D. Martin Low

Following the 1985 Reference re Manitoba Language Rights decision, a dispute arose regarding which instruments had to be translated to comply with s. 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 23 applies to orders in council of a legislative nature, determined by their form, content, and effect.

The Court also held that documents incorporated by reference in legislation must be translated if the primary instrument is legislative, the incorporation is true, and the document was generated by the government, unless there is a bona fide reason for incorporation without translation.

The period of temporary validity for unilingual Acts was extended.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act after repeated antisemitic recorded telephone messages led to a human rights cease and desist order and contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that the provision infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b), but the majority found the infringement justified under s. 1 because the objective of preventing harm caused by hate propaganda and promoting equality was pressing and substantial.

The majority also held that the tribunal order was sufficiently clear and that any apprehension of bias challenge had been waived and could not be raised collaterally in contempt proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed, with a partial dissent that would have struck down the provision while still upholding the contempt convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted an application to hold a special hearing to determine constitutional questions regarding the translation and temporary validity of Manitoba laws under section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870.

The Court ordered that the temporary validity of the laws in question be continued until the hearing is held and judgment is rendered.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding his right to use the French language in criminal proceedings before the Alberta courts under s. 110 of The North-West Territories Act.

The Court held that s. 110 is in force in Alberta for federal criminal proceedings.

However, relying on its recent decision in R. v. Mercure, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the appellant's claim that the judge and Crown must understand and address the accused in French without an interpreter.