CANADA

PROVINCE DE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT

DISTRICT DE MONTREAL (Civil Division)

No.: CITY OF BAIE D’URFÉ, a government body

having their operational headquarters at
20410, Lakeshore Road, in the City of Baie-
D'Urfé, District of Montreal, Province of
Quebec, H9X 1P7;
-and-
CITY OF BEACONSFIELD, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
303 Beaconsfield Boulevard, in the City of
Beaconsfield, District of Montreal, Province of
Quebec, H9W 4A7;
-and-
CITY OF BLANC-SABLON, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
1149 Boulevard Docteur-Camille-Marcoux, in
the City of Blanc-Sablon, District of Mingan,
Province of Quebec, G0G 1W0;
-and-
CITY OF BONNE-ESPÉRANCE, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
100, 2nd Street, in the City of Saint-Paul, District
of Mingan, Province of Quebec, G0G 2P0;
-and-
CITY OF CHICHESTER, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 75
Notre-Dame Street, in the City of L’Isle-aux-
Allumettes, District of Pontiac, Province of
Quebec, J0X 1M0;
-and-
CITY OF CÔTE SAINT LUC, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
5801 Cavendish Boulevard, City of Côte Saint-
Luc, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec,
H4W 3C2;
-and-
CITY OF DOLLARD-DES-ORMEAUX, a
government body having their operational
headquarters at 12001 Boulevard de Salaberry,
City of Dollard-des-Ormeaux, District of
Montreal, Province of Quebec, H9B 2A7;
-and-
CITY OF DORVAL, a government body having
their operational headquarters at 60 Martin
Avenue, City of Dorval, District of Montréal,
Province of Québec, H9S 3R4;
-and-
TOWNSHIP OF HAVELOCK, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
481 Route 203, in the City of Havelock, District
of Beauharnois, Province of Quebec, J0S 2C0;
-and-
CITY OF HOPE TOWN, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 209
Route 132 West, in the City of Hope Town,
District of Bonaventure, Province of Quebec,
G0C 3C1;
-and-
CITY OF KAZABAZUA, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 30
Begley Road, in the City of Kazabazua, District
of Gatineau, Province of Quebec, J0X 1X0;
-and-
TOWN OF KIRKLAND, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 17200
Hymus Boulevard, in the City of Kirkland,
District of Montreal, Province of Quebec,
H9J 3Y8;
-and-
CITY OF L’ISLE-AUX-ALLUMETTES, a
government body having their operational
headquarters at 75 Notre-Dame Street, in the
City of L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, District of Pontiac,
Province of Quebec, J0X 1M0;
-and-
CITY OF MONTRÉAL-OUEST, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
50 Westminster Avenue South, in the City of
Montreal-Ouest, District of Montreal, Province
of Quebec, H4X 1Y7;
-and-
CITY OF MULGRAVE-ET-DERRY, a
government body having their operational
headquarters at 560 Bukingham Avenue, in the
City and District of Gatineau, Province of
Quebec, J8L 2H1;

2
-and-
CITY OF NEW CARLISLE, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 138
Gerald-D-Levesque Boulevard, in the City of
New Carlisle, District of Bonaventure, Province
of Quebec, G0C 1Z0;
-and-
CITY OF POINTE-CLAIRE, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 451
Boulevard Saint-Jean, in the City of Pointe-
Claire, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec,
H9R 3J3;
-and-
VILLAGE OF SENNEVILLE, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
35 Senneville Road, in the City and District of
Montreal, Province of Québec, H9X 1B8;
-and-
CITY OF SHEENBORO, a government body
having their heir operational headquarters at 59
Sheen Road, in the City of Sheenboro, District
of Pontiac, Province of Quebec, J0X 2Z0;
-and-
CITY OF SHIGAWAKE, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 180
Route 132, in the City of Shigawake, District of
Bonaventure, Province of Quebec, G0C 3E0;
-and-
CITY OF STANBRIDGE EAST, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
12 Maple Street, in the City of Stanbridge East,
District of Bedford, Province of Quebec,
J0J 2H0;
-and-
TOWNSHIP OF WENTWORTH, a government
body having their operational headquarters at
175 Louisa Road Nord, in the City of
Wentworth, District of Terrebonne, Province of
Quebec, J8H 0C7
-and-
CITY OF WESTMOUNT, a government body
having their operational headquarters at 4333
Sherbrooke Street West, in the City of
Westmount, District of Montreal, Province of
Quebec, H3Z 1E2;
Plaintiffs

3
 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC, having

a place of business at 1 Notre-Dame Street
East, Suite 8.00, in the City and District of
Montreal, Province of Quebec, H2Y 1B6

Defendant

JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR DECLARATORY ORDERS

(Articles 529 par. 1 (1) and 530 par. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure)

TO ONE OF THE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURT, THE PLAINTIFFS SUBMIT THE

FOLLOWING:

I. INTRODUCTION AND PLAINTIFFS

1. This action challenges the applicability and validity of several provisions of the Act
respecting French, the official and common language of Quebec (hereinafter referred
to as “Law 96”), with regards to municipalities, recognized as having special linguistic
status “un statut linguistic particulier” under Section 29.1 of the Charter of the French
Language, (hereinafter referred to as “Municipalities with Bilingual Status”);

2. Originally in 1977 when the Charter of the French Language was first adopted, Quebec
required that in order to qualify as a bilingual institution, the clientele of a candidate must
be majority in a minority language, or so defined as “not French”. Article 113 f) from
Chapter 5 of the Charter of the French Language (Charter), also known as Bill 101, by
virtue of offering services to a majority of persons who speak a language other than
French read as follows:

f) reconnaître d'une part les organismes municipaux, les organismes scolaires, les
services de santé et les services sociaux qui fournissent leurs services à des personnes
en majorité d'une langue autre que française et d'autre part, les services qui, dans les
organismes scolaires, sont chargés d'organiser ou de donner l'enseignement dans une
langue autre que le français.

3. In 2001, in conjunction with the laws that forcibly merged municipalities on the island of
Montreal and across Quebec, the Charter was further amended with Bill 171 to restrict
the definition of section 29.1, now requiring that more than half of the residents of the
territory concerned be native English speakers or have “English as their mother tongue”:

4
 29.1. English language school boards, the Cree School Board, the Kativik School Board
and the Commission scolaire du Littoral are recognized school bodies.

The Office shall recognize, at the request of the municipality, body or institution,
(1) a municipality of which more than half the residents have English as their mother
tongue;
(2) a body under the authority of one or more municipalities that participates in the
administration of their territory, where each such municipality is a recognized municipality;
or
(3) a health and social services institution listed in the Schedule, where it provides
services to persons who, in the majority, speak a language other than French.

The Government may, at the request of a body or institution that no longer satisfies the
condition which enabled it to obtain the recognition of the Office, withdraw such recognition
if it considers it appropriate in the circumstances and after having consulted the Office.
Such a request shall be made to the Office, which shall transmit it to the Government with
a copy of the record. The Government shall inform the Office and the body or institution of
its decision.

4. On May 24th, 2022, the Quebec national Assembly adopted Law 96, with 76 votes in
favour and 29 votes against;

5. Law 96 was assented to on June 1st, 2022;

6. The Plaintiffs now contest certain provisions which no longer allow them to function in
the same way they previously did. Affidavits for each Plaintiff will be filed subsequently
with an application for stay;

7. Those provisions concern mainly contracts and communications which have to be

exclusively in French, the obligation to adopt a Resolution in order to renew bilingual
status, the requirement to enforce disciplinary measures against employees who violate
the Charter, the possibility for the government to unilaterally withdraw grants, the
unfettered power of the government to conduct searches and seizures without a
warrant, and bilingual signage for shared services on the territory of a municipality with
bilingual status;

8. The Plaintiffs are all municipalities recognized under Section 29.1 of the Charter of the
French Language, representing a joint population of about 211,475 people based on
the 2021 Canada census;

9. The Plaintiffs are governed by many laws creating a framework of governance and
protection for local administrations, and more particularly Bill 122, An Act mainly to
recognize that municipalities are local governments and to increase their autonomy and
powers, SQ 2017, c 13, which states the following:

AS the National Assembly recognizes that municipalities are, in the exercise of their
powers, local governments that are an integral part of the Québec State;

5
 AS elected municipal officers have the necessary legitimacy, from a representative
democracy perspective, to govern according to their powers and responsibilities;

AS municipalities exercise essential functions and offer their population services that
contribute to maintaining a high-quality, safe and healthy living environment, including in
a context of sustainable development, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
adapting to climate change;

AS it is advisable to amend certain Acts to increase the autonomy and powers of

municipalities and to improve certain aspects of their operation;

10. The Charter of the French Language also provides in its preamble:

Whereas the National Assembly intends to pursue this objective in a spirit of fairness and
open-mindedness, respectful of the institutions of the English-speaking community of
Québec, and respectful of the ethnic minorities, whose valuable contribution to the
development of Québec it readily acknowledges;

II. INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFFS

11. Whereas this framework of special bilingual status acquired by municipalities with
autonomy must be respected and reflected in the application and interpretation of the
Charter of the French Language, it is submitted that the Plaintiffs have the necessary
interest to bring this action, in that they are all directly affected by Law 96 and will suffer
the consequences of its application;

12. Article 85 of the Civil Code of Procedure (RLRQ, c. C-25.01), states the following:

85. To bring a judicial application, a person must have a sufficient interest.

The interest of a plaintiff who intends to raise a public interest issue is assessed on the
basis of whether the interest is genuine, whether the issue is a serious one that can be
validly resolved by the court and whether there is no other effective way to bring the issue
before the court.

13. This test was defined by the Supreme Court in Canada in (Attorney General) v.
Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45:

[37] In exercising the discretion to grant public interest standing, the court must consider
three factors: (1) whether there is a serious justiciable issue raised; (2) whether the
plaintiff has a real stake or a genuine interest in it; and (3) whether, in all the
circumstances, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue
before the courts. The plaintiff seeking public interest standing must persuade the court
that these factors, applied purposively and flexibly, favour granting standing. All of the
other relevant considerations being equal, a plaintiff with standing as of right will generally
be preferred.

6
14. In this case, the very nature of Law 96 demonstrates that a serious justiciable issue is
raised: this legislation seeks to make French the only language used in Quebec, both
in public and private matters, thereby seriously infringing the rights of any linguistic
minority in the province and further impinging on the rights of the Municipalities with
Bilingual Status;

15. Law 96 ignores the unique status accorded to the municipalities and causes confusion
about how they must now operate;

16. Language rights have always been a matter of serious concern in Canada, to the point
of being protected in the Canadian constitution and of being the subject of significant
jurisprudence from all levels of courts, in all provinces;

17. It is clear that any legislation that jeopardizes their rights raises a "serious justiciable
issue";

18. The Plaintiffs, as per their recognition under Section 29.1 of the Charter of the French
Language, have the right to operate in either language, as long as residents are able to
obtain services in French if they wish to do so;

19. Any legislation infringing on this way of functioning directly impacts not only
Municipalities with Bilingual Status, but their employees and their residents who are
relying on their historic linguistic rights;

20. There is therefore no doubt that the first part of the analysis is met;

21. Second, the Plaintiffs have a real and genuine stake in the outcome of this debate, as
they are all directly - both personally and professionally - affected by Law 96;

22. Many of the contested sections directly target Municipalities with Bilingual Status: it is
therefore difficult to imagine a scenario where these same municipalities would not have
a real stake or a genuine interest in this action;

23. They therefore have required interest to present the following action;

24. Finally, it is submitted that the present action is the only way for the Plaintiffs to bring
the question of the constitutional validity of several provisions of Law 96 before the
courts and to ensure that their language rights are not violated;

25. In Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35, the Supreme Court found that
the plaintiffs had a sufficient interest:

189 All three of these conditions are met in the present case. First, there is a serious
challenge to the invalidity of the impugned provisions. Access to medical care is a concern
of all Quebec residents. Second, Dr. Chaoulli and Mr. Zeliotis are both Quebec residents
and are therefore directly affected by the provisions barring access to private health
insurance. Third, the appellants advance the broad claim that the Quebec health plan is

7
 unconstitutional for systemic reasons. They do not limit themselves to the circumstances
of any particular patient. Their argument is not limited to a case-by-case
consideration. They make the generic argument that Quebec’s chronic waiting lists
destroy Quebec’s legislative authority to draw the line against private health
insurance. From a practical point of view, while individual patients could be expected to
bring their own cases to court if they wished to do so, it would be unreasonable to expect
a seriously ailing person to bring a systemic challenge to the whole health plan, as was
done here. The material, physical and emotional resources of individuals who are ill, and
quite possibly dying, are likely to be focussed on their own circumstances. In this sense,
there is no other class of persons that is more directly affected and that could be expected
to undertake the lengthy and no doubt costly systemic challenge to single-tier
medicine. Consequently, we agree that the appellants in this case were rightly granted
public interest standing. However, the corollary to this ruling is that failure by the
appellants in their systemic challenge would not foreclose constitutional relief to an
individual based on, and limited to, his or her particular circumstances.

26. The foregoing is equally applicable in this case: the validity of the provisions of Law 96
is seriously challenged, the plaintiffs are Municipalities with Bilingual Status whose
residents are directly affected by these provisions, and they raise issues that transcend
their individual interests;

27. It should be noted that there is interest not only for unilingual English speakers, but also
for those who consider it essential to be able to work in both languages and express
themselves in both;

28. Therefore, this remedy is the only viable approach to strengthening the principle of
legality and ensuring that the rights of hundreds of thousands of people are protected,
leading to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have a sufficient interest to bring this
proceeding: Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493;

III. THE LAW

29. The present action aims at contesting the applicability and/or clarifying the interpretation
of the following sections of Law 96 and the Charter of the French Language:

 Section 21 of the Charter of the French Language and sections 6 and 8-16 of Law 96
regarding contracts and communications, which creates sections 13.1,13.2, 16.1,
18.1, 18.2, 20.1, 21.1 to 21.12, 22.2 to 22.5 of the Charter of the French Language
and modifies sections 18, 19, 21 and 26 the Charter;
 Section 24 of the Charter of the French Language, regarding bilingual signage for
shared services on the territory of a municipality with bilingual status;

30. In addition, the Plaintiffs submit the following sections of Law 96 should be declared
invalid and inoperative:

 Section 19 concerning the obligation to adopt a Resolution in order to maintain

bilingual status, which creates section 29.2 of the Charter of the French Language;

8
  Section 111, 114, 115 regarding illegal search and seizures, which modifies section
166, 174, 175 of the Charter of the French Language; section 117 concerning the
power to withdraw government grants, which creates section 204.31 of the Charter of
the French Language;
 Section 117 regarding the obligation to discipline employees, creating section 204.32
of the Charter of the French Language;

31. The abovementioned sections are reproduced in the specific sub-paragraphs of this
action, which will follow;

32. Section 218 of Law 96 specifies that the relevant sections enter into force on the date
the Act receives Royal Assent (June 1st, 2022), or June 1st, 2023, for section 14
regarding contracts and section 117 regarding government grants;

218. The provisions of this Act come into force on 1 June 2022, except
(1) section 5 insofar as it enacts section 9 of the Charter of the French Language, section
19 insofar as it enacts section 29.15, to the extent that section 29.16 refers to that section,
section 29.16 and section 29.17, as concerns the directive made under that section 29.16,
of that Charter, and sections 119, 129 and 130, which come into force on 1 September
2022;

(2) section 4 insofar as it enacts the first paragraph of section 6.1 of that Charter, section
6 insofar as it enacts paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 13.2 of that Charter, sections 7 to 11,
13 and 14, section 15 insofar as it enacts sections 22.2 to 22.5 of that Charter, sections
16 and 45, section 64 insofar as it enacts section 88.12 of that Charter, section 92, section
96 insofar as it enacts the second and third paragraphs of section 152.1 of that Charter,
section 97 insofar as it enacts Title II.2 of that Charter, section 117 insofar at it enacts
section 204.31 of that Charter, and sections 141 and 156 to 159, which come into force
on 1 June 2023;

…

33. The heart of this action rests on the unique status accorded to the Plaintiffs in Quebec,
creating a special regime of rights that are attached to the institutions and to the
individuals whom they serve;

34. Bilingualism in Quebec's municipalities is more than a linguistic feature; it is a testament

to the enduring synergy of two distinct cultural histories - French and English - that have
dynamically shaped these municipalities;

35. This bilingual character is not merely a testament to tolerance, but a testament to a
profound interplay of traditions, perspectives, and values that color every facet of
municipal life;

36. Whether a municipality has transitioned from primarily English-speaking to French-

speaking, or vice versa, the shift never erases the historical presence of the two groups,
but rather enriches the linguistic tapestry. For instance, the Town of Baie d’Urfé was

9
 incorporated in 1911 with population that was mostly English-speaking, but over time
became increasingly French-speaking;

37. Similarly, Côte Saint-Luc was incorporated in 1903 and its population was mostly
French-speaking but over time became increasingly English-speaking.

38. Other municipalities like Kirkland and Dorval were mostly bilingual from their inception,
and many smaller communities like Blanc-Sablon and Bonne-Espérance maintain their
status in order to continue to offer services in both languages to their current day
residents who are largely descended from the French and English fishing communities
who were their first inhabitants;

39. In this context, the following sections of the Constitution Act of 1982, Schedule B to the
Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 are also relevant:

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press
and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

8 Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

27 This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

THE ARGUMENTS

a) Contracts and communications

40. Law 96 created much confusion with regards to the obligations to use French for both
contracts and communications within the municipalities;

41. The sections of Law 96 which we argue should be inapplicable to the Plaintiffs, read as
follows:

6. The Charter is amended by inserting the following after the heading of Chapter IV before
section 14:

“DIVISION I
“GENERAL PROVISIONS

“13.1. The civil administration shall, in an exemplary manner, use the French language,
promote its quality, ensure its development in Québec and protect it.

10
In the same manner, the civil administration shall take the means necessary to make sure it
fulfils the obligations incumbent on it under this Act, in particular as regards obligations to
citizens. For that purpose, it shall, among other things, adopt exemplarity objectives and
establish indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives.

“13.2. For the purposes of section 13.1, an agency of the civil administration uses the French
language in an exemplary manner if, in all its activities,
(1) it uses exclusively that language when writing in a situation that is not governed by a
provision of sections 14 to 19, 21 to 21.12, 22, 22.1 and 27;

(2) it uses exclusively that language in its oral communications, except

(a) in the sole cases where, under the provisions of this division, it has the option to use a
language other than French when writing; or
(b) in a case where, following a person’s oral request to be addressed by the agency in a
language other than French, the agency wishes to obtain from the person the information
necessary to determine whether it has, under this division, the option to communicate with
the person in that other language; and

(3) it does not make systematic use of a language other than French, meaning that, in cases
where the provisions of this division grant it the option to use that other language, it
nevertheless uses exclusively French whenever it considers it possible.”

8. The Charter is amended by inserting the following section after section 16:

“16.1. Section 16 applies to the civil administration’s written communications with the operator
of an enterprise as if the operator were a legal person and with the necessary modifications.”
9. Section 18 of the Charter is amended
(1) by inserting “exclusive” before “language”;
(2) by inserting “oral and” before “written”.
10. The Charter is amended by inserting the following sections after section 18:

“18.1. The personnel members of an agency of the civil administration shall use exclusively
French when communicating orally or in writing with one another in the exercise of their
functions.

“18.2. Despite sections 18 and 18.1, the use of a language other than French is allowed
where such use derives from the exercise, by an agency of the civil administration, of its
option under the provisions of this division to use that other language.”

11. Section 19 of the Charter is amended by inserting “exclusively” after “drawn up”.

11
12. The Charter is amended by inserting the following section after section 20:

“20.1. An agency of the civil administration shall, within three months after the end of its fiscal
year, publish the number of positions within its organization for which it requires knowledge
or a specific level of knowledge of a language other than the official language to obtain the
position through, in particular, recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion, or to keep the
position, as well as the positions for which such knowledge or such a level of knowledge is
desirable.”

13. Section 21 of the Charter is amended

(1) by inserting “exclusively” after “drawn up”;
(2) by striking out the last sentence;
(3) by adding the following paragraph at the end:

“Loan contracts may nevertheless be drawn up both in French and in another language. The
same applies to financial instruments and contracts whose object is the management of
financial risks, including currency exchange or interest rate exchange agreements, contracts
for the purchase or sale of options, and futures contracts.”

14. The Charter is amended by inserting the following sections after section 21:

“21.1. The agreements listed below shall be drawn up in French; a version in another
language may be attached to them:
(1) a Canadian intergovernmental agreement within the meaning of section 3.6.2 of the Act
respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif (chapter M-30); or
(2) an international agreement within the meaning of the Act respecting the Ministère des
Relations internationales (chapter M-25.1.1) or an agreement referred to in section 23 or 24
of that Act.

“21.2. An agreement relating to Native affairs referred to in section 3.48 of the Act
respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif (chapter M-30) shall be drawn up in French; a
version in another language may be attached to it.

“21.3. The provisions of section 21, 21.1 or 21.2 apply to the written documents listed below
according to whether they relate to a contract referred to in section 21 or an agreement
referred to in section 21.1 or 21.2:

(1) written documents sent to the civil administration to enter into a contract or agreement
with it;
(2) written documents related to a contract or agreement to which the civil administration is a
party; and
(3) written documents sent, under such a contract or agreement, by one of the parties to the
contract or agreement to another.

Sections 16 and 16.1 do not apply to a communication that is also a written document referred
to in this section.

12
“21.4. A version in a language other than French may be attached to the contracts and other
related written documents referred to respectively in sections 21 and 21.3

(1) where the civil administration enters into a contract in Québec with
(a) a natural person not residing in Québec;
(b) a legal person or an enterprise not required to be registered under the Act respecting the
legal publicity of enterprises (chapter P-44.1) and whose head office is located in a State
where French is not an official language;
(c) a person or body exempt from the application of this Act under section 95; or
(d) a legal person or an enterprise whose sole establishment is situated on a reserve, a
settlement or lands referred to in section 97; and

(2) in any other situation determined by government regulation.

For the purposes of this Act, “State” has the meaning assigned by the first paragraph of article
3077 of the Civil Code.

“21.5. Despite section 21, a contract may be drawn up only in a language other than French
where the civil administration enters into a contract outside Québec.

In addition, the following contracts may be drawn up only in a language other than French:

(1) in the cases and on the conditions determined by government regulation,

(a) a contract entered into with a person or enterprise that carries on the activities of a clearing
house; and
(b) a contract entered into on a platform that makes it possible to trade in a derivative
governed by the Derivatives Act (chapter I-14.01), a security governed by the Securities Act
(chapter V-1.1) or other movable property, provided, in the last case, that the contract is not
a consumer contract; and

(2) an insurance policy, if it has no French equivalent in Québec and

(a) it comes from outside Québec; or
(b) its use is not widespread in Québec.

“21.6. Despite section 21.3, a written document relating to a contract referred to in section
21.5 may be drawn up only in a language other than French.

The same applies to a written document relating to a contract referred to in section 21 where
the agency concerned of the civil administration so agrees and the document is authentic,
semi-authentic or has a legal value that would prevail over that of any possible French
version.

Moreover, a written document sent by a contracting party referred to in subparagraph 1 of the

first paragraph of section 21.4 that initiates steps toward the making of a contract referred to
in section 21 may be drawn up only in a language other than French.

13
“21.7. An agency of the civil administration is required to make available a French version of
any part of a contract or written document drawn up only in another language under section
21.5 or 21.6 to the members of its personnel whose functions require them to examine that
part of such a contract or written document.

The first paragraph does not apply to members of the agency’s personnel who participate in
the negotiation or drawing up of such a contract or document.
“21.8. Written communications necessary for entering into a contract or agreement that may
be drawn up in a language other than French may be in that other language.

Sections 16 and 16.1 do not apply to communications referred to in this section.

“21.9. Written documents sent to an agency of the civil administration by a legal person or by
an enterprise to obtain a permit or another authorization of the same nature, or a subsidy or
other form of financial assistance that is not a contract referred to in section 21, shall be drawn
up exclusively in French.

The same applies to the written documents that a legal person or an enterprise receiving such
a form of assistance or holding such an authorization is required to send to such an agency
because of that assistance or authorization.

Sections 21.4 and 21.6 apply, with the necessary modifications, to written documents referred
to in this section.

The Government may determine, by regulation, the situations in which a written document
sent to the civil administration may be drawn up in a language other than French.

“21.10. Each agency of the civil administration shall see that every inscription referred to in
the first paragraph of section 51 and relating to a product it obtains under a supply contract
entered into with a legal person or an enterprise is, in accordance with that section, drawn up
in French. The agency shall also see that, where a product referred to in section 52.1 or 54
is obtained under such a contract, the product complies with that section.

For the purposes of the first paragraph, “supply contract” has the meaning assigned by the
Act respecting contracting by public bodies (chapter C-65.1).

“21.11. Where an agency of the civil administration obtains services from a legal person or
an enterprise, it shall require that the services be rendered in French.

Where the services thus obtained are intended for the public, the agency shall instead require
the service provider to comply with the provisions of this Act that would be applicable to the
agency if the latter had itself provided the services to the public.

“21.12. Sections 21.10 and 21.11 have no effect where it is impossible for the agency to
obtain in due time the product sought or another equivalent product that complies with section
51, 52.1 or 54, as applicable, or where services, other than those intended for the public,
cannot be rendered in French.

14
42. Section 12 of Law 96 modifying sec. 20.1 of the Charter, requiring publishing “the
number of positions within its organization for which it requires knowledge or a specific
level of knowledge of a language other than the official language” should not apply to
Plaintiffs as they have the right under the Law to offer services in both French and
English and are not restricted in their right to recruit and hire employees in order to
service their populations;

43. Law 96 also sets out the rule that French should be used exclusively in all contracts and
agreements by agencies of the civil administration including municipalities, except in
those cases cited in sections 21.1 to 21.12, without specifying an exception for
Municipalities with Bilingual Status;

44. The Plaintiffs invoke they should be able to have both written and oral contracts in
English alone and that even when contracts are in both English and French, both
versions have the same authority;

45. The Plaintiffs thus submit that section 21 of The Charter of the French Language should
be declared inapplicable to them. This section reads as follows:

21. Contracts entered into by the civil administration, including the related sub-contracts, shall
be drawn up in the official language. Such contracts and the related documents may be drawn
up in another language when the civil administration enters into a contract with a party outside
Québec.

46. This failure to exempt the Plaintiffs from the above requirements is in clear violation and
contradiction with their special status and rights as specified in section 26 and section
29.1 of the Charter of the French Language;

47. Section 26 of the Charter of the French Language is currently drafted as follows, until
the modifications of section 16 of Law 96 takes effect on June 1st, 2023:

Current version of the Charter of the French Act, which will modify the Charter of the
Language French Language as of June 1st, 2023

26. The bodies and institutions recognized
under section 29.1 may use both the official
language and another language in their
names, their internal communications and
their communications with each other.
In the recognized bodies and institutions, two
persons may use what language they choose
in written communications to one another.
However, a body or institution shall, at the
request of a person required to consult such
a communication in the course of his duties,
prepare a French version of it.
16. Section 26 of the Charter is amended
(1) in the first paragraph,
(a) by inserting “, when writing,” after “may
use”;
(b) by inserting “their documents, the services
they provide and the use of their
technological means, in” after “language in”;
(c) by inserting “, as well as in the notices of
meeting, agendas and minutes of their
deliberative assemblies. They may also use
that other language in their oral
communications without having to use the
official language at the same time, provided

15
 they remain able to comply with section 23”
after “with each other”;

(2) by adding the following sentence at the

end of the second paragraph:
“Moreover, persons may, within those bodies
and institutions, use the language of their
choice in oral communications with each
other.”

48. One of the rules of statutory interpretation is that specific previsions prevail over general
ones;

49. All of the rights under sections 21 and following of the Charter seem to require
exclusively French contracts except in certain limited cases. However, municipalities
recognized as bilingual are given explicit rights to use English, both in their
communications, their internal work and presumably their contracts;

50. A recognized municipality according to section 26 should be allowed to provide services

and draft and conclude all its tenders and contracts and conduct its business in English.
English could be used as long as someone does not require you to use French;

51. When section 26 of the Charter grants special rights, they are deemed to operate
notwithstanding the general rule of sections 21 and following of the Charter. It would
certainly not be appropriate for a municipality with bilingual status to ascertain whether
or not someone is a historic anglophone as defined in Ch.s.22.3 (a) « providing services
in English to a person declared eligible to receive instruction in English », in order to
deal with them in English (Alliance for Language Communities et al. v. A.G. Que.,[1990]
R.J.Q. 2622);

52. This is consistent with the fact that section 29.1 of the Charter status is difficult to obtain
and in principle requires an English native tongue majority;

53. It is submitted that any other interpretation would be unreasonable and arbitrary, as the
court found in Villeneuve c. Ville de Montréal, 2018 QCCA 321:

[87] Ainsi, même si le libellé de l’article 2.1 ne laisse entrevoir aucune délégation explicite
ni attribution directe d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire aux policiers chargés d’appliquer le
Règlement, la portée large des termes employés confère aux forces policières une
discrétion dans la détermination de ce que constitue une manifestation illégale au sens de
l’article 2.1. Le texte de cette disposition ne prévoit pas de critère ou d’indice permettant de
circonscrire son champ d’application, de sorte que ce sont les policiers qui se voient requis
de préciser eux-mêmes la norme et d’édicter des balises. La disposition devient alors « si
vague et imprécis[e] qu'[elle] se trouve de fait à déléguer un pouvoir discrétionnaire qu'[elle]
n'encadre pas minimalement ».

16
 [88] Ceci m’amène à conclure que l’article 2.1 est imprécis et qu’il a une portée excessive,
déraisonnable et arbitraire, d’ailleurs semblable à l’article 3.2 qui justifie, en soi, cette Cour
de l’invalider.

54. Further, statutes must be interpreted in accordance with their purpose, and that any
other interpretation would lead to an unreasonable and indeed absurd result (Alberta
Union of Provincial Employees v. Lethbridge Community College 2004 SCC 28);

55. Surely the purpose for section 26 was to allow majority English or bilingual communities
to live in both languages and to provide services in both languages (Villeneuve c. Ville
de Montréal, 2018 QCCA 321, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Lethbridge
Community College, 2004 SCC 28, Procureure générale du Québec c. Du, [2019]
QCCA 2076, Gatineau (Ville de) c. Syndicat des cols blancs de Gatineau inc, 2016
QCCA 1596);

56. It would certainly be absurd to create Municipalities with Bilingual Status under section
29.1 of the Charter without giving any effect to their existence, and to limit English
services to the persons “declared eligible to receive instruction in English” as per the
new section 22.3 of the Charter (s. 15 of Law 96);

57. This is confirmed by Justice Reeves in Alliance for Language Communities et al. v. A.G.
Que., [1990] R.J.Q. 2622, who at page 2640 held that in Municipalities with Bilingual
Status, both francophones and anglophones can ask for services in the other language:

La va de soi que, pour la plupart des québécois, la langue parlée correspond à leur langue
maternelle. Mais, à Rosemère, y a-t-il un rapport constant et nécessaire entre la langue
maternelle des citoyens et la langue qu'ils parlent en s'adressant à la Ville? On l'ignore car
la pièce D-1 n'en dit rien.

La pertinence de la référence au seul critère de la langue maternelle est encore plus

douteuse si l'on considère que, concernant la langue parlée pour les fins des services
fournis par leur organisme municipal, les citoyens d'une ville peuvent fort bien donner une
réponse multiple. Rappelons que le singulier comprend le pluriel. D'ailleurs, la pièce D-1
inclut des réponses multiples même pour la langue maternelle.

Il n'est pas inconcevable que, dans une ville comportant une forte proportion d'anglophones
et d'allophones et une majorité de citoyens de langue maternelle française mais par ailleurs
bilingues, cette majorité de citoyens veuille se prévaloir de son bilinguisme parce que, au
plan des services municipaux, elle y verrait un intérêt ou un avantage certain. Cela se
pourrait par exemple au niveau de sa protection dans les services de prévention des
incendies, de sa sécurité dans les services de police, de l'équité dans les services sociaux,
de l'harmoine sociale et culturelle dans les services de loisirs, etc.

N'était-il pas du devoir de l'Office de vérifier spécifiquement auprès des citoyens de

Rosemère quelle était la langue parlée par le majorité, étant entendu que "la langue" signifie
aussi "les langues". Il faut répondre par l'affirmative. En résumé, l'Office de la langue
française ne pouvait pas conclure automatiquement à partir des données apparaissant sous
la rubrique "Caractéristiques de la population selon la langue maternelle" d'un recensement
de Statistiques Canada, que la ville de Rosemère n'était plus éligible au statut prévu à

17
 l'article 113 f), même si ces données indiquaient qu'une majorité absolue de la population
de Rosemère, de 0 à 75 ans, était de langue maternelle française.

58. It is therefore necessary for the Court to declare that section 26 of the Charter creates
a broad exception for areas where a large percentage of the population is English
speaking and that Municipalities with Bilingual Status should enjoy the exemptions
provided in sec.21.1 to 21.12 to contract in English with the consent and authorization
of their counterparts;

59. The Plaintiffs also invoke a breach of section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, and the inapplicability and misuse of the notwithstanding clause;

60. The Plaintiffs acknowledge the issues were also raised in Hak c. Procureur général du
Québec, 2021 QCCS 1466, which the Supreme court will most likely address before the
hearing and/or appeals of this action;

b) Obligation to Adopt Resolution and Arbitrary Definition

61. As explained above, a municipality had “the right to request bilingual status” if it had a
majority population of non-francophones, or “a majority, who speak a language other
than French “, from 1977 until 2001;

62. In 2001 the right to request bilingual status was restricted to new municipalities of which
more than half the residents have English as their mother tongue, while the existing
municipalities with the majority non-francophones, maintained their acquired rights to
bilingual status;

63. Notwithstanding the new restrictive criteria, the municipalities with status still maintained
the right to request to obtain bilingual status and the right to request to withdraw bilingual
status;

64. Law 96 introduced the notion that the recognition obtained by the municipality is
withdrawn, not at the request of the municipality, but by the sole operation of law thereby
eroding the substantive right which it pretends to protect;

65. Thus, the following section 29.2 was added to the Charter of the French Language:

19. The Charter is amended by inserting the following after section 29.1:

“29.2. Where the Office ascertains, in light of the language data from each census carried out
in accordance with Canadian statistics legislation, that a municipality recognized under
section 29.1 does not meet the requirement of subparagraph 1 of the second paragraph of
that section, it shall send the municipality a written notice informing it accordingly.

The recognition obtained by the municipality is withdrawn, by the sole operation of law, on
the expiry of 120 days after receipt of the notice sent by the Office. Recognition is maintained,

18
 however, if the municipality adopts, before the expiry of the 120-day period, a resolution to
that end; if so, it shall notify the Office without delay.

The notice sent under the first paragraph shall be published by the Office and by the
municipality that receives it.

66. When the Office ascertains that, based on language data from each census, a
municipality no longer meets the criteria where more than half the residents have
English as their mother tongue, it may withdraw the 29.1 bilingual recognition on the
expiry of a 120-day notice;

67. All the Plaintiffs have maintained their status by operation of law or by adopting the
requested Resolutions before the expiry of the 120-day deadline;

68. As mentioned above, the criteria for special status under section 29.1 was changed over
time, from previously requiring residents to be in a majority of a minority language “other
than French” to now require English as mother tongue;

69. However, the data from a language census may not accurately reflect the true nature of
the situation;

70. Law 96’s calculation deals with mother tongue, rather than the first official language
spoken (FOLS);

71. Since the definition is so restrictive it is limiting the ability for the Plaintiffs to service its
English-speaking residents who may not have English as their mother tongue in an
arbitrary, unjust, unfair and discriminatory way;

72. To apply the metric of mother tongue English on those cities that already have acquired
bilingual status is unrealistic and determines who is English-speaking based on the
Census data calculation which deals with the first language learned at home in
childhood and is still understood;

73. This metric undercounts the true number of people who speak English at home and
identify as English-speaking;

74. The FOLS as determined by Statistics Canada in its population Census presents a more
accurate picture of the persons who would be seeking services in English from their
municipal government;

75. For instance, there are also many seniors in these municipalities, who have not had the
chance to learn French;

76. In addition, some immigrants do not have English as their mother-tongue, but are more
fluent in English than French, especially when reading technical information such as tax
bills;

19
77. Others do not consider their mother tongue to be English, although they speak English
fluently when compared to French;

78. Since Law 96 uses the most restrictive definition of who is English-speaking, it makes it
conceivable that a municipality could accidentally lose its bilingual status. In Côte Saint-
Luc, 68.3 percent of its population list English as FOLS, as defined by Statistics Canada,
while 46 percent have English as their mother-tongue;

79. By using the more restrictive definition, Law 96 limits the ability for the Plaintiffs to
service its English-speaking residents who may not have English as their mother tongue
in an arbitrary, unjust, unfair and discriminatory way;

80. A more accurate way of dealing with bilingual status should instead be by determining
the residents’ FOLS which is consistent with the Federal Government’s method;

81. The Federal Census uses three different metrics to determine the members of the
English-speaking community;

82. In the 2021 Census, the City of Côte Saint-Luc had 68.3 % of its population that the
Federal Government would recognize as part of the English-speaking community based
on FOLS;

83. The 2021 Census also indicated that 63 % of the population of Côte Saint-Luc spoke
English at home, although only 46 % was mother tongue speaking;

84. The matter of revoking status was previously examined in Alliance for Language
Communities et al. v. A.G. Que., [1990] R.J.Q. 2622, where the city of Rosemère
obtained bilingual status after a long battle which culminated in a viva voce hearing of
its mayor in 1982;

85. In 1988, following a new Canadian census which was established on native language
(first language learned and still spoken), the Office purported to withdraw Rosemère’s
bilingual status;

86. In the first place, under principles of administrative law, any decision to revoke must be
made in a manner consistent with natural justice, including the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. The court stated that reasonable criteria must exist and not some inflexible
administrative decision, and “native language” was not the appropriate criterion;

87. A census uses an arbitrary definition because any definition is by its nature arbitrary. It
only provides information, and the inflexible rules used by the census cannot be
imposed by administrators to take away rights;

88. After this Alliance decision, section 29.1 was introduced and improved this area of law
by requiring, as a prerequisite, that the institution itself request the withdrawal of its

20
 recognition. This has now been changed with sections 29.2 and 29.3, giving sole
discretion to the province to require the municipality to adopt this new Resolution to
maintain its status;

89. The court in Alliance for Language Communities et al. v. A.G. Que., determined that
status is something that can be taken away, however merely referring to the census is
not a sufficient way of determining who is anglophone or francophone, and both
anglophones and francophones may want services in the other’s language;

90. If the law intends to protect historic minority rights it should not be subject to an
administrative requirement to adopt resolution within 120 days of receiving a notice from
the Office;

91. The Plaintiffs therefore submit that this section cannot remain as drafted, considering
the importance of bilingual status and the negative consequences that would result;

92. Mother tongue should be interpreted as having a native level proficiency in English
which would not preclude an equal proficiency in French or another language. The
intention of the legislature is surely not to define as English somebody who spoke
English earlier but now speaks French and so on;

93. It is not to attach importance to the order in which a language was learned;

94. The right to request withdrawal of an acquired right should remain with the municipalities
and not be triggered by an arbitrary reference to a new criterion “English as mother
tongue” which did not give rise to the right in the first place;

95. Withdrawal by operation of law subject to an administrative process is unfair, and unjust
and in contradiction and contravention of the acquired right that is given to Municipalities
with Bilingual Status who acquired the right prior to 2001 and this status should not be
withdrawn without their request;

c) Illegal Searches and Seizures

96. Certain sections of Law 96 authorize uncontrolled and unreasonable searches and
seizures in the offices of municipalities, where confidential documents are kept as well
as privileged information;

97. This clearly contravenes section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
section 24.1 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms which read:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

24.1. No one may be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure.

98. The relevant sections of Law 96 read as follows:

21
 111. Section 166 of the Charter is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end:

“However, the Office shall not make such an inspection or investigation in a parliamentary
institution within the meaning of Schedule I nor, in the absence of a complaint, of a
disclosure or of a request by the Minister under section 156.7, in an agency of the civil
administration to which the language policy of the State applies.”

114. Section 174 of the Charter is amended by replacing the first paragraph by the following
paragraphs:

“A person making an inspection for the purposes of this Act may

(1) enter at any reasonable hour any place, other than a dwelling house, where an activity
governed by this Act is carried on, or any other place where documents or other property to
which this Act applies may be held;
(2) take photographs of the place and of the property located there;
(3) cause any person present who has access to any computer, equipment or other thing
that is on the premises to use it to access data relevant to the application of this Act that is
contained in an electronic device, computer system or other medium or to verify, examine,
process, copy or print out such data; and
(4) require any information relating to the application of this Act or the regulations as well as
the communication, for examination or reproduction, of any related document.

Any person who has custody, possession or control of documents referred to in this section
must communicate them to the person making an inspection and facilitate their examination
by that person.

115. Section 175 of the Charter is replaced by the following section:

“175. A person making an inspection for the purposes of this Act may, by notification of a
notice, require any person to communicate to him, within a reasonable time determined by
the notice, any information or document relating to the carrying out of this Act.

99. Upon a closer reading of the Charter (modified by s.111 of Law 96), a distinction is now
made between a parliamentary institution and agency of the civil administration with
regards to inspections and investigations:

166. The Office may, for the purposes of this Charter, make inspections and inquiries.

However, the Office shall not make such an inspection or investigation in a parliamentary
institution within the meaning of Schedule I nor, in the absence of a complaint, of a
disclosure or of a request by the Minister under section 156.7, in an agency of the civil
administration to which the language policy of the State applies.

100. Inspections and inquiries by the Office therefore apply to municipalities once a
complaint, disclosure or specific request is made;

22
101. There are however no guidelines as to what justifies or consists of a complaint or
disclosure;

102. For example, a disgruntled employee and/or resident who overhears other employees
speaking in English can make a complaint that launches an illegal search;

103. This problem reinforces the importance for the court to declare the illegal search and
seizure invalid and non-applicable;

104. Quebec law has generally upheld the power to inspect, this has been interpreted
particularly broadly in professional law and there is little chance that inspections could
be stopped. However, a search and seizure are a different matter;

105. Law 96 grants search and seizure powers that go beyond what the police have in
criminal investigations, it allows entry into computers, and into all records;

106. No distinction is made in the legislation as to the types of areas or documents that may
be seized. Such inspections are unlimited, uncontrolled and therefore unreasonable and
abusive;

107. Law 96 contravenes the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and
the Protection of personal information, c. A-2.1, which provides access to information
held by public bodies, that are in some kind of physical document (written, audio, visual,
computerized data etc.). This law creates several exceptions and parts of documents
can be redacted, to protect confidential information;

108. For instance, one cannot obtain information if revealing it would have a negative impact
on intergovernmental relations, on negotiations between public bodies, on the
administration of justice or on public security. One can also be refused access to certain
types of documents, which includes legal opinions, recommendations, personal notes
written on a document, sketches, drafts of documents, documents protected by
professional secrecy, and confidential personal information;

109. Law 96 therefore contravenes the objective and various sections of the Act respecting
Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information
by allowing strangers from the Office québécois de la langue française (“OQLF”) to
enter and search its premises, with no warrant or limit to the elements they can search,
look through and seize;

110. Not only do municipalities keep privileged information, but they also keep many
documents which would fall under the abovementioned exceptions for the purpose of
the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of
personal information;

23
111. Law 96 also contravenes the duties and obligations of the municipality with regards to
Access to Information, which are often enshrined in their own collective agreements for
the protection of the rights of employees;

112. In the common course of business, the municipality does not allow even its own
employees to have unfettered access to their own file without a formal access request
and supervised appointment;

113. The Plaintiffs again invoke the administrative law argument of statutory interpretation;

114. The wording of section 174 of the Charter (114 of Law 96) is very broad and allows for
a blatant violation of the municipalities’ right to professional secrecy and their right to
privacy, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of protecting the public. This
may also have a negative impact on intergovernmental relations, on negotiations
between public bodies, on the administration of justice or on public security;

115. Nowhere in the law does one find that a search or seizure can be affected without a
warrant. Given the fact there are certain requirements for a search and seizure, such
as the presence of a complaint and reasonable suspicion, this should be interpreted to
mean that the OQLF may use these sections but has to obtain a warrant from a justice
of the peace before doing so. This would entail presenting an affidavit explaining
defining the spectrum and outlining its necessity;

116. In Collins v. The Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Crown has the
burden of establishing that a warrantless search is reasonable; a search will be
reasonable if it is authorized by a law that is reasonable and is carried out in a
reasonable manner;

117. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable and the OQLF will have the burden
of proving the search was authorized by a common law power or by a statutory
provision, that the common law power or the statutory provision authorizing the search
is reasonable and that the search was carried out reasonably;

118. In Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, the Supreme Court stated that
section 8 of the Charter guarantees a broad and general right to be secure from
unreasonable search and seizure. Reasonable and probable grounds, established upon
oath, to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be
found, with a prior authorization by a neutral arbiter, are generally required for a valid
search and seizure;

119. In R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the
expectation of privacy is one of the factors to consider in order to determine whether or
not a warrantless search under the Charter is reasonable;

120. Considering the abovementioned arguments, the Plaintiffs have a higher expectation of
privacy, which is reflected in the privacy laws of the Province;

24
121. It is of upmost importance that this court determines that sections 111, 114 and 115 of
Law 96 are invalid and inoperable, or alternatively that a warrant is required to be issued
before search and seizures are authorized;

d) Government Grants

122. Section 117 of Law 96 creates 204.31 of the Charter of the French Language and reads:

117. Sections 205 to 208 of the Charter are replaced by the following:
…
“204.31. In the case of a failure by a municipal body to comply with a provision of this Act or
of a regulation, the Minister of the French Language may, as long as the body has not
remedied the failure, withhold any subsidy the Minister grants to the body.

The Minister of the French Language may also require another minister or the Société de
financement des infrastructures locales du Québec, after consulting that minister or the
Société, to withhold a subsidy granted by them to the body.

(Underlying ours)

123. It is not contested that the provincial government has the discretion to give grants to
municipalities;

124. However, this discretion will be influenced by a possible default of the Plaintiffs to
respect provisions of Law 96;

125. Since the Plaintiffs are contesting the applicability of certain provisions to them, based
on their unique bilingual status, this section requires interpretation and clarification to
avoid some negative consequences;

126. Furthermore, the province is creating this restriction, while it obtains funds from the
Federal Government to provide grants to municipalities; some of which aim to enforce
compliance with language laws;

127. The Defendant should therefore not be allowed to withhold Federal grants on the basis
of perceived noncompliance with language laws;

128. It is once again necessary to determine if this section which clearly affects federal
jurisdiction is valid and whether it can apply to Municipalities with Bilingual Status;

129. For all the Plaintiffs, a loss in grants would result in a deficit of millions of dollars per
year, and they would have to drastically curtail their function, as will be further explained
in their affidavits;

25
 e) Obligation to Discipline Employees

130. In order to prevent any breach of their obligations, cities and municipalities are now
required to implement a procedure for handling complaints made to them and to
produce an annual report to the Minister responsible for the French language on the
application of this procedure;

131. Similarly, they are required to establish disciplinary measures to prevent and punish any
breaches committed by their staff;

132. Section 204.32 of the Charter (section 117 of Law 96) reads as follows:

117. Sections 205 to 208 of the Charter are replaced by the following:
…

“204.32. Where a public servant referred to in section 1 of the Public Service Act (chapter F-
3.1.1) or a public office holder referred to in section 3.0.1 of the Act respecting the Ministère
du Conseil exécutif (chapter M-30) fails, in the exercise of his functions, to comply with a
provision of this Act or of a regulation, other than sections 78.1 to 78.3 or 176, the failure to
comply is deemed to be a breach of the standards of ethics and discipline or, if applicable, of
the standards of ethics and professional conduct applicable to him and makes the author of
the failure liable to the disciplinary measures prescribed for such a breach.

Moreover, every agency of the civil administration shall establish disciplinary measures to
prevent and punish such a failure by members of its personnel, other than public servants or
public office holders referred to in the first paragraph, in the exercise of their functions.

133. In a municipality with bilingual status, not every employee must be bilingual. Further,
services can be provided in English, as that is the obvious consequence of section 26
of the Charter;

134. It makes no sense to discipline somebody for doing what the law permits, and there
should be no offence for an English-speaking employee to get immediate assistance by
a bilingual one if French service is required;

135. This matter would be much more serious if sections 13.1 and following of the Charter
applied to Municipalities with Bilingual Status and service in English was prohibited
except to “historic anglos”; but in any event, the obligation to discipline cannot stand;

136. Under general rules of law and statutory interpretation, obligations to discipline must be
given a narrow reading, and broad undefined offences cannot be allowed to stand;

137. Once again, this section ties into the others and reinforces the importance of the court’s
interpretation of Law 96;

26
138. The Plaintiffs submit that this section is unconstitutionally vague, given the penal nature
of the procedure, the uncertainty of what would be the disciplinary offence, and what
type of procedure is envisaged;

139. This section must therefore be declared invalid and inoperable;

f) Bilingual Signage for Shared Services

140. The Plaintiffs are mostly part of urban agglomerations, or Municipalité Regionale de
Comté (MRC’s), that are administrative divisions of Quebec which group municipalities
together;.

141. For Municipalities with Bilingual Status, the urban agglomeration system has resulted
in the loss of bilingual signage with its residents;

142. For instance, in the City of Côte Saint-Luc, the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal
(SPVM) refused to post a bilingual sign outside the Poste de Quartier 9, forcing the City
to pay for a bilingual sign at its own expense and in collaboration with the owner of the
strip mall where the station is located;

143. In another example, in anticipation of a new reserved bus lane on chemin de la Côte
Saint-Luc, the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) indicated to the City of Côte
Saint-Luc that it was posting signs in French only and was not permitted to post signs
in French and English;

144. The STM refused despite the City requesting it, and even though the signs were on the
territory of a municipality with bilingual status and where 68 percent of residents indicate
English as their preferred official language;

145. All municipalities which are part of a regional government (MRC or Agglomeration) are
contributing their share of the costs for the regional services (such as Fire, Police, public
transit, evaluation, etc.);

146. According to sections 24 and 29.1 of the Charter, all Municipalities with Bilingual Status
have the right to offer all services and post all signs and communications on their
territory in both English and French. The sections are hereby reproduced:

24. The bodies and institutions recognized under of section 29.1 may erect signs and
posters in both French and another language, the French text predominating.

29.1. English language school boards, the Cree School Board, the Kativik School Board
and the Commission scolaire du Littoral are recognized school bodies.

The Office shall recognize, at the request of the municipality, body or institution,
(1) a municipality of which more than half the residents have English as their mother
tongue;

27
 (2) a body under the authority of one or more municipalities that participates in the
administration of their territory, where each such municipality is a recognized municipality;
or
(3) a health and social services institution listed in the Schedule, where it provides services
to persons who, in the majority, speak a language other than French.

The Government may, at the request of a body or institution that no longer satisfies the
condition which enabled it to obtain the recognition of the Office, withdraw such recognition
if it considers it appropriate in the circumstances and after having consulted the Office. Such
a request shall be made to the Office, which shall transmit it to the Government with a copy
of the record. The Government shall inform the Office and the body or institution of its
decision.

147. Therefore, both English and French can be used by Municipalities with Bilingual Status
in signs, documents and communications related to all services provided on their
territory, whether they be exclusively local services or shared regional services;

148. The right to bilingual services is attached to the territory of a section 29.1 municipality,
even when the agency (police or public transit) is governed by a body which does not
have "special linguistic status”;

149. Thus, it is necessary for the Court to clarify and declare that all Municipalities with
Bilingual Status are entitled to post bilingual signs on their territory with regard to all
local or shared services;

FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

GRANT the present application in Judicial Review for Declaratory Orders;

DECLARE that Section 21 of the Charter of the French Language, and Sections 6, 8 to
16 regarding contracts and communications, creating sections 13.1,13.2, 16.1, 18.1,
18.2, 20.1, 21.1 to 21.12, 22.2 to 22.5 of the Charter of the French Language and
modifying sections 18, 19, 21 and 26 are inapplicable to the Plaintiffs;

DECLARE that Section 19 concerning the obligation to adopt a Resolution to keep

bilingual status, which creates section 29.2 of the Charter of the French Language is
invalid and inoperative;

DECLARE that Sections 111, 114, 115 regarding illegal search and seizures, which
modify sections 166, 174, 175 of the Charter of the French Language, are invalid and
inoperative ;

DECLARE that Section 117 concerning government grants, which creates section
204.31 of the Charter of the French Language, is invalid and inoperative;

28
 DECLARE that Section 117 regarding the obligation to discipline employees, creating
section 204.32 of the Charter of the French Language, is invalid and inoperative;

DECLARE that all Municipalities with Bilingual Status are entitled to post signs on their
territory, in accordance with section 24 of the Charter, in English and French with regard
to all local or shared services, including those provided by an agency or body governed
by a regional authority that does not have section 29.1 status;

ORDER provisional execution of the judgment to be rendered, notwithstanding any

appeal;

ALLOW the Court to make such other orders as it may deem necessary and proper;

THE WHOLE with court costs.

Westmount, this 6th day of June 2023

(SGD.) Grey Casgrain s.e.n.c.
GREY CASGRAIN s.e.n.c.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

TRUE COPY Me Julius H. Grey / Me Vanessa Paliotti

________________________
GREY CASGRAIN s.e.n.c.
4920 Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, Suite 305
Westmount, Québec, H3Z 1N1
Tel: 514-288-6180 / Fax: 514-288-8908
Emails: jhgrey@greycasgrain.net /
vpaliotti@greycasgrain.net

29
 NOTICE OF PRESENTATION
ROOM 2.16

TO:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC

1 Notre-Dame Street East
Suite 8.00
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 1B6

1. PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICATION

TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiffs’ Application for Judicial Review for Declaratory Orders will be
presented for decision before the Superior Court located at 1, Notre-Dame Street East,
Montréal, Québec, H2Y 1B6 on the 13th day of July 2023, in room 2.16 of the Montreal
Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as Counsel may be heard.

2. HOW TO JOIN THE VIRTUAL CALLING OF THE ROLL IN PRACTICE DIVISION

The coordinates to join the calling of the roll in room 2.16 are as follows:

a) Using Teams: to open the permanent link established for room 2.16, click here

You must then fill in your name and click “Join Now”. In order to facilitate the process and the
identification of the parties, we invite you to fill in your name in the following manner:

Attorneys: Mtre. Name, Surname (name of the party being represented)

Parties not represented by an attorney: Name, Surname (specify: Plaintiff, Defendant or other)

For persons attending a public hearing: you can simply indicate “public”.

b) By telephone:

Canada (Toll free number): (833) 450-1741

Canada, Québec (Charges will apply): +1 581-319-2194

Conference ID: 470 980 973#

c) By videoconference: teams@teams.justice.gouv.qc.ca

30
VTC Conference ID: 1197347661

d) In person, if and only if the above-mentioned means are not available.

3. FAILURE TO ATTEND THE calling of the roll in practice division

TAKE NOTICE that should you fail to attend the calling of the roll, a judgment by default could
be rendered against you, without further notice or delay.

4. OBLIGATIONS

4.1 Duty of cooperation

TAKE NOTICE that you are duty-bound to co-operate and, in particular, to keep one another
informed at all times of the facts and particulars conductive to a fair debate and to make sure
that relevant evidence is preserved. (Code of Civil Procedure, art. 20).

4.2 Dispute prevention and resolution processes

TAKE NOTICE that before referring your dispute to the courts, you must consider private
dispute prevention and resolution processes which are negotiation between the parties, and
mediation and arbitration, in which the parties call on a third person to assist them (Code of
Civil Procedure, art. 1 and 2).

DO GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.

Westmount, this 6th day of June 2023

(SGD.) Grey Casgrain s.e.n.c.
GREY CASGRAIN s.e.n.c.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

TRUE COPY Me Julius H. Grey / Me Vanessa Paliotti

4920 Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, Suite 305
Westmount, Québec, H3Z 1N1
Tel: 514-288-6180 / Fax: 514-288-8908
________________________ Emails: jhgrey@greycasgrain.net /
GREY CASGRAIN s.e.n.c. vpaliotti@greycasgrain.net

31
N°.:
SUPERIOR COURT
(Civil Division)
PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC
DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL
CITY OF BAIE D’URFÉ,
-and-
CITY OF BEACONSFIELD,
-and-
CITY OF BLANC-SABLON,
-and-
CITY OF BONNE-ESPÉRANCE,
-and-
CITY OF CHICHESTER,
-and-
CITY OF CÔTE SAINT LUC,
-and-
CITY OF DOLLARD-DES-ORMEAUX,
-and-
CITY OF DORVAL,
-and-
TOWNSHIP OF HAVELOCK,
-and-
CITY OF HOPE TOWN,
-and-
CITY OF KAZABAZUA,
-and-
TOWN OF KIRKLAND,
-and-
CITY OF L’ISLE-AUX-ALLUMETTES,
-and-
CITY OF MONTRÉAL-OUEST,
-and-
CITY OF MULGRAVE-ET-DERRY,
-and-
CITY OF NEW CARLISLE,
-and-
CITY OF POINTE-CLAIRE,
-and-
VILLAGE OF SENNEVILLE,
-and-
CITY OF SHEENBORO,
-and-
CITY OF SHIGAWAKE,
-and-
CITY OF STANBRIDGE EAST,
-and-
TOWNSHIP OF WENTWORTH,
-and-
CITY OF WESTMOUNT,
Plaintiffs
v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC,

Defendant

JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR DECLARATORY ORDERS AND

NOTICE OF PRESENTATION

COPY

Me Julius H. Grey / Me Vanessa Paliotti

4920 Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, Suite 305
Westmount, Québec, H3Z 1N1
Tel.: 514 288-6180 / Fax: 514 288-8908
Emails: jhgrey@greycasgrain.net / vpaliotti@greycasgrain.net
BG-1593 O/: ZILELE-20738