Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: November 16 - 18, 1987 Judgment: December 15, 1988 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
| Unanimous reason 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 where the Court struck down part of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101, which restricted the use of commercial signs written in English, on the grounds that it violated the freedom of expression.
Contents |
[edit] 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 English language signs with unilingual French ones. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal.
[edit] Decision
The court found that the provisions 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 and 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.
[edit] Aftermath
In late 1989, shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, Premier Bourassa's Liberal 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 National Assembly 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.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUMand CanLII
- Charter of the French language
- Article critical of the decision "The implications of accommodation", Policy Options, May 1990
