R v Beaulac

Last updated
R v Beaulac

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: February 24, 1999
Judgment: May 20, 1999
Full case nameJean Victor Beaulac v. Her Majesty The Queen
Citations [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768
Docket No. 26416
Prior history Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.
Ruling Appeal allowed.
Holding
Language rights in the Constitution of Canada and section 530 of the Criminal Code are to be given a purposive and liberal interpretation.
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
Majority Bastarache J., joined by L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major JJ.
Concurrence Lamer C.J. and Binnie J.

R v Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on language rights. Notably, the majority adopted a liberal and purposive interpretation of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, overturning conservative case law such as Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents (1986). As the majority wrote, "To the extent that Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick... stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected." [1]

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

Contents

Background

Jean Victor Beaulac was accused of murder and was brought before the British Columbia Supreme Court and convicted. Beaulac claimed rights under section 530 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the accused to be heard in court in his or her language, if it is one of the official languages of Canada, English or French. The Supreme Court noted in its 1999 decision that this was the first time it had ever considered this Criminal Code right. [2] At a lower level, Beaulac had been denied this right to be heard in French, since one judge found Beaulac's skills in English were adequate though not perfect.

<i>Criminal Code</i> (Canada)

The Criminal Code is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law". Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the sole jurisdiction of Parliament over criminal law in Canada.

English language West Germanic language

English is a West Germanic language that was first spoken in early medieval England and eventually became a global lingua franca. It is named after the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes that migrated to the area of Great Britain that later took their name, as England. Both names derive from Anglia, a peninsula in the Baltic Sea. The language is closely related to Frisian and Low Saxon, and its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages, particularly Norse, and to a greater extent by Latin and French.

French language Romance language

French is a Romance language of the Indo-European family. It descended from the Vulgar Latin of the Roman Empire, as did all Romance languages. French evolved from Gallo-Romance, the spoken Latin in Gaul, and more specifically in Northern Gaul. Its closest relatives are the other langues d'oïl—languages historically spoken in northern France and in southern Belgium, which French (Francien) has largely supplanted. French was also influenced by native Celtic languages of Northern Roman Gaul like Gallia Belgica and by the (Germanic) Frankish language of the post-Roman Frankish invaders. Today, owing to France's past overseas expansion, there are numerous French-based creole languages, most notably Haitian Creole. A French-speaking person or nation may be referred to as Francophone in both English and French.

Decision

The majority of the Court first considered the Constitution of Canada, noting that the Constitution Act, 1867, which set out the rules for Canadian federalism, did not give any level of government exclusive jurisdiction to create language rights, and both levels probably could. There were language rights in the Constitution as well, and these could provide context for language rights cases. These include section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and it was noted that in Jones v. Attorney General of New Brunswick (1975) the Supreme Court found that these can be expanded upon. The majority noted that in 1986 the Supreme Court found that language rights should be handled conservatively, in MacDonald v. City of Montreal , Société des Acadiens and Bilodeau v. Attorney General of Manitoba . However, the majority claimed conservative interpretation of language rights has since given way to a more liberal approach, in Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) (1988), which concerned language and freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter. The Court took this as important, since this "re-affirm[s] the importance of language rights as supporting official language communities and their culture." [3] Other noted victories for language rights included Mahe v. Alberta (1990) on minority language education rights in section 23 of the Canadian Charter and Reference re Manitoba Language Rights (1992) on the Manitoba Act. While in Société des Acadiens the Court had played down language rights because they were deemed to be the result of political deals, in this case the Court decided that it does not follow that that means the courts cannot interpret the rights in the same way it interprets other rights. Hence, the Court saw language rights as individual rights promoting dignity, and the Criminal Code right represented a growth in language rights encouraged by section 16 of the Canadian Charter.

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law in Canada; the country's constitution is an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional democracies in the world. The constitution outlines Canada's system of government, as well as the civil rights of all Canadian citizens and those in Canada.

<i>Constitution Act, 1867</i> UK legislation that created Canada

The Constitution Act, 1867 is a major part of Canada's Constitution. The Act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. The British North America Acts, including this Act, were renamed in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution ; however, it is still known by its original name in United Kingdom records. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of federal systems in Canada.

Turning to section 530 of the Criminal Code, the Court called it an "absolute right." Since past interpretation indicated such rights are not just due process, it should be respected beyond what the letter of the law actually demands. [4] The Court also found that the accused's language was a personal matter and related to one's identity, and therefore courts should respect the accused's "subjective" feelings towards a language. In this case, the Court ordered a new trial.

Due process Requirement that courts respect all legal rights owed to people

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Concurrence

Chief Justice Antonio Lamer and Ian Binnie wrote a brief concurrence on section 530 of the Criminal Code. However, they protested the reconsideration of Société des Acadiens and section 16 of the Charter since the Beaulac case did not involve constitutional law. "It is a well-established rule of prudence that courts ought not to pronounce on constitutional issues unless they are squarely raised for decision," they wrote. [5]

Antonio Lamer 16th Chief Justice of Canada

Joseph Antonio Charles Lamer, was a Canadian lawyer, jurist and the 16th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ian Binnie Canadian judge

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from 1998 to 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few to have never sat as a judge prior to his appointment. He was described by the Toronto Star as "one of the strongest hands on the court."

Related Research Articles

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs and rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.

Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first of several sections of the Constitution dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Section 16 declares that English and French are the official languages of Canada and of the province of New Brunswick.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada that guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec, and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking minorities in Quebec. The section may be particularly notable, in that some scholars believe that section 23 "was the only part of the Charter with which Pierre Trudeau was truly concerned." Trudeau was the prime minister who fought for the inclusion of the Charter of Rights in the Constitution of Canada in 1982.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

Section 17 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Charter that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. While the section 17 right to use either language within the Parliament of Canada repeats a right already anchored in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 17 also guarantees the right to use both languages in the legislature of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

<i>Canada (AG) v Lavell</i>

Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.

<i>Provincial Judges Reference</i>

The Provincial Judges Reference [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 is a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in response to a reference question regarding remuneration and the independence and impartiality of provincial court judges. Notably, the majority opinion found all judges are independent, not just superior court judges and inferior court judges concerned with criminal law, as the written constitution stipulates. Unwritten constitutional principles were relied upon to demonstrate this, indicating such principles were growing in importance in constitutional interpretation. The reference also remains one of the most definitive statements on the extent to which all judges in Canada are protected by the Constitution.

<i>Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys</i>

Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority, that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school, as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.

<i>Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents</i>

Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on minority language rights under section 19(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority of the Court held that in civil cases in the New Brunswick courts, the parties have the right to use either French or English in all submissions and pleadings. However, they do not have a right to have the matter heard by a judge who understands them in the language they choose to speak. It is sufficient if there is simultaneous translation. In addition to the majority decision, two other justices of the Court held that the parties did have the right to be heard and understood by the judge in the language of their choice, but on the facts of the case, that standard was met.

<i>R v Mills</i>

R v Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld the newly enacted rape shield law when challenged as a violation to section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rape shield law was the second of its type, the first having been struck down in R. v. Seaboyer. Accordingly, this case is often cited as an example of judicial dialogue.

Jones v New Brunswick (AG) (1974), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the protection of language rights under the Canadian Constitution. The Mayor of Moncton, Leonard Jones, challenged the federal Official Languages Act, which made both French and English the official languages of the institutions of the federal government. Jones argued that the subject matter of the law fell outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the sections of the Constitution of Canada dealing with Canada's two official languages, English and French. Along with section 16, section 20 is one of the few sections under the title "Official Languages of Canada" that guarantees bilingualism outside Parliament, legislatures and courts. This also makes it more extensive than language rights in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 20's specific function is to establish a right to English and French services from the governments of Canada and New Brunswick.

Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution of Canada that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 19 allows anyone to speak English or French in federal courts. However, only section 133 extends these rights to Quebec courts, while section 19 extends these rights to courts in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 requires that all statutes and other records made by the Parliament of Canada must be available in both official languages. Section 133 places a similar obligation on the legislature of Quebec, and this is reaffirmed by section 21 of the Charter. Section 18 of the Charter places a similar obligation on the legislature of New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

<i>R v Hess; R v Nguyen</i>

R v Hess; R v Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down part of the Criminal Code offence of rape as a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Charlebois v Saint John (City of)</i>

Charlebois v Saint John [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on minority language rights in New Brunswick. The Court found no statutory obligation on municipalities for bilingualism in court proceedings.

Because the country contains two major language groups and numerous other linguistic minorities, in Canada official languages policy has always been an important and high-profile area of public policy.

In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature. This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

References

  1. ↑ Para. 25.
  2. ↑ Para. 7.
  3. ↑ Para. 17.
  4. ↑ Para. 28.
  5. ↑ Para. 1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.