Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Official languages - Compatibility of fundamental rights and legislation arising from treaty - Conflicting legislation and precedence - Canadian carrier violating language rights of Canadian travellers on ground and in flight, in Canada and in United States - Whether statute incorporating into Canadian law treaty with respect to carriage by air can be relied on to restrict remedial power of court hearing complaint relating to language rights - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in characterizing application made to obtain remedy - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in interpreting treaty in question - Whether Montreal Convention applicable to public law proceedings - Whether two relevant statutes, if they apply concurrently to carrier’s obligations and to application made in this case, are compatible - Statute that should prevail if relevant statutes are incompatible - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in setting aside structural order made by Federal Court - Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), ss. 77(4) and 82(1)(d) - Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26, Schedule VI (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, UN 1999, known as the Montreal Convention), art. 29.

The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Thibodeau, each made eight complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding services received solely in English from Air Canada during two trips taken between January and May 2009: at different times, at the Atlanta, Ottawa and Toronto airports and on three flights between Canada and the United States, they had not received the services in French to which they were entitled. Their carrier, Jazz, is an agent of Air Canada and is, as such, subject to the OLA. The Federal Court held that the Official Languages Act took precedence, made several orders, including one that was structural in nature, and awarded $6,000 in damages to each complainant. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the statutes applied concurrently, excluded any injury for the incidents that had occurred outside Canada, reducing the damages accordingly, and replaced the orders with one requiring that a letter of apology be given to the complainants. The Commissioner, who had intervened in support of the complainants in the course of the proceedings, filed an appeal of his own in the Supreme Court.