World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights

Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: June 11, 12, 13, 1984
Judgment: June 13, 1985
Citations [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721
Docket No. 18606
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Roland Ritchie, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by The Court
Ritchie and Chouinard JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721 was a reference question posed to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding provisions in the Manitoba Act stipulating the provision of French language services in the province of Manitoba. The Court heard the appeal in June 1984, and gave its ruling a year later, on June 13, 1985.

Four questions were asked:

  1. Are sections 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, requiring laws be in both French and English, mandatory in Manitoba, Quebec, and Parliament?
  2. If so, are those Manitoban laws not printed in both languages invalid under section 23 of the Manitoba Act?
  3. If so, do the laws have any force and effect, and if so to what extent?
  4. Are any of the provisions of An Act Respecting the Operation of Section 23 of the Manitoba Act in Regard to Statutes inconsistent with section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, and if so are the provisions invalid and of no legal force and effect?

The Court found that the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Manitoba Act, 1870 did require both languages and that those laws that were not in both languages were of no force and effect; however, they were deemed temporarily valid for a time until translations can be re-enacted in order to avoid a legal vacuum in Manitoba and to ensure the continuity of the rule of law.

This reference was the first time that the courts in Canada had used the remedy of a delayed declaration of invalidity. Despite its exceptional origins, this remedy has grown to become a preferred one in Canadian public law.[1]

External links


  1. ^ Case comment at end of
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.