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
-PQ: Blanket override of enacted in 1982
-1984: Ford & Brown claimed right to post bilingual outdoor
-1978: Devine & Singer displayed signs in English only &
convicted under B 101
-1988 SCC decision: Ford
-Effectiveness of blanket
-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
-Does 101 violate Fr of Exp in Canadian & Quebec Charters?
-Can the violation be justified by s.1 etc.?
-Sociolinguistic studies referred to
I. Is objective of Quebec govt in attempting
to preserve Fr language and culture of substantial importance?
II. a) rational connection? yes
b) rights interfered
with as little as necessary? No, Bilingual signs OK if French
-Devine & After
-Following Ford, must have
-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.