Pascale Giguère

The appellants filed a complaint alleging that Industry Canada failed to provide community economic development services in French of equal quality to those provided in English in the Huronia region.

The Commissioner of Official Languages found a breach of the Official Languages Act.

By the time the appellants applied for a court remedy under s. 77 of the Act, Industry Canada had taken corrective measures.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that while there was an initial breach, no remedy other than costs was appropriate because the remaining deficiencies related to program content rather than linguistic access, which fell outside Part IV of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the remaining issues were beyond the scope of Part IV, though it clarified that substantive equality may sometimes require services with distinct content depending on the nature of the program.

The respondents were entitled to costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.

The only outstanding issue was whether the Attorney General should be awarded costs of the cross-appeal on the section 15 issue, which the respondents had raised and lost.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondents costs of the appeal against the Attorney General on a party and party basis, and awarded the Attorney General costs of the cross-appeal against the respondents on a party and party basis.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding six somatic cell count (SCC) test results in the penalty range, which ultimately led to their farm being shut off from shipping milk.

The appellants argued that the official test results were inaccurate and inconsistent with independent tests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the high SCC scores were caused by a high incidence of Staph. aureus mastitis in the herd, combined with less than adequate management by the producers.

The Tribunal found no evidence of anomalies in the standard procedures used for sampling and testing the milk.

Appeal and cross-appeal arising from directions issued by a hospital restructuring body that would substantially reduce the services of Ontario's only francophone community hospital.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 16(3) of the Charter did not constitutionalize the institution's status and that s. 15 could not be used to supplement language rights not expressly conferred by the Charter.

However, the court held that the French Language Services Act had to be interpreted liberally and generously in light of the constitutional principle of respect for and protection of minorities, and that the impugned directions failed to respect that Act.

The court further held that, in exercising a public-interest discretion, the decision-maker was required to give serious weight and consideration to the institution's linguistic, cultural, and educational significance to the francophone minority.

Appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, the quashing order was affirmed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

In a preliminary decision regarding an appeal of somatic cell count test results under the Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program, the appellants requested permission to have witnesses testify via videoconference.

The respondent objected and requested disclosure of witness names.

The appellants also sought disclosure of individual laboratory test results rather than summaries.

The Tribunal granted the request for videoconferencing at the appellants' expense, ordered both parties to disclose anticipated witness names, and directed the respondent to endeavor to produce the requested individual test results.

The appellant, Laplante Combining Inc., appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying its claim for unseeded land compensation (Unseeded Acreage Benefit) in the 2000 crop year.

The appellant argued it had coverage for 2,500 acres, while AGRICORP maintained coverage was limited to 750 acres because the appellant failed to report its increased acreage by the May 1 deadline.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not give effective notice of the increased land base before the deadline and that AGRICORP acted within the terms of the Contract of Insurance in denying the claim.

The appeal was denied.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission issued directions that would significantly reduce the services and teaching capacity of Hôpital Montfort, Ontario's only francophone general hospital.

The applicants sought judicial review, arguing the directions violated s. 15 of the Charter, administrative law principles, and the unwritten constitutional principle of the protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Charter and administrative law arguments but granted the application on constitutional grounds.

The Court held that the protection of minorities is a fundamental organizing principle of the Constitution, and the Commission failed to act according to law by ignoring the broader institutional role of Montfort in preserving the Franco-Ontarian minority culture.