Ford v Quebec (Attorney General)

Quebec's Charter of the French Language required commercial signage to be French-only. The SCC held commercial expression is protected by s.2(b) and the prohibition was not minimally impairing — French could be required to be predominant without excluding other languages entirely.

Five Quebec merchants challenged ss.58 and 69 of the Charter of the French Language requiring exclusively French commercial signage and trade-name use.

(1) Is commercial expression protected by s.2(b)? (2) Does the French-only signage law violate s.2(b)? (3) Is it saved by s.1?

Yes; yes; not saved.

Section 2(b) protects all expression conveying or attempting to convey meaning, including commercial expression, subject only to expression that takes a violent form. The French-only requirement failed minimal impairment because predominance of French could be required without excluding other languages.

The Court accepted protecting the French language as a pressing and substantial objective in light of Quebec's linguistic vulnerability. But the means — total exclusion of other languages — went beyond what was necessary. A predominant-French requirement would achieve the objective with less rights infringement.

Quebec invoked s.33 (notwithstanding clause) to override the decision and re-enact French-only signage. The case remains the leading authority on commercial expression and on linguistic regulation. Subsequent litigation has refined the predominance principle.

Ford v Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 SCR 712, 1988 CanLII 19 (SCC).

Dickson CJ, Beetz J, McIntyre J, Lamer J, Wilson J, La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J