Louis Reynolds

The appellant appealed judgments declaring that the provisions regarding English instruction in Chapter VIII of the Charter of the French language (Bill 101) were inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that sections 72 and 73 of Bill 101 are inconsistent with section 23 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Court found that the limits imposed by Bill 101 on minority language educational rights could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter, as section 23 was specifically drafted to remedy the type of regime established by Bill 101.

The Government of Quebec referred a question to the Quebec Court of Appeal asking whether its consent was constitutionally required, by convention, for the adoption of a resolution to amend the Canadian Constitution in a way that affected its legislative competence or status.

The Court of Appeal answered in the negative, and Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec has no conventional power of veto over constitutional amendments.

The Court reaffirmed its previous ruling that there is no conventional rule of unanimity among the provinces, and found that Quebec failed to demonstrate that the other political actors had recognized or accepted a specific conventional veto power for Quebec.