Alma Sultafa
The Attorney General of
Quebec
Appellant
v.
Valerie Ford
etal.
Respondent
Interveners
The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for
Ontario and the Attorney General for New Brunswick

AN APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUÉBEC
The principal issue in this appeal is whether s. 58
and s. 69 of the Quebec Charter of the French
Language, R.S.Q., c. C-11, which require that
public signs and posters and commercial
advertising shall be in the French language only
and that only the French version of a firm name
may be used, infringe the freedom of expression
guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and s. 3 of the Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
There is also an issue as to whether s. 58 and s. 69
of the Charter of the French Language infringe
the guarantee against discrimination based on
language in s. 10 of the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms.
The application of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms turns initially on whether there is a
valid and applicable override provision, enacted
pursuant to s. 33 of the Canadian Charter, that s.
58 and s. 69 of the Charter of the French
Language shall operate notwithstanding in s. 2(b)
of the Canadian Charter.

The appeal, (initiated by the government of Quebec)
consolidated many cases initiated by Montreal-area merchants
i.e wool shop owner Valerie Ford. They had been fined for
violation of the Charter of the French Language.
Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal on December 22,
1986, dismissed the appeal of the Quebec Superior Court on
December 28, 1984, which, on an application for a declaratory
judgment, declared s. 58 and s. 69 of the Charter of the French
Language to be inoperative and no force or effect to the extent
that it prescribes that public signs and posters and commercial
advertising shall be solely in the French language.
Charter of the French Language, (Bill 101) established by the
National Assembly of Quebec in 1977.
 s. 58. Public signs and posters and commercial advertising shall
be solely in the official language.
 s.69. Subject to section 68, only the French version of a firm
name may be used in Québec.

Chief Justice Dickson & Justice Beetz, McIntire, Lamer, Wilson
(Estey and Le Dain JJ. took no part in the judgment)



The court decided that the appeal should be
dismissed.
Sections 58 and 69 of the Charter of the French
Language, and ss. 205 to 208 thereof to the extent they
apply to ss. 58 and 69, infringe s. 3 of the Quebec Charter
and are not justified under s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.
Section 69, and ss. 205 to 208 to the extent they apply to
s. 69, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter and are not
justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter.
Sections 58 and 69 infringe s. 10 of the Quebec
Charter.



Basically , the Supreme Court of Canada decision struck down
part of the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101). The
court ruled that Bill 101 violated the freedom of expression
as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
The Supreme Court ruled that the sections of the Charter of
the French Language enforcing the exclusive use of French on
outdoor commercial signs were unconstitutional.
The attack on sections of Bill 101 making French the
exclusive language for commercial signs and firms names
was based not on specific language rights but on the right of
freedom of expression – a right found in s. 2(b) of the
Canadian Charter as well as in Quebec’s Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms.


The Supreme Court remarked that the
Quebec government could legitimately
require French to have "greater visibility" or
"marked predominance" on exterior
commercial signs: however, it could not
enforce the exclusive use of French.
The court made it easier for legislatures to
use s. 33 of the Charter, the override clause,
to immunize their laws from judicial review.


After the Supreme Court's decision, premier Robert
Bourassa's Liberal Party of Quebec government
passed Bill 178, making minor amendments to the
Charter of the French Language. Recognizing that the
amendments did not follow the Supreme Court's
ruling, the provincial legislature invoked section 33 of
the Canadian Charter to shield Bill 178 from review
by courts for five years.
This move was politically controversial, both among
Quebec nationalists who were unhappy with the
changes to the Charter of the French Language, and
among English-speaking Quebecers who opposed the
use of the notwithstanding clause. Tension over this
issue was a contributing factor to the failure of the
Meech Lake Accord.


In 1993, the Charter of the French Language was
amended in the manner suggested by the
Supreme Court of Canada. Bill 86 was enacted by
the Bourassa government to amend the charter. It
now states that French must be predominant on
commercial signs, but a language other than
French may also be used.
English–French bilingualism quickly returned on
exterior signs after 1993, especially in Montreal.


Quebec Sign’s decision (striking down Quebec’s
French –only sign law) is one of the Court’s most
important Charter decision. The decision moved
constitutional jurisprudence in two different
directions at once:
-embraced a wide interpretation of ‘freedom
of expression’ as a constitutional right
-established a broad basis for legislatures to
use the power they have under s. 33 of the
Charter to override constitutional rights and
freedoms.
The decision had a major impact on constitutional
politics in Canada.

Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q., c. C-11.

The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act
1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12.

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712.

Quebec Court of Appeal, [1987] R.J.Q. 80, 5 Q.A.C. 119, 36
D.L.R. (4th) 374.

Superior Court for the District of Montreal, [1985] C.S. 147, 18
D.L.R. (4th) 711.
Thank you!