Libman: On death, taxes and the future of minority rights in Quebec
Benjamin Franklin famously wrote: 'In this world nothing can be certain, except death and taxes.'
Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, comes pretty close. It is the ironclad constitutional protection of minority-language education rights in this country. It has consistently been interpreted by Quebec courts to uphold the right of the English-speaking minority to control and manage its school system. And it's exempt from the application of the notwithstanding clause.
After the Coalition Avenir Québec government adopted Bill 40 in 2020, abolishing and replacing school boards with service centres under greater government control, the province's English boards challenged the law as unconstitutional.
In 2023 Quebec Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier agreed, ruling in no uncertain terms that much of Bill 40 infringes on the English-speaking community's constitutional rights to govern and control its educational institutions.
The CAQ government, however, appealed the judgment.
In April of this year, Quebec Court of Appeal judges Robert Mainville, Christine Baudouin and Judith Harvie handed down their ruling. They also concluded that parts of Bill 40 infringe on the section of the Charter of Rights that guarantees minority-language education rights and couldn't be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on charter rights in a free and democratic society.
Another slam dunk for minority education rights.
Yet this week, the Legault government went ahead anyways to request leave to appeal this judgment by Quebec's highest court to the Supreme Court of Canada. The irony here shouldn't be lost: Quebec's nationalist government is asking Canada's highest court to overturn rulings from the two Quebec courts.
I have little doubt Quebec's lawyers have advised the government they cannot possibly win this case at the Supreme Court. This appeal seems purely political. No one would expect the CAQ to dare show any surrender in assailing minority language rights at the risk of giving a drumstick to their more nationalist rivals, the separatist Parti Québécois.
The Supreme Court should refuse to hear the appeal considering how categorically the two Quebec courts unanimously ruled in what seems an open-and-shut case. For several reasons, the ideal scenario would be for the Supreme Court to say the Quebec courts composed of Lussier, Mainville, Baudouin and Harvie have already made an irreproachable decision. Case closed.
This, in fact, could even benefit the CAQ (which they might be secretly hoping for) because if the Supreme Court does take the case and inevitably invalidates sections of the law sometime next year, around Quebec election time, it would help provide ripe fodder for the PQ to condemn Canada for 'again' crushing Quebec's aspirations and ignoring its 'distinctiveness' — while conveniently glossing over the fact that Quebec francophone judges had also unanimously struck it down.
But watch out for another concern. Within days of the appeal court's ruling, coincidentally or not, Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette announced his intention to launch negotiations with Ottawa about amending the Constitution so that Quebec judges are chosen from among members of the Quebec Bar, recommended by the Quebec government. Currently, superior and appeal court judges are appointed by the federal government.
Judges in this country act as a check and balance for government legislation, if challenged. They are impartial arbiters, interpreting the charters of rights to balance individual or minority rights against political objectives. In Quebec, where an important linguistic minority relies on constitutional protections, the courts are their only redress at times, often against the backdrop of a highly charged language environment. We need only look across the border at the U.S. to see what can happen when the court system becomes politicized.
If certain Quebec governments started to exert influence on the courts by appointing judges known for favouring collective rights over individual rights, or harbouring secessionist sympathies, for example, the last vestiges of protection for minority communities, including the certainty of Section 23, could vanish.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
9 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
Former Liberal minister John McCallum dead at 75
Immigration Minister John McCallum says he will look into settling more Syrian refugees in French-speaking communities in New Brunswick. Photo: Karissa Donkin/Legislatur OTTAWA — John McCallum, a former Liberal cabinet minister, has died at age 75, his family confirms. McCallum was a veteran politician, diplomat, academic and accomplished economist. More coming. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Sports Toronto & GTA Sunshine Girls Columnists Editorial Cartoons
Winnipeg Free Press
14 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
Toronto Star
a day ago
- Toronto Star
Mark Carney's minority government has an unexpected partner in the Conservatives — for now
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, left, and Liberal Leader Mark Carney talk following the English-language federal leaders' debate in Montreal on April 17, 2025. Christopher Katsarov The Canadia
