Michel Thibodeau v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority, 2024 FC 274
Background
In this case, the complainant’s allegations related to the unilingual signage and advertising of two third-party service providers of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA): CIBC and Booster Juice. The complaints against CIBC concerned unilingual ATM signage, branch advertising featuring slogans such as “bank before you fly” and “come bank with us,” and unilingual advertising for currency exchange and travel insurance sales. The complaints about Booster Juice concerned unilingual signage featuring the phrase “Toronto Pearson Booster Juice FIT & FUN ZONE” in a children’s play area operated by the restaurant.
The Court was called on to rule on the interpretation that should be given to section 12 of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations
My intervention in this case before the Court aimed at countering the GTAA’s literal and restrictive interpretation of the Regulations, according to which any general signage or advertising not explicitly for a prescribed service would not be subject to the Official Languages Act (the Act). In other words, the GTAA argued that, unlike advertising for a travel insurance product—which is a prescribed service listed in the Regulations—advertising for banking services associated with CIBC’s trademark, including “bank before you fly” and “come bank with us,” constitutes general advertising that would not be subject to subsection 12(1) of the Regulations. The GTAA argued in the Booster Juice complaint that the sign “FIT & FUN ZONE” was an advertisement for the play area, not for its restaurant services and therefore there was no obligation for this service.
Federal Court decision
The Court categorically rejected the GTAA’s position, which it felt would allow contracted third parties to skirt language requirements with general advertising. It agreed that the Regulations should benefit from the same broad and liberal rules of interpretation as the Act. The Court used the test that the commissioner proposed, which involves using objective indicators to analyze the service cited in a complaint according to its nature, function and proximity to a prescribed service to determine whether it must be provided in both official languages.
The Court concluded that CIBC’s general advertising and Booster Juice’s sign at the entrance to the play area could not be dissociated from the prescribed services in question. In both cases, the aim was to attract the travelling public to a specific prescribed service.
The general significance of this decision is that it held that the Act and its regulations and policies form a comprehensive statutory regime and that the interpretation principles that apply to the Act also apply to the Regulations. The Court concluded that the objective of the Regulations could not be dissociated from that of the Act—a quasi-constitutional law that aims in all cases to implement the fundamental values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) with respect to bilingualism.
In addition to confirming that the Regulations should benefit from the same broad and liberal rules of interpretation as the Act, the Court took the opportunity to support the passionate advocates for language rights shedding light on violations of the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Charter.
In response to the GTAA’s argument that the complainant was leading a long crusade against federal institutions, particularly airport authorities, for personal gain, the Court stated that language rights advocates like Mr. Thibodeau contribute to the “institutional awareness” of federal institutions. The Court emphasized that constant vigilance is required to protect language rights, and certain steps and public statements are justified to assert language rights for the common good.