Ford & Devine cases
-1977:  Bill 101, Charter of the French Language.
-Prohibited English on most commercial signs
-Quebec Charter of Human Rights (1975)
    guarantees freedom of expression
    limitations clause
-PQ:  Blanket override of enacted in 1982
-1984:  Ford & Brown claimed right to post bilingual outdoor signs
-1978:  Devine & Singer displayed signs in English only & convicted under B 101
-1988 SCC decision: Ford
        -Effectiveness of blanket override (s33)
            -SCC:  procedural only
    -part of 101 subject to Can Ch; override expired.  1984 amendment:  subject only to Quebec Charter
-Freedom of expression
-ideas or language too?  SCC:  Language of expression is included in concept of freedom of expression in Charter.
-Commercial exp too?  SCC:  Commercial expression is covered by Charter.
-Does 101 violate Fr of Exp in Canadian & Quebec Charters?  Yes
-Can the violation be justified by s.1 etc.?
    -Sociolinguistic studies referred to
    Oakes Test:
    I.  Is objective of Quebec govt in attempting to preserve Fr language and culture of  substantial importance?  Yes.
    II.  a) rational connection? yes
        b)  rights interfered with as little as necessary?  No,  Bilingual signs OK if French predominates

-Devine & After
        -Following Ford, must have bilingual signs
        -101 violates fed crim power?  No:  it falls under 92(13)
        -Equality in Quebec Charter of Rights violated?  Yes, but bilingual provisions a reasonable limit
        -Bourassa could have amended 101 to allow for bilingual signs, French predominating
            Instead, he used S. 33 to override the SCC decision for 5 years.
Over next 5 years, debate in Quebec concluded SCC was right.  Override now not used.  Outdoor signs can be bilingual, as long as French is predominant.