Ford v Quebec (AG): Difference between revisions
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Aftermath== |
==Aftermath== |
||
In late 1989, shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, |
In late 1989, shortly after the [[Supreme Court]]'s decision, [[premier]] [[Robert Bourassa]]'s [[Liberal Party of Quebec]] government passed [[Bill 178]], making minor amendments to the [[Charter of the French Language]]. Recognizing that the amendments did not follow the Supreme Court's ruling, the provincial legislature invoked [[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 33]] of the Canadian Charter (also known as the [[notwithstanding clause]]) to shield Bill 178 from review by courts for five years. |
||
This move was politically controversial, both among Quebec nationalists who were unhappy with the changes to the Charter of the French Language, and among [[English-speaking Quebecer]]s who opposed the use of the |
This move was politically controversial, both among [[Quebec nationalists]] who were unhappy with the changes to the Charter of the French Language, and among [[English-speaking Quebecer]]s who opposed the use of the notwithstanding clause. Tension over this issue was a contributing factor to the failure of the [[Meech Lake Accord]]. |
||
In 1993, the Charter of the French Language was amended in the manner suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada. [[Bill 86]] was enacted by the Bourassa government to amend the charter. It now states that French must be predominant on commercial signs, but a language other than French may also be used. |
In 1993, the Charter of the French Language was amended in the manner suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada. [[Bill 86]] was enacted by the Bourassa government to amend the charter. It now states that French must be predominant on commercial signs, but a language other than French may also be used. |
||
Revision as of 13:46, 17 February 2009
| Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: November 16 - 18, 1987 Judgment: December 15, 1988 | |
| Full case name | The Attorney General of Quebec v. La Chaussure Brown's Inc., Valerie Ford, McKenna Inc., Nettoyeur et Tailleur Masson Inc. and La Compagnie de Fromage Nationale Ltée |
| Citations | [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 |
| Docket No. | 20306[1] |
| Ruling | Appeal dismissed. |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé | |
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | The Court |
| Laws applied | |
| Forget v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 90 | |
Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court struck down part of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101. This law had restricted the use of commercial signs written in languages other than French. The court ruled that Bill 101 violated the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Background
The appeal, launched by the government of Quebec, consolidated many cases initiated by Montreal-area merchants such as Montreal florist Hyman Singer and West Island wool shop owner Valerie Ford. They had been fined for violation of the Charter of the French Language and decided to fight the case in court. Following anonymous complaints, the Office québécois de la langue française had instructed them to inform and serve their customers in French and replace their bilingual French and English signs with unilingual French ones. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decisions of the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Decision
The court found that the provisions of Bill 101 violate the freedom of expression protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the violation could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter. It found that Bill 101 also violated section 3 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court argued that while the underlying aim of the law to protect French was just, it could not justify prohibiting other languages.
Aftermath
In late 1989, shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, premier Robert Bourassa's Liberal Party of Quebec government passed Bill 178, making minor amendments to the Charter of the French Language. Recognizing that the amendments did not follow the Supreme Court's ruling, the provincial legislature invoked section 33 of the Canadian Charter (also known as the notwithstanding clause) to shield Bill 178 from review by courts for five years.
This move was politically controversial, both among Quebec nationalists who were unhappy with the changes to the Charter of the French Language, and among English-speaking Quebecers who opposed the use of the notwithstanding clause. Tension over this issue was a contributing factor to the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.
In 1993, the Charter of the French Language was amended in the manner suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill 86 was enacted by the Bourassa government to amend the charter. It now states that French must be predominant on commercial signs, but a language other than French may also be used.
See also
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
- Charter of the French language
- Article critical of the decision "The implications of accommodation", Policy Options, May 1990
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 20306 Supreme Court of Canada