foster reconnaissance et l’usage de ces deux  
the recognition and use of those  
languages;  
langues, et pour collaborer avec eux  
à ces fins;  
(g) encourage and assist  
g) pour encourager et aider les  
organisations, associations ou autres  
organismes à refléter et promouvoir,  
au Canada et à l’étranger, le caractère  
bilingue du Canada;  
organizations and institutions to  
project the bilingual character of  
Canada in their activities in Canada  
or elsewhere; and  
(h) with the approval of the  
h) sous réserve de l’aval du  
Governor in Council, enter into  
agreements or arrangements that  
recognize and advance the bilingual  
character of Canada with the  
governments of foreign states.  
gouverneur en conseil, pour conclure  
avec des gouvernements étrangers  
des accords ou arrangements  
reconnaissant et renforçant l’identité  
bilingue du Canada.  
…
[…]  
Page: 13  
PART IX  
PARTIE IX  
Plaintes et enquêtes  
Plaintes  
Investigations  
Investigation of complaints  
58 (1) Subject to this Act, the  
58 (1) Sous réserve des autres  
Commissioner shall investigate any  
dispositions de la présente loi, le  
complaint made to the Commissioner commissaire instruit toute plainte  
arising from any act or omission to  
the effect that, in any particular  
instance or case,  
reçue — sur un acte ou une omission  
— et faisant état, dans  
l’administration d’une institution  
fédérale, d’un cas précis de non-  
reconnaissance du statut d’une  
langue officielle, de manquement à  
une loi ou un règlement fédéraux sur  
le statut ou l’usage des deux langues  
officielles ou encore à l’esprit de la  
présente loi et à l’intention du  
législateur.  
(a) the status of an official language  
[EN BLANC]  
was not or is not being recognized,  
(b) any provision of any Act of  
Parliament or regulation relating to  
the status or use of the official  
languages was not or is not being  
complied with, or  
[EN BLANC]  
(c) the spirit and intent of this Act  
[EN BLANC]  
was not or is not being complied with  
in the administration of the affairs of [EN BLANC]  
any federal institution.  
…
[…]  
PART X  
PARTIE X  
Recours judiciaire  
[…]  
Court Remedy  
…
Application for remedy  
Recours  
77 (1) Any person who has made a  
complaint to the Commissioner in  
respect of a right or duty under  
sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or  
Part IV, V or VII, or in respect of  
section 91, may apply to the Court  
for a remedy under this Part.  
77 (1) Quiconque a saisi le  
commissaire d’une plainte visant une  
obligation ou un droit prévus aux  
articles 4 à 7 et 10 à 13 ou aux  
parties IV, V ou VII, ou fondée sur  
l’article 91, peut former un recours  
Page: 14  
devant le tribunal sous le régime de  
la présente partie.  
…
[…]  
Order of Court  
Ordonnance  
(4) Where, in proceedings under  
(4) Le tribunal peut, s’il estime  
subsection (1), the Court concludes  
qu’une institution fédérale ne s’est  
that a federal institution has failed to pas conformée à la présente loi,  
comply with this Act, the Court may accorder la réparation qu’il estime  
grant such remedy as it considers  
appropriate and just in the  
circumstances.  
convenable et juste eu égard aux  
circonstances.  
…
[…]  
Evidence relating to similar  
complaint  
Preuve — plainte de même nature  
79 In proceedings under this Part  
relating to a complaint against a  
federal institution, the Court may  
admit as evidence information  
relating to any similar complaint  
under this Act in respect of the same  
federal institution.  
79 Sont recevables en preuve dans  
les recours les renseignements  
portant sur des plaintes de même  
nature concernant une même  
institution fédérale.  
…
[…]  
PART XI  
PARTIE XI  
General  
Dispositions générales  
Primauté sur les autres lois  
82 (1) Les dispositions des parties  
Primacy of Parts I to V  
82 (1) In the event of any  
inconsistency between the following qui suivent l’emportent sur les  
Parts and any other Act of Parliament dispositions incompatibles de toute  
or regulation thereunder, the  
following Parts prevail to the extent  
of the inconsistency:  
autre loi ou de tout règlement  
fédéraux :  
(a) Part I (Proceedings of  
a) partie I (Débats et travaux  
Parliament);  
parlementaires);  
(b) Part II (Legislative and other  
b) partie II (Actes législatifs et  
Instruments);  
autres);  
(c) Part III (Administration of  
c) partie III (Administration de la  
Justice);  
justice);  
(d) Part IV (Communications with  
d) partie IV (Communications avec  
and Services to the Public); and  
le public et prestation des services);  
Page: 15  
(e) Part V (Language of Work).  
e) partie V (Langue de travail).  
…
[…]  
Canadian Charter of Rights and  
Freedoms, Part I of the  
Constitution Act, 1982, being  
Charte canadienne des droits et  
libertés, partie I de la Loi  
constitutionnelle de 1982,  
Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 constituant l’annexe B de la Loi de  
(U.K.), 1982, c. 11  
1982 sur le Canada (R.-U.), 1982,  
ch. 11  
Official Languages of Canada  
Official languages of Canada  
Langues officielles du Canada  
Langues officielles du Canada  
16 (1) English and French are the  
official languages of Canada and  
have equality of status and equal  
16 (1) Le français et l’anglais sont les  
langues officielles du Canada; ils ont  
un statut et des droits et privilèges  
rights and privileges as to their use in égaux quant à leur usage dans les  
all institutions of the Parliament and institutions du Parlement et du  
government of Canada.  
gouvernement du Canada.  
…
[…]  
Advancement of status and use  
Progression vers l’égalité  
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La présente charte ne limite pas le  
authority of Parliament or a pouvoir du Parlement et des  
legislature to advance the equality of législatures de favoriser la  
status or use of English and French.  
progression vers l’égalité de statut ou  
d’usage du français et de l’anglais.  
…
[…]  
Communications by public with  
federal institutions  
Communications entre les  
administrés et les institutions  
fédérales  
20 (1) Any member of the public in  
20 (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit à  
Canada has the right to communicate l’emploi du français ou de l’anglais  
with, and to receive available  
services from, any head or central  
office of an institution of the  
pour communiquer avec le siège ou  
l’administration centrale des  
institutions du Parlement ou du  
Parliament or government of Canada gouvernement du Canada ou pour en  
in English or French, and has the  
same right with respect to any other  
office of any such institution where  
recevoir les services; il a le même  
droit à l’égard de tout autre bureau de  
ces institutions là où, selon le cas :  
(a) there is a significant demand for  
a) l’emploi du français ou de  
communications with and services  
l’anglais fait l’objet d’une demande  
from that office in such language; or importante;  
Page: 16  
(b) due to the nature of the office, it  
is reasonable that communications  
with and services from that office be  
available in both English and French.  
b) l’emploi du français et de l’anglais  
se justifie par la vocation du bureau.  
…
[…]  
Minority Language Educational  
Rights  
Droits à l’instruction dans la  
langue de la minorité  
Language of instruction  
Langue d’instruction  
23 (1) Citizens of Canada  
23 (1) Les citoyens canadiens :  
(a) whose first language learned and a) dont la première langue apprise et  
still understood is that of the English encore comprise est celle de la  
or French linguistic minority  
population of the province in which  
they reside, or  
minorité francophone ou anglophone  
de la province où ils résident,  
(b) who have received their primary  
school instruction in Canada in  
English or French and reside in a  
province where the language in  
which they received that instruction  
is the language of the English or  
b) qui ont reçu leur instruction, au  
niveau primaire, en français ou en  
anglais au Canada et qui résident  
dans une province où la langue dans  
laquelle ils ont reçu cette instruction  
est celle de la minorité francophone  
French linguistic minority population ou anglophone de la province,  
of the province,  
have the right to have their children  
receive primary and secondary  
ont, dans l’un ou l’autre cas, le droit  
d’y faire instruire leurs enfants, aux  
school instruction in that language in niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans  
that province. cette langue.  
Continuity of language instruction Continuité d’emploi de la langue  
d’instruction  
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un  
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.  
enfant a reçu ou reçoit son  
instruction, au niveau primaire ou  
secondaire, en français ou en anglais  
au Canada ont le droit de faire  
instruire tous leurs enfants, aux  
niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans  
la langue de cette instruction.  
Application where numbers  
warrant  
Justification par le nombre  
(3) The right of citizens of Canada  
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens  
under subsections (1) and (2) to have canadiens par les paragraphes (1) et  
Page: 17  
their children receive primary and  
secondary school instruction in the  
language of the English or French  
linguistic minority population of a  
province  
(2) de faire instruire leurs enfants,  
aux niveaux primaire et secondaire,  
dans la langue de la minorité  
francophone ou anglophone d’une  
province :  
(a) applies wherever in the province  
a) s’exerce partout dans la province  
the number of children of citizens  
où le nombre des enfants des  
who have such a right is sufficient to citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant  
warrant the provision to them out of  
public funds of minority language  
instruction; and  
pour justifier à leur endroit la  
prestation, sur les fonds publics, de  
l’instruction dans la langue de la  
minorité;  
(b) includes, where the number of  
b) comprend, lorsque le nombre de  
those children so warrants, the right  
ces enfants le justifie, le droit de les  
to have them receive that instruction faire instruire dans des  
in minority language educational  
facilities provided out of public  
funds.  
établissements d’enseignement de la  
minorité linguistique financés sur les  
fonds publics.  
…
[…]  
Enforcement  
Recours  
Enforcement of guaranteed rights  
and freedoms  
Recours en cas d’atteinte aux  
droits et libertés  
24 (1) Anyone whose rights or  
freedoms, as guaranteed by this  
Charter, have been infringed or  
denied may apply to a court of  
24 (1) Toute personne, victime de  
violation ou de négation des droits ou  
libertés qui lui sont garantis par la  
présente charte, peut s’adresser à un  
competent jurisdiction to obtain such tribunal compétent pour obtenir la  
remedy as the court considers  
appropriate and just in the  
circumstances.  
réparation que le tribunal estime  
convenable et juste eu égard aux  
circonstances.  
…
[…]  
Application of Charter  
Application of Charter  
32 (1) This Charter applies  
Application de la charte  
Application de la charte  
32 (1) La présente charte s’applique :  
(a) to the Parliament and government a) au Parlement et au gouvernement  
of Canada in respect of all matters  
within the authority of Parliament  
including all matters relating to the  
Yukon Territory and Northwest  
Territories; and  
du Canada, pour tous les domaines  
relevant du Parlement, y compris  
ceux qui concernent le territoire du  
Yukon et les territoires du Nord-  
Ouest;  
Page: 18  
(b) to the legislature and government b) à la législature et au  
of each province in respect of all  
matters within the authority of the  
legislature of each province.  
gouvernement de chaque province,  
pour tous les domaines relevant de  
cette législature.  
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL  
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD  
A-182-18 AND A-186-18  
DOCKETS:  
(APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DENIS GASCON  
DATED MAY 23, 2018, DOCKET NO. T-1107-13)  
A-182-18  
DOCKET:  
THE COMMISSIONER OF  
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES v.  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND  
THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT  
INSURANCE COMMISSION  
AND THE ATTORNEY  
STYLE OF CAUSE:  
GENERAL OF BRITISH  
COLUMBIA, THE  
ASSOCIATION DES JURISTES  
D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE  
DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK  
AND THE QUEBEC  
COMMUNITY GROUPS  
NETWORK  
A-186-18  
AND DOCKET:  
LA FÉDÉRATION DES  
STYLE OF CAUSE:  
FRANCOPHONES DE LA  
COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE v.  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND  
THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT  
INSURANCE COMMISSION  
AND THE ATTORNEY  
GENERAL OF BRITISH  
COLUMBIA, THE  
ASSOCIATION DES JURISTES  
D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE  
DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK  
AND THE QUEBEC  
COMMUNITY GROUPS  
NETWORK  
Page: 2  
VANCOUVER, BRITISH  
COLUMBIA  
PLACE OF HEARING:  
DATES OF HEARING:  
OCTOBER 27–28, 2021  
NOËL C.J.  
DE MONTIGNY J.A.  
RIVOALEN J.A.  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT  
BY:  
JANUARY 28, 2022  
DATE:  
APPEARANCES:  
Nicolas Rouleau  
Isabelle Bousquet  
FOR THE APPELLANT  
THE COMMISSIONER OF  
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES  
Giacomo Zucchi  
Maxime Chambers-Dumont  
FOR THE APPELLANT  
LA FÉDÉRATION DES  
FRANCOPHONES DE LA  
COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE  
Ian Demers  
Lisa Morency  
FOR THE RESPONDENTS  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA  
AND THE CANADA  
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE  
COMMISSION  
Érik Labelle Eastaugh  
Audrey Mayrand  
FOR THE INTERVENER  
THE ASSOCIATION DES  
JURISTES D’EXPRESSION  
FRANÇAISE DU NOUVEAU-  
BRUNSWICK  
FOR THE INTERVENER  
THE QUEBEC COMMUNITY  
GROUPS NETWORK  
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:  
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages  
FOR THE APPELLANT  
Page: 3  
Gatineau, Quebec  
THE COMMISSIONER OF  
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES  
Power Law  
Ottawa, Ontario  
FOR THE APPELLANT  
LA FÉDÉRATION DES  
FRANCOPHONES DE LA  
COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE  
A. François Daigle  
Deputy Attorney General of Canada  
Ottawa, Ontario  
FOR THE RESPONDENTS  
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL  
DEVELOPMENT CANADA  
AND THE CANADA  
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE  
COMMISSION  
The Attorney General of British Columbia  
Victoria, British Columbia  
FOR THE INTERVENER  
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF  
BRITISH COLUMBIA  
Caza Saikaley LLP  
Ottawa, Ontario  
FOR THE INTERVENER  
L’ASSOCIATION DES  
JURISTES D’EXPRESSION  
FRANÇAISE DU NOUVEAU-  
BRUNSWICK  
Power Law  
Montréal, Quebec  
FOR THE INTERVENER  
THE QUEBEC COMMUNITY  
GROUPS NETWORK  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission