Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island

Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2000-01-13
Neutral citation
2000 SCC 1
Report
[2000] 1 SCR 3
Case number
26682
Judges
Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; Arbour, Louise
On appeal from
Prince Edward Island
Subjects
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 26682
Decision Content
Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3
Noëlla Arsenault-Cameron, Madeleine Costa-Petitpas and
the Fédération des Parents de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard Inc. Appellants
v.
The Government of Prince Edward Island Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Canada,
the Attorney General for Ontario,
the Attorney General of Manitoba,
the Commission scolaire de langue française de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard,
the Commission nationale des parents francophones,
the Société St-Thomas d’Aquin – Société acadienne de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, and the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada Interveners
Indexed as: Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island
Neutral citation: 2000 SCC 1.
File No.: 26682.
1999: November 4; 2000: January 13.
Present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
on appeal from the prince edward island supreme court, appeal division
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Minority language educational rights – Educational facility – Location of minority language schools – Right of management and control over educational facility – Whether minority language educational rights in s. 23 of Charter include right to instruction in educational facility located in specific area where numbers warrant provision of minority language instruction – Delineation of right of management and control exercised by minority language board regarding location of minority language schools – Minister of Education’s discretion to approve board’s decisions regarding minority language educational services.
The individual appellants hold minority language educational rights under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . They made a request to the French Language Board for the establishment of a French school for grades 1 to 6 in the Summerside area for the 1995-96 school year. The pre-registration results met the minimum requirement set out in the regulation, and the Board made a conditional offer of French first language instruction in Summerside. The Minister of Education conceded that the children of s. 23 right holders living in the Summerside area were entitled to educational instruction in the French language and that the number of children warranted the provision of the instruction out of public funds, but he refused to approve the Board’s offer and instead offered to maintain transportation services to an existing French language school in Abram’s Village. The average bus ride from the Summerside area to the existing French language school was 57 minutes. He also rejected the Board’s subsequent proposal to provide French language instruction in Summerside through the existing French language school in Abram’s Village. The appellants initiated proceedings against the provincial government seeking a declaration of their right to have their children receive French first language instruction at the primary level in a facility situated in Summerside. The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, granted the declaration but the Appeal Division set aside that judgment and reinstated the Minister’s decision.
Held: The appeal should be allowed.
Section 23 of the Charter mandates that provincial governments do whatever is practically possible to preserve and promote minority language education. Its object is in part remedial, and it is not meant to reinforce the status quo by adopting a formal vision of equality that would focus on treating the majority and minority official language groups alike. A purposive interpretation of s. 23 rights is based on the true purpose of redressing past injustices and providing the official language minority with equal access to high quality education in its own language, in circumstances where community development will be enhanced. The historical and contextual analysis is important for courts in determining whether a government has failed to meet its s. 23 obligations, and should guide governmental actors in reaching appropriate decisions to give effect to s. 23 . The fact that constitutional language rights resulted from a political compromise is not unique to language rights and does not affect their scope.
Under s. 23(3) of the Charter , a province has a duty to provide official minority language instruction where the numbers warrant. The relevant number is somewhere between the known demand and the number of students who could potentially take advantage of the service. Since s. 23 favours community development and links the right to instruction to the area where the conditions for the exercise of that right are present, calculation of the relevant number is not restricted to the existing school boundaries. When a minority language board exists, the area is to be defined on a case-by-case basis and is within the minority’s exclusive powers of management and control, subject to objective provincial norms and guidelines consistent with s. 23 . Otherwise, the remedial and protective potential of s. 23 would be greatly impaired. In this case, the relevant number in the Summerside area was between 49 and 155. The Appeal Division erred in adopting a different, more restrictive, standard focussed solely on actual demand.
Identifying what is required by s. 23 involves a determination of the appropriate services, in pedagogical terms, for the number of students involved and an examination of the costs of the contemplated service. Educational services provided to the minority need not be identical to that provided to the majority. Substantive equality under s. 23 requires that official language minorities be treated differently, if necessary, according to their particular circumstances and needs, in order to provide a standard of education equivalent to that of the official language majority. Owing to the variety of circumstances encountered in different schools and the demands of a minority language education itself, providing the same form of educational system to the minority and the majority may be impractical and undesirable. Focussing on the individual right to instruction at the expense of the linguistic and cultural rights of the minority community effectively restricts the collective rights of the minority community. Here, by using objective standards, which assess the needs of minority language children primarily by reference to the pedagogical needs of majority language children, the Minister failed to take into account the special requirements of the s. 23 rights holders. Further, although travel arrangements may, in some circumstances, meet the requirements of s. 23, the Minister also failed to recognize that the s. 23 children were faced with a choice between a locally accessible school in the majority language and a less accessible school in the minority language, a choice which would have an impact on the assimilation of the minority language children. Furthermore, a school is the single most important institution for the survival of the official language minority, which is itself a true beneficiary under s. 23; insufficient weight was given to this factor. It was conceded by the Minister that financial considerations were not an issue in this case.
Management and control are critical to the enjoyment of s. 23 rights, and, where numbers warrant the creation of facilities, the representatives of the official language community have the right to a degree of governance of these facilities. The right of management and control is independent of the existence of a minority language board. At the upper end of the sliding scale of rights, where a minority language board is required, it will have both the powers of management granted by the legislature and any further powers conferred by s. 23. Although the Minister is responsible for making educational policy, his discretion is subordinate to the Charter , including the remedial aspect of s. 23 , the specific needs of the minority language community and the exclusive right of representatives of the minority to the management of French language instruction and facilities. Within the parameters of s. 23 , regulation of the board’s powers is permissible. The government should have the widest possible discretion in selecting the institutional means by which its s. 23 obligations are to be met. The province has a legitimate interest in the content and qualitative standards of educational programs for the official language communities and it can impose appropriate programs in so far as they do not interfere with the legitimate linguistic and cultural concerns of the minority.
In the present case, the French Language Board had an obligation to offer French language instruction where numbers warrant and to determine the location of the required classes or facilities, subject to the approval of the Minister. The Minister’s decision not to offer services in Summerside is unconstitutional because the offer of classes or a facility came within the exclusive right of management of the minority and met with all provincial and constitutional requirements. The Minister’s discretion was limited to verifying whether the Board had met provincial requirements; he had no power to substitute his own criteria or decision. The Minister failed to give proper weight to the effect of his decision on the promotion and preservation of the minority language community in Summerside and did not give proper recognition to the role of the French Language Board in this regard.
The Appeal Division erred in deciding that the sliding scale approach was governed by the “reasonable accessibility” of services without considering which services would best encourage the flourishing and preservation of the French language minority. It also erred in accepting that the Minister could unilaterally decide what level of service was appropriate. The priorities of the minority community had to be given precedence because they lie at the core of the management and control conferred on the minority language rights holders and their legitimate representatives by s. 23.
Cases Cited
Followed: Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; referred to: Reference re: School Act (1988), 49 D.L.R. (4th) 499; Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), s. 79(3), (4) and (7), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839; R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Lavoie v. Nova Scotia (Attorney-General) (1988), 50 D.L.R. (4th) 405; Reference re Education Act of Ontario and Minority Language Education Rights (1984), 10 D.L.R. (4th) 491.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 23 .
School Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-2.1, ss. 2(1) [am. 1994, c. 56 , s. 2], 7(1)(a), (b), 27(1), 49 [idem, s. 14], 112, 121(1), (2), (3), (4), 122(2), (3), 128(1) [idem, s. 28], (2).
School Act Regulations, EC674/76 [am. EC108/90], s. 6.01(b), (f), 6.05(1), (4), 6.07, 6.08, 6.11.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division (1998), 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 329, 500 A.P.R. 329, 160 D.L.R. (4th) 89, [1998] P.E.I.J. No. 38 (QL), reversing a judgment of the Trial Division (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 308, 459 A.P.R. 308, [1997] P.E.I.J. No. 7 (QL). Appeal allowed.
Robert A. McConnell, for the appellants.
Roger B. Langille, Q.C., for the respondent.
Claude Joyal, Warren J. Newman and Marc Tremblay, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Robert Earl Charney, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.
Deborah L. Carlson, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.
Pierre Foucher, for the intervener the Commission scolaire de langue française de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard.
Paul S. Rouleau, for the intervener the Commission nationale des parents francophones.
Christian E. Michaud, for the intervener the Société St-Thomas d’Aquin -- Société acadienne de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard.
Daniel Mathieu and Richard L. Tardif, for the intervener the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
1 Major and Bastarache JJ. — In December of 1982, a group of parents representing 17 children who attended schools located in the region of Summerside requested that a class be opened by Unit 2 Regional School Board, an English language board, in Summerside, for instruction in the French language pursuant to s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The Regional Board declined to grant the request but offered either to register the children who qualified for French language education in existing local French immersion classes or to bus them to École Évangéline, a school administered by the Unit 5 Regional School Board in Abram’s Village, where education was provided in the French language. Further requests were brought in 1983 and 1985; the same reply was made. An action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island and later abandoned after a reference to the Appeal Division of the Court was issued on September 19, 1985. In Reference re: School Act (1988), 49 D.L.R. (4th) 499, the Appeal Division of the P.E.I. Supreme Court found that the sections of the Act and many of the Regulations referred to in the Reference were unconstitutional. The School Act and Regulations were later amended, providing in particular that Unit 5 Regional School Board be reconstituted and given responsibility for the promotion and delivery of all French language education in the province.
2 In November of 1994, the personal appellants in the present action made a request to the Commission scolaire de langue française (the “French Language Board” or the “Board”) for the establishment of a French school for grades one to six in the Summerside area for the 1995-96 school year. Officials of the Board met with representatives of the Minister of Education to discuss the possible establishment of a school. Thirty-four students pre-registered in January 1995, with a total of 17 s. 23 children in grades one and two. Twenty-nine children were from Summerside, four from Miscouche and one from Kensington. Based on the pre-registration results, the Board decided to make a conditional offer of French first language instruction in Summerside. The Board did not offer transportation to École Évangéline, located in Abram’s Village, because the majority of parents did not want to send their young children outside the community. Abram’s Village is 28 kilometres from Summerside, 20 kilometres from Miscouche, 40 kilometres from Kensington and Bedeque, and 46 kilometres from Kinkora. The Board was aware of the fact that 20 years of available transportation had not been accepted as responding to the needs of the French language community. For the year 1995-96, of the 34 pre-registered students and 13 others prepared to attend a French school in Summerside, 15 were enrolled in French immersion in English schools in the Summerside area because their parents deemed the trip too long for young children.
3 In February of 1995, the Minister of Education refused to approve the Board’s offer and instead offered to maintain transportation services to Abram’s Village. In an attempt to find a solution acceptable to the Minister, the Board proposed to provide French language instruction in Summerside through École Évangéline. The Minister also rejected this proposal. In June 1995, the appellants gave notice to the Crown and, in a statement of claim filed in November 1995, initiated proceedings against the government of Prince Edward Island seeking a declaration to the effect that they have the right to have their children receive French first language instruction at the primary level in a facility situated in Summerside.
4 The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, found that the number of children from grades one to six that could be assembled for instruction in Summerside was sufficient to warrant the provision of French language instruction out of public funds in Summerside and that the parents of those children had the right to receive that service in the Summerside area. The Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island allowed the appeal and held that the advantages that may result from the establishment of a French language school in Summerside could not supersede the disadvantages of receiving instruction that would, in the opinion of the Minister, be inferior in pedagogical terms to that offered to the children of the official language majority. The court added that bus transportation could be considered an educational facility and did not constitute an impediment to the exercise of the rights of parents in the Summerside area given that the average time of travel did not exceed the provincial average. We are of the view that the decision of the trial judge, who made all of the necessary findings of fact and committed no error of law, must be restored.
I. The Issues
5 No constitutional question was adopted in the present appeal. The following issues were formulated for the direction of the parties:
1. Should para. 23(3)(a) of the Charter be interpreted to mean that when the numbers warrant the provision of minority language instruction in a specific area, the right automatically includes the right to instruction in an educational facility located in that area?
2. Having regard to the appropriate considerations, including the number of students that could eventually be expected to take advantage of minority language instruction, will the sliding scale approach to the application of s. 23 of the Charter allow for minority language instruction in a facility located outside the area where the numbers warrant the provision of minority language instruction?
6 After hearing the submissions of the parties and interveners, we are of the view that the main issue in this appeal is the delineation of the right of management and control exercised by the French Language Board with regard to the location of minority language schools and the discretion of the Minister to approve of the decisions of the Board in that regard.
II. Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
School Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S‑2.1
2. (1) The Minister is responsible for the administration of this Act, for ensuring the provision of educational services through the Department, and the school boards, and for overall leadership of the educational system in the province.
. . .
7. (1) The Minister shall
(a) define the goals, standards, guidelines, policies and priorities applicable to the provision of education in Prince Edward Island;
(b) research and assess changing needs, trends and approaches in education and develop and implement strategic plans;
. . .
27. (1) The Minister may establish such school units as the Minister considers necessary, each of which shall have the boundaries prescribed by the regulations and shall be administered by a school board in accordance with this Act.
. . .
49. A school board shall, subject to the regulations and Minister’s directives,
(a) provide for instruction in an educational program to all persons who are enrolled in its schools and eligible in accordance with the Act and the regulations;
(b) provide for the recruitment, employment, management and evaluation of staff of the school board and identification of staff development needs;
(c) provide for and manage such facilities and equipment as may be necessary for the safe and effective operation of the school unit;
(d) provide for the transportation of students;
(e) provide for effective and efficient management of the financial affairs of the school board;
(f) monitor and evaluate effectiveness of schools;
(g) ensure the development of and approve school improvement plans;
(h) encourage good relations among schools, parents and the community and promote family and community awareness of the importance of education.
. . .
112. (1) Subject to proof of eligibility as prescribed by the regulations, parents who are resident in Prince Edward Island have the right to have their children receive French first language instruction where numbers warrant, if one of the following criteria is met:
(a) the first language learned and still understood of the parent is French;
(b) the parent received primary school instruction in Canada in French as a first language; or
(c) a child of the parent has received or is receiving French first language instruction in Canada at the primary or secondary level.
(2) Where numbers warrant, French first language instruction provided pursuant to subsection (1) shall be provided in French language educational facilities in accordance with the regulations.
(3) Residents of the province who meet the qualifications of subsection (1) have the right to participate in the administration and management of French first language instruction, whether or not they have any children.
. . .
121. (1) The Minister shall establish a school board funding program.
(2) Each school board shall submit to the Minister budget information in accordance with the regulations and Minister’s directives.
(3) The Minister shall meet annually with school boards to discuss budget matters.
(4) On or before the date fixed by Minister’s directives, the Minister shall approve a budget for each school board with such recommendations or conditions as the Minister considers necessary.
. . .
122. . . .
(2) A school board shall not budget for a current deficit in any fiscal year if such deficit would create an accumulated deficit.
(3) Where a school board has incurred a deficit, the deficit shall be a first call on the school board’s grant for the second fiscal year following and the school board shall budget accordingly.
. . .
128. (1) The Minister after consultation with the school board concerned, may recommend to the Minister of Transportation and Public Works
(a) the purchase, rental or acceptance of gifts of land or buildings for school purposes;
(b) the construction and furnishing of school buildings; and
(c) capital additions to school buildings.
(2) A school board, with the Minister’s approval, shall determine the location of school buildings.
School Act Regulations, EC674/76
PART VI
FRENCH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
. . .
6.01 In this Part
. . .
(b) “French school” means a building or a part of a building which
(i) is designated as a school by the Minister pursuant to section 6.11, and
(ii) is used, during school hours, to provide French language instruction to classes over several grade levels;
. . .
(f) “where numbers warrant” means at least fifteen section 23 children over two consecutive grade levels, who can reasonably be assembled for the purposes of providing French language instruction.
. . .
6.05 (1) The French school board shall have jurisdiction over and administer French language instruction in the province in accordance with the Act and the regulations.
. . .
(4) The French school board shall be responsible for the promotion of, and distribution of information with respect to, French language instruction in the province.
. . .
6.07 The French school board shall, where numbers warrant, provide French language instruction in a particular area by offering classes or by offering transportation to an area that has a class.
6.08 (1) Where the French school board is making preliminary plans to start a new class in any area or to offer transportation to a class, it must take into consideration the proximity of existing classes or facilities, projected numbers of section 23 children, and other relevant factors, and the French school board may conduct a pre‑registration of section 23 children in order to determine the demand for French language instruction in that area.
(2) Before making a conditional offer of French language instruction the French school board shall obtain the Minister’s approval with respect to
(a) the projected number of section 23 children to be served by the class; and
(b) their reasonable assembly for a class.
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a sufficient number of children can reasonably be assembled, the Minister may examine if section 23 children are sufficiently concentrated both geographically and by grade level, taking into account the following factors:
(a) the proximity of existing classes and facilities to the area,
(b) the number of section 23 children in the area,
(c) the potential for future admissions,
(d) the distances over which the children must be transported,
(e) the ages of the children.
(4) A conditional offer of registration for French language instruction may consist of
(a) a new class to be started in an area; or
(b) transportation of section 23 children to another area.
(5) Where a conditional offer is made pursuant to subsection (4), parents shall return registration forms to the French school board not later than March 1 in the school year in which the offer is made.
. . .
6.11 (1) The Minister may designate a school as a French school.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister shall take into consideration the following factors:
(a) the number of students;
(b) the number of grade levels; and
(c) the reasonable assembly of the students in one location.
III. Judicial History
A. Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R.
308
8 DesRoches J. considered Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342, and Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), s. 79(3), (4) and (7), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839. He also reviewed the historical background of this litigation, as set out in Reference re: School Act, supra, and in the evidence before him. He canvassed the evidence presented by community leaders and a socio-linguistic expert with regard to linguistic and cultural assimilation of the official language minority and recognized the importance of local schools for the preservation of the minority community. He also noted that parents objected to long travel times not only because of the inconvenience to the children, but also because busing prevented children from participating in extracurricular activities and created problems for parents who needed to meet with teachers, to retrieve a sick child, or to take a child to an appointment.
9 DesRoches J. noted that the parties agreed that the number of s. 23 children was sufficient to warrant the provision of French language instruction. The main issue was therefore whether the number of children warranted the provision of French language educational facilities out of public funds in the Summerside area. He noted that in accordance with the purpose of the s. 23 right as defined in Mahe, the answer to this question should ideally be guided by that which will most effectively encourage the flourishing and preservation of the French language in this province, and particularly in the Summerside area. Section 23 was intended as a remedial provision and, in order to be effective as a remedy for past defects, it must be given a broad and liberal interpretation.
10 In this case, the parties accepted that 34 s. 23 students had pre-registered for elementary school, and that 140 s. 23 students attended English elementary schools in the Summerside area in the 1995-96 school year. Ms. Angéline Martel, a socio-linguistic expert, projected, and the respondent accepted, that 155 s. 23 children could attend French language classes in Summerside in the 1996-97 school year. She also projected that an additional 151 children would be eligible to attend French primary school in the next five years. DesRoches J. noted, at p. 340, that the relevant number was “the number of persons who will eventually take advantage of the contemplated programme or facility” and that the right was not limited to existing school boundaries. He concluded that 306 students could potentially take advantage of French language instruction (155 students then eligible plus 151 students who would be coming into the school system). He found the relatively low pre-registration understandable, and inferred from the increase in enrollment at École François-Buôte in Charlottetown that it was reasonable to expect the demand to increase once French language services were established in Summerside.
11 DesRoches J. found it unnecessary to decide whether Regulation 6.08(2) gave the Minister the discretion to determine whether to offer classes or transportation or whether such a discretion was contrary to s. 23 , and expressly took no position on the constitutional validity of the Regulations.
12 DesRoches J. noted that the Minister had not considered in any significant way the number of pre-registrations, the number of s. 23 children in Summerside, the potential for future admissions, or the transportation distance. Particularly, the Minister had not considered the purpose of s. 23 , its remedial aspect, or the role it plays in the preservation and flourishing of minority language culture. DesRoches J. found that the Minister should have weighed the effects of the two choices he believed he had, bussing or local facilities, on the French language minority in the Summerside area. Such a consideration was particularly important given the socio-linguistic expert’s testimony that the transportation option met the needs of individuals, but did not strengthen and sustain French language and culture in an area which contains the second largest French language minority population in the province.
13 DesRoches J. concluded that French language instruction for elementary school students from Summerside was not reasonably accessible – the bus ride was too long for children in elementary grades. Although 19 of the 34 pre-registered students attended École Évangéline, their parents were concerned about the long bus trip. For the parents of the 15 pre-registered students who eventually attended English schools, it was believed that the existing French school was too far away. Moreover, it should be noted that for those who attended École Évangéline, most were not able to participate in any extra-curricular school activities owing to the distance between their home and the school.
14 DesRoches J. found that, if the numbers warranted the establishment of a facility pursuant to s. 23 , as they did in this case, then the facility should be located so as to be reasonably accessible and should eliminate unduly lengthy bus rides for elementary school children where possible. This was particularly true when evidence demonstrated that majority language elementary children in the Eastern school district did not travel comparable distances. DesRoches J. felt that providing French language classes out of public funds in Summerside organized and presented by École Évangéline under its mandate would be more likely to guarantee s. 23 parents in the Summerside area their rights than would transportation to École Évangéline. He held that “the ‘numbers warrant’ test applied to the particular facts of this case requires a remedy on the higher end of the sliding scale proposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mahe” (p. 346).
15 Pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter , DesRoches J. thus declared (1) that the number of children in the Summerside area whose parents have the right to have their children receive grade one through six education in the French language was sufficient to warrant the provision to them, pursuant to s. 23(3) (b) of the Charter , of instruction out of public funds; and (2) that the appellants had the right pursuant to s. 23(3) (b) to have their children receive French language primary school (grades one through six) instruction in French language facilities in the Summerside area provided out of public funds.
16 While recognizing that costs on solicitor and client basis should only be awarded in exceptional cases, DesRoches J. concluded that such costs should be awarded in the case at bar. After receiving further submissions on the issue of costs, DesRoches J. reaffirmed the solicitor and client costs in a supplementary judgment in February 1997.
B. Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division (1998), 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R.
329
17 As a preliminary matter, McQuaid J.A., writing for the Appeal Division, noted that the trial judge’s declaration should be read as granting the appellants the right to have a class or classes in the Summerside area and not necessarily a separate school in the sense of a separate physical structure, as it was now being interpreted by the appellants. He held that the trial judge erred in law in failing to properly apply the sliding scale approach to the interpretation of s. 23 , and in making palpable and overriding errors in the assessment of the evidence and in drawing certain inferences from the evidence.
18 The Appeal Division noted that the Minister conceded that the children of s. 23 rights holders living in the Summerside area were entitled to educational instruction in the French language and that the number of children warranted the provision of the instruction out of public funds. What the Minister opposed was the establishment of a separate educational facility in the Summerside area.
19 With respect to the interpretation of s. 23 of the Charter , McQuaid J.A. noted that while a purposive approach was warranted and while the section was to be construed remedially, other important interpretative principles had to be considered. First, different interpretative approaches may be applicable in different jurisdictions given the unique blend of linguistic dynamics that have developed in each province. Second, as language rights are fundamentally different from other rights protected by the Charter in that they are founded on political compromise, prudent interpretation of the section is advised. Third, the right conferred on each individual right holder is the right to an educational system.
20 McQuaid J.A. was of the view that the court had to address the requirements at the bottom or middle of the sliding scale. He recognized that the relevant figure for s. 23 rights holders could only be roughly estimated by considering the known demand and the number of those qualified in the area under s. 23(1) and (2). In addition, the “numbers warrant” test involved the consideration of subtle and complex factors, the most important being the pedagogical requirements and the cost of the services, with the former having more weight than the latter. McQuaid J.A. held that s. 23 did not intend to place provinces in the position of having to construct schools or otherwise establish facilities that might be substantially under-utilized. Thus, he found that the onus was on those requesting the instruction to prove that, on a balance of probabilities, the number in fact warranted the instruction and the nature of the minority language educational facilities being requested.
21 The Appeal Division held that the trial judge had made palpable and overriding errors in concluding that 306 s. 23 children could potentially take advantage of French first language elementary schooling in the Summerside area. McQuaid J.A. further found that the trial judge erred in inferring that upon the establishment of a facility, the demand for French first language instruction would increase at the same rate in the Summerside area as it had in the Charlottetown area. He found that there was no evidence provided to the trial judge nor to the Minister that the number of children who might eventually take advantage of French first language instruction in the Summerside area was greater than 50 in 1996-97 with the addition of 15 over the next two years. McQuaid J.A. found that the appellants, who had the onus of proving that the Minister’s actions amounted to a denial of that right and that the number of s. 23 children who might eventually take advantage of French first language instruction warranted the establishment of a facility for that purpose in the Summerside area, had failed to establish that the number was more than 65 students in any year. Thus, the trial judge had erred in finding that the number was higher.
22 McQuaid J.A. found that in determining the appropriate level of service, the primary consideration had to be the pedagogical requirements of the students. In this respect, consideration had to be given to the minimum number of students necessary to deliver appropriate educational instruction and the appellants had the onus of establishing the minimum number which would be appropriate pedagogically. While fewer students might be required to establish a minority language program than a majority language program, the considerations would otherwise be the same. McQuaid J.A. concluded that there was no evidence, except that of the Minister, which addressed the pedagogical considerations. In this connection, the Minister had stated that it would be difficult to meet all the children’s pedagogical needs including music, physical education, library and resource with less than 100 students. McQuaid J.A. held that since the right to minority language education carried with it the right to educational instruction roughly equivalent to that offered to the majority, creating an educational system for the minority that is inferior to that being delivered to the majority would be inconsistent with the purposes of s. 23 .
23 McQuaid J.A. stated that when the number that would warrant instruction is determined, consideration then turned to the facilities required to receive the instruction. In this connection, he held that considerations might have to be given to the quality of the program of existing minority language educational facilities, the availability of physical space, the location of the existing facility, and whether transportation would be an impediment which might effectively deprive the children of the right to minority language education.
24 McQuaid J.A. recognized that while it was important for children of both the majority and minority to have the opportunity to be educated in their respective communities, the evidence demonstrated that children in the province had to