Bilingual Francophones in bilingual positions, in the bilingual region of Montreal claimed their right to work in French in their communications with their Anglophone co-workers in the unilingual region of Toronto, in which case the coworker positions would be required to be staffed bilingually. Resolving this issue in unilingual regions would equally apply in bilingual regions.
I concluded that these re-staffings would breach the merit principle as Parliament had specifically provide for by s.91 in the1988 Official Languages Act. I further concluded that Parliament’s intention in establishing unilingual regions was to protect unilingual positions unless bilingual skills were required to carry out the duties of the position. Bilingual language skills were not required for the Toronto coworkers to perform their duties.
The Federal Court of Appeal decision [Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 2021 FCA 159 (OSFI)] allowed the appeal, upholding the bilingual staffing of the Toronto coworkers’ positions. The appellate Court concluded that a purposive interpretation principle of the Supreme Court prioritized Francophone language rights over those of Anglophones in federal institutions. The Court did not address the effect of s.91 in the OLA that specifically prioritized merit staffing over language rights, or that the designation of the Toronto coworker bilingual positions contravened Parliament’s intention of establishing unilingual Anglophone regions. The decision was not appealed to the Supreme Court. The decisions may be accessed below.
My article, Rebalancing Bilingualism, composed “to ensure that the careful balance of language rights enshrined in the 1988 Official Languages Act is restored and maintained” concerning the Federal Court of Appeal OSFI decision, and the related federal legislation adopted thereafter, may be accessed below.
LINKS to Dionne and OSFI Decisions and Rebalancing Bilingualism article:
Peter Annis Dispute Resolution 