29:
209:, writing for the majority, held that the language rights of section 19(2) were different from most other rights in the Charter as they were the result of a political compromise and so must be read restrictively. The right to be tried in court in French does not even imply a right to an interpreter. The only right to be understood would be provided by fundamental justice and
229:
and Denise Réaume call it "troubling," noting the division of the
Charter between rights to be read conservatively and liberally was not specific and so other rights besides the language rights were at risk of being conservatively read. Moreover, they questioned the meaning of conservative readings
196:
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
257:
is often bred of more attention to pedigree than to principle. Had Magna Carta been concluded under a system of representative government, the glare of lights and the whir of video-recorders, we would no doubt regard it too as a mere political
197:
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.
253:, had seedy pasts. They were conceded reluctantly and only after protracted political battles and compromises in which ideology had greater power than political theory. Cynicism and scepticism about Canada's
54:
Société des
Acadiens du Nouveau‑Brunswick Inc. and the Association des conseillers scolaires francophones du Nouveau‑Brunswick v Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50
214:
183:
210:
365:
250:
242:
345:
188:
160:
360:
375:
340:
268:, 1 S.C.R. 768 where the Court rejected the Beetz interpretation in favour of the case's minority decision of Dickson and Wilson.
370:
380:
226:
230:
and said that even with supposed generous readings of the
Charter, it is expected that courts are not making law.
94:
327:
Green, Leslie. "Are
Language Rights Fundamental?" Osgoode Hall Law Journal vol. 25, no. 4, 1987, pp. 645-646.
175:
34:
28:
114:
305:
Green, Leslie and Denise Réaume, "Second-Class Rights? Principle and
Compromise in the Charter,"
179:
246:
98:
233:
Green also argued that when it comes to diminishing rights due to compromise and politics,
110:
354:
193:
106:
102:
90:
79:
61:
150:
McIntyer and La Forest took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
264:
238:
206:
86:
192:. The majority of the Court held that in civil cases in the
129:
Beetz, joined by Estey, Chouinard, Lamer and Le Dain
154:
141:
133:
125:
120:
70:
60:
49:
42:
21:
366:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
235:
285:Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents
262:This decision was eventually reconsidered in
225:The decision inspired criticism. Professors
171:Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents
22:Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents
8:
237:Most fundamental democratic rights, from
277:
189:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
161:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
18:
7:
14:
346:case summary at mapleleafweb.com
243:Declaration of the Rights of Man
27:
1:
361:Supreme Court of Canada cases
217:rather than language rights.
43:Hearing: December 4–5, 1984
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
397:
376:1986 in Canadian case law
318:Green and Reaume, p. 569.
309:, vol. 13 (1990), p. 566.
307:The Dalhousie Law Journal
159:
149:
75:
26:
176:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
371:Bilingualism in Canada
260:
251:International Covenant
45:Judgment: May 1, 1986
341:full text from LexUM
381:Language case law
215:14 of the Charter
180:minority language
167:
166:
388:
328:
325:
319:
316:
310:
303:
297:
294:
288:
282:
247:Great Reform Act
115:Gérard La Forest
99:Julien Chouinard
95:William McIntyre
84:Puisne Justices:
71:Court membership
31:
19:
396:
395:
391:
390:
389:
387:
386:
385:
351:
350:
337:
332:
331:
326:
322:
317:
313:
304:
300:
295:
291:
283:
279:
274:
223:
203:
82:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
394:
392:
384:
383:
378:
373:
368:
363:
353:
352:
349:
348:
343:
336:
335:External links
333:
330:
329:
320:
311:
298:
289:
276:
275:
273:
270:
222:
219:
202:
199:
165:
164:
157:
156:
152:
151:
147:
146:
143:
139:
138:
135:
131:
130:
127:
123:
122:
118:
117:
111:Gerald Le Dain
77:Chief Justice:
73:
72:
68:
67:
64:
58:
57:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
393:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
358:
356:
347:
344:
342:
339:
338:
334:
324:
321:
315:
312:
308:
302:
299:
293:
290:
287:, 1 SCR 549.
286:
281:
278:
271:
269:
267:
266:
259:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
234:
231:
228:
220:
218:
216:
212:
208:
200:
198:
195:
194:New Brunswick
191:
190:
185:
184:section 19(2)
182:rights under
181:
177:
173:
172:
162:
158:
153:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
121:Reasons given
119:
116:
112:
108:
107:Bertha Wilson
104:
103:Antonio Lamer
100:
96:
92:
91:Willard Estey
88:
85:
81:
80:Brian Dickson
78:
74:
69:
65:
63:
59:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
323:
314:
306:
301:
296:Para. 60-61.
292:
284:
280:
263:
261:
254:
236:
232:
227:Leslie Green
224:
204:
187:
178:decision on
170:
169:
168:
155:Laws applied
83:
76:
53:
33:
265:R v Beaulac
258:compromise.
245:, from the
239:Magna Carta
163:, ss 16, 19
142:Concurrence
134:Concurrence
355:Categories
272:References
211:sections 7
87:Jean Beetz
221:Aftermath
66:1 SCR 549
62:Citations
205:Justice
201:Decision
126:Majority
255:Charter
249:to the
186:of the
137:Dickson
174:is a
145:Wilson
55:Branch
207:Beetz
213:and
241:to
357::
113:,
109:,
105:,
101:,
97:,
93:,
89:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
