Teresa R. Haykowsky

Two traffic-offence appellants argued Alberta had a constitutional obligation to enact, print, and publish legislation in both French and English based on the 1867 Address and 1870 constitutional instruments.

A majority held no entrenched constitutional guarantee of legislative bilingualism applied to Alberta through those texts, rejected related fiduciary-duty arguments, and dismissed both appeals.

The Court answered the constitutional questions in Alberta's favour while awarding the appellants party-and-party costs in this Court and below.

The accused was charged with a minor traffic offence and claimed the proceedings were a nullity because the court documents were uniquely in English, arguing that the provincial Languages Act was unconstitutional.

After exhausting his funds during a lengthy trial, the accused applied for interim costs.

The provincial court granted the order, but the superior court set it aside for lack of jurisdiction, instead using its own inherent jurisdiction to grant the interim costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the superior court's order, finding that superior courts have inherent jurisdiction to assist inferior courts to prevent a serious injustice, and that the case met the criteria for public interest funding.