Section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Last updated

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.

Contents

Text

Section 18 reads,

18.(1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative.

Application

Justice Michel Bastarache and fellow-authors wrote of section 18 that it repeats section 133 in necessitating Parliament's statutes being kept in both official languages, and that section 18 "adds that both versions are equally authoritative." They compared this clause to sections 56 and 57 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , which state that English and French versions of the Constitution are equal. [1] Earlier, however, court decisions suggested the equal status of English and French versions was implicit in section 133. [2] Bastarache and his fellow-authors also argued that section 18 implies bilingualism is to be used in the making of the law, and state that failure to satisfy section 18 means any laws are unconstitutional. [1]

Challenges

Section 18 causes a number of challenges in law making. Someone translating a law from one official language to another will have to ensure that the two versions do not contradict one another. [3] Hence, the federal government has tried to ensure laws are written in both English and French to begin with, as opposed to the usual method in which laws written in English would then be translated to French. [3]

If the two versions of a law contradict each other anyway, the equality under section 18 causes courts to interpret them by means of "cross-interpretation," which means the courts interpret both while referencing the other. An interpretation that most plausibly could apply to both of the two contradictory versions will be adopted. Additionally, the purpose of the law may be considered, so that the version most geared toward the purpose will be applied. In some cases, one version of a law that is more explicit than the other will receive priority. [3]

Interpretation

In the 1986 Supreme Court case Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents , Justice Jean Beetz commented on section 18. He called it one of the few language rights in the Charter, along with section 20, that is meant to promote discussion that everyone is able to understand. Section 20 addresses public services, while Beetz noted section 18 "provides for bilingualism at the legislative level." [4]

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal considered subsection 18(2), which requires bilingual statutes and records to be kept by the provincial legislature, for the first time in the 2001 case Charlebois v. Mowat. The court extended subsection 18(2)'s requirement to municipal laws, with reference to sections 16 and section 16.1 of the Charter. Although the Supreme Court had said in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Blaikie (No. 2) (1981) that the section 133 requirements of the Quebec legislature do not extend to Quebec municipalities, the New Brunswick court observed section 133 and the Charter are separate laws enacted for different purposes. According to R. v. Beaulac (1999), the Charter rights should be interpreted more liberally. The Charter rights should support minority language groups. Legislation was defined as laws applying to people, and municipal laws fit this description. Finally, it was noted that municipalities exist under the authority of the provincial governments, which are bound by the Charter under section 32. [5] (A related case later went to the Supreme Court as Charlebois v. Saint John (City) .)

Related Research Articles

The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of patriating the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, including re-naming it the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition to patriating the Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1982 enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; guaranteed rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada; provided for future constitutional conferences; and set out the procedures for amending the Constitution in the future.

The Official Languages Act is a Canadian law that came into force on September 9, 1969, which gives French and English equal status in the government of Canada. This makes them "official" languages, having preferred status in law over all other languages. Although the Official Languages Act is not the only piece of federal language law, it is the legislative keystone of Canada's official bilingualism. It was substantially amended in 1988. Both languages are equal in Canada's government and in all the services it controls, such as the courts.

<i>Constitution Act, 1867</i> Primary constitutional document of Canada

The Constitution Act, 1867, originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. 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. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution, the British North America Acts which were originally enacted by the British Parliament, including this Act, were renamed. However, the acts are still known by their original names in records of the United Kingdom. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Official bilingualism in Canada</span> Policy that the English and French languages have equal status and usage in Canadian government

The official languages of Canada are English and French, which "have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada," according to Canada's constitution. "Official bilingualism" is the term used in Canada to collectively describe the policies, constitutional provisions, and laws that ensure legal equality of English and French in the Parliament and courts of Canada, protect the linguistic rights of English- and French-speaking minorities in different provinces, and ensure a level of government services in both languages across Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</span> Official bilingualism in Canada

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</span> Linguistic equality in New Brunswick

Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality between English-speaking and French-speaking residents of New Brunswick. Enacted in 1993, it is the most recent addition to the Charter.

J. E. Michel Bastarache is a Canadian lawyer, businessman, and retired puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Section 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of several sections of the Charter relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16, are English and French. Section 22 is specifically concerned with political rights relating to languages besides English and French.

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.

Section 21 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of several sections of the Charter relating to the official languages of Canada. The official languages, under section 16 of the Charter, are English and French. Sections 16 to 20 guarantee a number of rights in regard to the use of these languages in the federal and New Brunswick courts and other government institutions. Thus, section 21 clarifies that language rights regarding English and French in the Constitution of Canada, outside the Charter, remain valid and are not limited by the language rights within the Charter.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Blaikie (No 1)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Quebec (AG) v Blaikie , [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on language rights in the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court held that the sections of Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which required that provincial laws be enacted in French only, violated section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

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.

<i>Charlebois v Saint John (City of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Charlebois v Saint John (City of) [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.

<i>R v Beaulac</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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."

<i>An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick</i> Provincial law in New Brunswick, Canada

The law recognising the equality of the two linguistic communities of New Brunswick, or the more succinct Law 88, is a law adopted by the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, recognising the equality of the Anglophone and Francophone linguistic communities of the province.

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.

The language policies of Canada's province and territories vary between the provinces and territories of Canada. Although the federal government operates as an officially bilingual institution, providing services in English and French, several provincial governments have also instituted or legislated their own language policies.

The equal authenticity rule is a rule of judicial interpretation developed by Canadian courts as a way of interpreting laws written in parallel French and English texts. The constitution of Canada requires that both versions of each bilingual law be treated as equally authoritative, which can result in problems when the English and French versions are incongruent. The equal authenticity rule is derived from section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states, inter alia, "The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages [i.e. both English and French]."

<i>Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc v Canada, 2008 SCC 15 is a Canadian constitutional law case, dealing with the language standards imposed by section 20(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to their duties as New Brunswick's police force.

References

  1. 1 2 Bastarache, Michel, Andre Braen, Emmanuel Didier and Pierre Foucher, Language Rights in Canada, ed. Michel Bastarache, trans. Translation Devinat et Associés, Ottawa, (Montréal, Quebec: Editions Yvon Blais, 1987), p. 103.
  2. ↑ Bastarache, Braen, Didier and Foucher, p. 111.
  3. 1 2 3 Bastarache, Braen, Didier and Foucher, pp. 110-111.
  4. ↑ Beetz J., Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549.
  5. ↑ Charlebois v. Mowat, 2001 NBCA 117 (CanLII).
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.