The English Montreal School Board (EMSB) had announced it, and has now taken action: it is asking the Superior Court to declare invalid — because contrary to the Canadian Constitution — sections of Bill 96 on language municipality of Quebec, which has since become law.
It amends some twenty existing regulations and legislative measures, including Bill 101. Among the measures introduced are the following: businesses with 25 to 49 employees are now subject to the Charter of the French language, three new courses in French (or French) will be added in English-speaking CEGEPs, which will now have a maximum number of students, and proceedings filed in English in court must be accompanied by a certified translation.
After its fight against Bill 21 (State Secularism Act), the EMSB is launching another constitutional debate, this time on language.
In its proceedings filed at the Montreal courthouse, the largest English-speaking school board in Quebec announces its colors: it will put forward various arguments, including the following three.
First, Bill 96 violates, according to the EMSB, the right to have equal access, in French and in English, to the laws as well as the right to be heard in the official language of one’s choice before courts. This guarantee is offered by article 133 of the Constitution, recalls the EMSB in its procedure.
Next, there is a violation of section 23 of the Constitution, which provides for the right to education in the minority language, that is, English on Quebec soil. This article has been interpreted over the years as offering a right of management and control over minority language educational institutions.
And finally, Bill 96 proposes to unilaterally amend the country’s Constitution, which the National Assembly cannot do alone, it is alleged.
And while the derogation clause – also called the notwithstanding clause – has been invoked to ward off the attacks of this CAQ legislation, the EMSB intends to argue that sections 23 and 133 of the Constitution are not targeted and can therefore be used to make invalidate provisions of this language law.
It can take months or even more than a year for this challenge to be heard by a judge.