Maxime Faille

Five non-rights holder parents applied to the Minister to exercise discretion to admit their children to a French first language education program in the Northwest Territories, with the support of the francophone school board.

The Minister denied each application, finding the parents did not meet the categories established in the ministerial directive.

The SCC held that the Minister was required not only to consider s. 23 of the Charter but to conduct a proportionate balancing of the values underlying that provision — including preservation and development of the minority language community — against the government's interests.

Applying the Doré framework, the Court found the decisions unreasonable because the Minister gave disproportionate weight to consistency and cost, and insufficient weight to pedagogical requirements and the remedial purpose of s. 23.

The appeal was allowed and the Court of Appeal orders set aside.

Two Innu First Nations filed suit in the Quebec Superior Court against mining companies operating a megaproject straddling Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, seeking a permanent injunction, $900 million in damages, and declarations recognizing Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights over a traditional territory called Nitassinan.

The Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador moved to strike allegations relating to land situated in that province, arguing Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction.

The majority held that the claim was a non-classical mixed action involving sui generis Aboriginal rights (not real rights in the civil law sense) and personal obligations, and that Quebec courts had jurisdiction over both aspects under arts. 3134 and 3148 C.C.Q. because the defendant mining companies were domiciled in Montreal.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding that Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights are real rights for private international law purposes, that art. 3152 C.C.Q. deprived Quebec courts of jurisdiction over claims relating to land outside Quebec, and that allowing such jurisdiction would seriously undermine Canadian federalism and ultimately impede access to justice for Indigenous claimants.

Senator Michael Duffy sued the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages, alleging his suspension and denial of expenses were politically motivated, unconstitutional, and violated his Charter rights, despite his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Senate moved to dismiss the action, asserting parliamentary privilege.

The court granted the Senate's motion, finding that the Senate's decisions regarding member discipline, internal affairs, proceedings, and freedom of speech were protected by parliamentary privilege and thus immune from judicial review.

The applicant, Senator Michael Dennis Duffy, sought an order requiring the Clerk of the Senate to produce an internal audit report prepared by Jill Anne Joseph regarding Senate expense policies and Senator Duffy's expense claims.

The Senate claimed parliamentary privilege over the document.

The court upheld the Senate's claim of privilege, finding that the internal audit report, prepared by a Senate employee and presented to a Senate subcommittee in camera, fell within recognized categories of parliamentary privilege including freedom of speech, exclusive cognizance over parliamentary proceedings, control over internal affairs, and disciplinary authority over members.

The court rejected arguments that the privilege had been waived and distinguished the case from R. v. Chaytor, which addressed expense claims themselves rather than internal audit reports.

In this constitutional and procedural appeal concerning minority-language education litigation, the Court upheld the finding that trial-level conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias and warranted a new trial on remitted issues.

The Court confirmed that, absent territorial delegation, a minority-language school board cannot unilaterally expand admissions beyond criteria set by valid regulation under s. 23 of the Charter.

The Court rejected treating a judge’s community affiliation alone as a sufficient basis for bias without stronger contextual evidence.

It further held that statutory language-rights claims under territorial legislation should proceed at the new trial on a full evidentiary record.

The appeal was largely dismissed, with no order as to costs.