Nguyen v. Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports)

Nguyen v. Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports)

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of s.73 of the Charter of the French language infringe s.23(2) of the Canadian Charter because they exclude entire portions of a child's educational pathway (UPS attendance or special‑authorization instruction) from the qualitative global assessment required by Solski; the infringements are not justified under s.1 (not minimally impairing) and the provisions are therefore unconstitutional; remedy: declaration of invalidity suspended for one year, files remitted for reassessment, and immediate certificate for Satbir Bindra.

Citation
2009 SCC 47
Parties
Appellants / Respondents on Cross Appeal: Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports and Attorney General of Quebec; Respondents / Appellants on Cross Appeal: Hong Ha Nguyen et al.; Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal: Talwinder Bindra; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (constitutional Challenge) / Final Judgment on Appeal (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; cross‑appeals dismissed without costs; paras.2 and 3 of s.73 CFL declared invalid but effect suspended for one year.
Legal Topics
Minority Language Educational Rights, Section 23 Charter, Charter of the French Language S.73 Paras.2 and 3, Section 1 Oakes Analysis, Solski Precedent (qualitative Assessment)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Education Law Language Rights Minority Language Educational Rights Section 23 Charter Charter of the French Language S.73 Paras.2 and 3 Section 1 Oakes Analysis Solski Precedent (qualitative Assessment)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports and Attorney General of Quebec

Appellants / Respondents on Cross Appeal

Hong Ha Nguyen et al.

Respondents / Appellants on Cross Appeal

Talwinder Bindra

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (constitutional Challenge) / Final Judgment on Appeal (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do paras.2 and 3 of s.73 CFL infringe s.23(2) of the Canadian Charter?
  2. 2 If an infringement exists, is it justified under s.1 of the Charter?
  3. 3 Appropriate remedy and suspension of declaration of invalidity

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of s.73 of the Charter of the French language infringe s.23(2) of the Canadian Charter because they exclude entire portions of a child's educational pathway (UPS attendance or special‑authorization instruction) from the qualitative global assessment required by Solski; the infringements are not justified under s.1 (not minimally impairing) and the provisions are therefore unconstitutional; remedy: declaration of invalidity suspended for one year, files remitted for reassessment, and immediate certificate for Satbir Bindra.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; cross‑appeals dismissed without costs; paras.2 and 3 of s.73 CFL declared invalid but effect suspended for one year.

Orders

  • Declare paragraphs 2 and 3 of s.73 Charter of the French language unconstitutional and of no force or effect
  • Suspend effect of the declaration for one year from judgment to allow legislative response