Reference re Manitoba Language Rights

Manitoba's 1890 statute restricting legislation to English violated s.23 of the Manitoba Act 1870. All English-only Manitoba statutes were therefore invalid. The Court suspended the declaration of invalidity to give time for translation, invoking the rule of law to avoid a legal vacuum.

Manitoba had legislated in English only since 1890. The reference asked whether the language requirements of s.23 of the Manitoba Act and s.133 of the Constitution Act 1867 were mandatory.

(1) Are bilingual legislative requirements mandatory? (2) Are existing English-only laws invalid? (3) What is the appropriate remedy?

Yes; yes; suspended declaration of invalidity for translation period.

Constitutional language requirements are mandatory; non-compliant legislation is unconstitutional. The rule of law — implicit in the Constitution's preamble — requires that there be no legal vacuum, so the Court may suspend a declaration of invalidity until valid replacement is enacted.

The Court relied on the unwritten rule-of-law principle to bridge the gap. Without the suspension, Manitoba would have had no positive law for nearly a century of legislation. The decision is famous for grounding remedy in unwritten constitutional principle.

Foundation of suspended declarations of invalidity. Articulation of the rule of law as an unwritten constitutional principle, later elaborated in Quebec Secession.

Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 SCR 721, 1985 CanLII 33 (SCC).

Dickson CJ, Beetz J, Estey J, McIntyre J, Lamer J, Wilson J, Le Dain J