Decision of Mr. Justice Vickers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a legal challenge brought by the Association des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique (APFCB). In this decision, Mr Justice Vickers indicates that the regulations that establish the homogeneous French-language education system are not sufficient and he calls for this system to be established by legislation.

Mr. Justice Vickers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia hands down his decision in a legal challenge brought by the APFCB in December 1997. The judge requires that the province create a process that would enable the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (CSF) to settle disputes that could arise in the course of negotiation of service agreements with the anglophone school districts. According to Mr. Justice Vickers, the absence of such a process limits the capacity of the CSF to provide education in French and leaves it in a position of dependence and vulnerability in relation to the school districts of the linguistic majority.

New submissions to the Ministry of Education put forward by the leadership of the CSF to indicate the serious problems relating to building premises and transportation in the francophone schools.Ministry representatives: J. Gorman, K. Miller, and P. Owen.CSF representatives: A. T. Greenhill, G. Bourbeau, M. Cyr, G. Bonnefoy and S. Allison.

Presentation by the Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, former Supreme Court of Canada Judge, an expert on constitutional and linguistic questions and legal counsel at Heenan Blaikie LLP, made to the CSF, setting out the rights and the potential recourse for the CSF against the province of British Columbia under the provisions of Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Vote by the CSF Board of Trustees to initiate legal action against the provincial government to oblige the latter to implement the constitutional rights relating to education in the French language in several regions of British Columbia.

Legal counsel to the CSF begins to draft the declaration – the legal pleadings that mark the commencement of legal action against the government with regard to constitutional rights to education in the French language in several regions of the province.

The Association des parents of the École Rose des Vents (APÉ) launches its motion against the Ministry of Education and the CSF. This motion only relates to the École Rose des Vents and does not make any demands for the construction of new schools in Vancouver.

The CSF, the Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique (FPFCB) and some thirty parents launch their legal action against the government.

Request made by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the action be dealt with by a judge who is capable of working in French, without the assistance of an interpreter or translator.

Motion by the government to have the motion brought by the APÉ joined to the action brought by the CSF, the FCFCB and the co-plaintiff parents.

Mr. Justice Willcock rejects the request, stating that it would be unjust for the APÉ to have to wait until the end of the litigation brought by the CSF, the FCFCB and the co-plaintiff parents to decide whether there is an infringement of their rights.

The government files a motion to try to demonstrate that the action brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents does not raise any issue that is of a nature to be decided by a court of law. The government also tries to disqualify the standing of the CSF and the FPFCB as plaintiffs.

Mr Justice Peter Willcock rejects most of the items in the government’s motion. The judge does, however, state that the FPFCB is not a necessary party in the litigation and that it shall cease to be a co-plaintiff.

Motion by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents to submit to the court documents written in French without translation.

Mr Justice Willcock rejects the motion, stating that the documents must be translated before being admitted as evidence.

The application for permission to appeal Mr Justice Willcock’s decision to disallow documents written in French, without translation, to be submitted as evidence, is received by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Motion from the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents to determine the standing of the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents and of Mr. Joseph Pagé as representatives of francophone parents.

Motion brought by the APÉ asking Mr Justice Willcock to strike down certain paragraphs of the government’s pleadings.

Mr Justice Willcock decides to divide the motion into two phases, with a first phase in which he would determine whether there has been an infringement of the rights protected under Section 23 of the Charter, and a second phase in which he would determine the party that is responsible for this infringement, as well as the appropriate remedy, if any.Mr Justice Willcock also decides that it would not be appropriate to strike down numerous paragraphs from the government’s pleadings before determining the province’s level of responsibility. However he agrees to remove certain paragraphs that were clearly not pertinent.Finally, Mr Justice Willcock rules that Joseph Pagé could represent the interests of all Canadian citizens living in Vancouver, west of Main Street, who are rights holders under the provisions of Section 23 of the Charter.

Appeal brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents on the decision handed down by Mr Justice Willcock to refuse to accept the submission of documents in French as evidence, without translation.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal hands down a judgement affirming that an English statute dating from 1731 remains in effect in British Columbia and refuses to amend Mr Justice Willcock’s decision. According to the Court of Appeal, only documents in English are admissible as evidence.

Intervention of the CSF in the case Attorney General of Canada c Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach (Downtown Eastside) before the Supreme Court of Canada, to ensure that the interests of the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents are represented as full parties to legal actions relating to implementation of Section 23 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada hands down a decision in favour of the CSF and especially the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents, amending the factors to be examined in determining the public interest or private interest standing of the FPFCB to act in a constitutional challenge.

Appeal brought by the FPFCB contesting the decision to remove the FPFCB as a party to the legal action.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal applies the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Downtown Eastside case (mentioned above), supporting the position of the FPFCB and reinstating its standing as a plaintiff in the legal action.

Motion brought by the government asking Mr Justice Willcock to postpone the hearing of the petition, in order to allow it to cross examine witnesses and present new evidence. This motion is vigorously contested by the CSF and by the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents.

Mr Justice Willcock rejects the motion, declaring that everything had already been clarified in the pre-trial conferences to the application.

Hearing of the first phase of the application brought by the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents.

Mr Justice Willcock rules that the education provided in French in the city of Vancouver west of Main Street is not in fact equal to that provided to children of the same region enrolled with the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE).

The request for permission to appeal brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents with regard to the discretion of a British Columbia judge to accept documents in French as evidence is received by the Supreme Court of Canada.The Supreme Court of Canada made the exceptional decision to accelerate the approval process for the request to appeal, as well as to accelerate the date of the hearing on the merits. This has only happened two or three times over the last decade.

The government serves notice that it will appeal the decision handed down by Mr Justice Willcock on October 31, 2012, ruling that the education provided in French in the city of Vancouver west of Main Street is not in fact equal to that provided to children of the same region enrolled with the VBE.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to the admissibility of evidence in French in the courts of British Columbia.

The Supreme Court of Canada rejects the appeal brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents by a very small majority of four to three, with Chief Justice McLauchlin (BC) and Justices Rothstein (Manitoba), Moldaver (Ontario) and Wagner (Quebec) voting against. The three minority votes cast by Justices LeBel (Quebec), Abella (Ontario) and Karakatsanis (Ontario) would have fully supported the position of the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents. The controversial ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada makes headlines and is criticized across Canada.In an extremely unusual ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada requires the province to reimburse all the legal costs of the appellants, in spite of the fact that they lost the case, which sets a precedent.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the motion brought by the government to suspend the legal proceedings of the action brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents until all possible appeals related to the judgement of October 31, 2012 in the application of the Rose des Vents APÉ have been heard and decided.

The government’s motion is rejected. Mr Justice Willcock also rules that the parties do everything possible to be ready to open the trial of the case on October 7, 2013.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the motion brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents requesting authorization to amend the declaration.

The judge grants permission to the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents to amend their declaration.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the motions brought by the CSF and the APÉ asking Mr Justice Willcock to award their costs related to the APÉ’s application at a higher rate. The CSF provided very strong support to the APÉ.

Mr Justice Willcock rules that the costs of the CSF and the APÉ are to be calculated at a « special » rate.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the motion brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents asking Mr Justice Willcock to issue an order by injunction for the lease of the building of the Sexsmith School in Vancouver and for the development of a portion of the provincial grounds of Jericho and Pearson-Dogwood, also in Vancouver, to preserve these sites for the construction of CSF schools. This motion is brought at the request of the APÉ.

Mr Justice Willcock rejects this motion, ruling that these solutions are not urgently called for because there are other sites west of Main Street where it would be possible to build CSF schools. Mr Justice Willcock refuses to order the leasing of the Sexsmith School building because of the system set out in the School Act regarding capital assets and because of the very great level of autonomy that this system grants to the anglophone school boards in relation to the Ministry of Education.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia of a motion brought by the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents asking Mr Justice Willcock to force the government to find a solution to the problems of disparity between the buildings and grounds allocated to the CSF compared to those allocated to the VBE in Vancouver west of Main Street. The motion also asks Justice Willcock to order the government to provide the APÉ with an account of its efforts. The CSF supports the APÉ.

Mr Justice Willcock rejects the motion brought by the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents. He even orders the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents to reimburse the province’s legal costs.

Mr Justice Peter Willcock is named to the British Columbia Court of Appeal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper; the judge announces to the APÉ, the CSF, the FPFCB, the co-plaintiff parents and to the government that he will recuse himself from the legal action, but he will still serve as the motion judge.

Hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the motion brought by the government requesting an adjournment of the petition brought by the APÉ until after the outcome of the government’s appeal of Justice Willcock’s decision handed down on October 31, 2012. The CSF supports the APÉ.

The government’s motion is rejected.

Madam Justice Loryl Russel is assigned to replace Mr Justice Willcock as the trial judge who will hear the case.

Madame Justice Russell holds a pre-trial management conference to review the phases and the dates up to the commencement of the trial, as well as a motion from the government seeking to delay the commencement of the trial.

The government’s motion is rejected. Madam Justice Russell indicates that the trial is to commence on the scheduled date, in October 2013.Madam Justice Russell – who was a French teacher prior to becoming a lawyer – notifies the parties that she is bilingual.

Madam Justice Russell holds the pretrial management conference the day prior to the trial and hears another motion from the government that seeks to delay the start of the trial.

The government’s motion is rejected. Madam Justice Russell indicates that the trial is to commence on the scheduled date, in October 2013.

Hearing before Mr Justice Willcock of the Supreme Court of British Columbia of a motion brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents, as well as a motion from the government asking the court to order the adverse party to fulfil certain commitments.

The motions are upheld in part.

Hearing of the government’s appeal Mr Justice Willcock’s decision handed down on October 31, 2011 on the application regarding parity with regard to education in French west of Main Street in Vancouver. The CSF supports the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents.

Hearing before the British Columbia Court of Appeal of the petition brought by the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents for approval to appeal Mr Justice Willcock’s refusal of June 17, 2013, to grant the relief measures requested by the APÉ. The CSF supports the APÉ.

Mr Justice Harris of the Court of Appeal concludes that the petition brought by the APÉ of the École Rose des Vents to authorize the appeal is premature and that it would first be necessary to know the outcome of the appeal brought by the province in the application and heard on July 18 and 19, 2013.

Start of the trial brought by the CSF, the FPFCB and the co-plaintiff parents.

Judgement of the government’s appeal of Mr Justice Willcock’s decision handed down on October 31, 2011 on the application regarding parity with regard to education in French west of Main Street in Vancouver.The Court of Appeal reverse Mr Justice Willcock’s decision for procedural reasons. For the Court of Appeal, Justice Willcock could not determine there was a violation of article 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights at école Rose-des-vents without hearing the whole argument on the case.

Fin du dépôt de la preuve du CSF

Début du dépôt de la preuve de la province

The CSF and the Fédération des parents de Colombie-Britannique received a Notice of Cross Appeal addresses the following important aspects of Justice Russell’s decision. Thus, the Province has chosen not to appeal the majority of the Court’s conclusions that are favourable to Francophone communities.

Monday, January 29 will be the first day of the hearing for the appeal against the judgment handed down by Madam Justice Russell in September 2016.

This week, the British Columbia Court of Appeal heard the appeal. Chief justice Bauman and Justices Tysoe and MacKenzie heard more than four days of arguments.

Today, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Justice Russell’s 2016 decision.

An application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal
is filed today at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the appeal of a decision handed down by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on French-language education.