Michel Thibodeau v. St. John’s International Airport Authority, 2022 FC 563

Background

The complainant alleged that the defendant, St. John’s International Airport Authority (SJIAA), was not meeting its language obligations with regard to communications with and services to the public. The complainant alleged that SJIAA had an English-only social media presence and its website content was not of equal quality in both official languages.

SJIAA is considered to be a federal institution; therefore, it is subject to Part IV of the Official Languages Act (the Act) in accordance with section 4 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act  (ATA). The ATA was passed to allow the federal government to transfer certain Transport Canada-operated airports to private organizations while ensuring continuity and the full implementation of certain parts of the Act, notably Part IV, which governs language obligations with respect to communication with and services to the public. St. John’s Airport was leased to SJIAA in 1998.

In this case, the Court was called on to examine the interpretation of section 4 of the ATA and the concept of the “travelling public” under section 23 of the Act.

Under section 22 of the Act, an airport authority’s head or central office must communicate with and provide services to the public in both official languages at all times. Section 22 of the Act sets out the same obligation for airports managed by airport authorities when they meet the criteria for significant demand set out in the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations . These criteria take into account, among others, the local population and airport clientele.

Federal Court decision

With regard to the interpretation of section 22 of the Act, the Court rejected SJIAA’s argument that, under section 4 of the ATA, airport authorities would be exempt from any head office obligations prescribed by section 22 of the Act. Instead, the Court accepted that section 22 of the Act applies to airport head offices, which, as a result, are required to offer their communications and services to the public in both official languages.

With regard to the definition of the “traveling public” provided for in section 23 of the Act, the Court rejected SJIAA’s proposed definition, which is based on a narrow interpretation of the term, in favour of a broad and liberal interpretation according to which those entitled to be served in English or French include not only those who are travelling, but also those who use the services with the intention of travelling.