COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM OF CANADA
PROGRAMME DE CONTESTATION JUDICIARE DU CANADA
ANNUAL REPORT 2000-2001

At the dawn of the 21st century, Canadians are, more than ever before, aware of their basic language and equality rights outlined in Canada's constitutional blueprint.

The Court Challenges Program has, over the last several years, provided a means of enabling some of Canada's most historically disadvantaged individuals and groups seek the advancement and enforcement of their equality and official linguistic minority rights.

The Program's resources, however, are limited and much of the work of the Program draws on the dedication and commitment of a number of individual volunteers who devote countless hours of their personal time on the Program's Board, Panels and various Committees.

In this, the International Year of the Volunteer, it is recognised that without the support of these volunteers, who share a fundamental belief in a just, equal and multicultural society, the important work of the Program could not continue. The Program's volunteers come from all walks of life to lend a hand in this noble endeavour.

On behalf of the Program and its staff, a heartfelt thank you to all the volunteers who make this Program possible. The Court Challenges Program of Canada/Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada is funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage of the Government of Canada.

The following individuals contributed to the preparation of this report:

Nicole Allard, Noël Badiou, Claudyne Bienvenue, Suzanne Birks, Ronald Bisson, Jean-Paul Boily, Annette Boucher, Melina Buckley, Patrick Case, Shelagh Day, Richard Goulet, Danielle Hince, Martha Jackman, Rocky Jones, Sylvie Léger, Sarah Lugtig, Leslie MacLeod, Sharon McIvor, Estella Muyinda, Stacy Nagle, Ken Oh, André Ouellette, Yvonne Peters, Sharon Reid, Céline Sevald, Indra Singh, Louise Somers, Kathleen Tansey and Chantal Tie.

Editing: Doug Smith
Translation: Claire Mazuhelli
Layout and Design: The Art Department
ISBN # 1-896894-10-0
For further information, please contact
The Court Challenges Program of Canada/ Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada
294 Portage Avenue, Room 616
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0B9
Telephone: (204) 942-0022
Fax: (204) 946-0669
Web Site: http://www.ccppcj.ca
Electronic Mail: info@ccppcj.ca
Copyright 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

PART I - ADMINISTRATION
Program Structure and Composition Panels
The Equality Rights Panel
The Language Rights Panel
Board of Directors
Panel Selection Committees
The Equality Rights Panel Selection Committee
The Language Rights Panel Selection Committee
The Membership
New Equality Member
New Language Members
Advisory Committees
The Equality Advisory Committee
The Language Advisory Committee
Staff
Annual General Meeting
Program Priorities and Planning
Assisting Applicants
Encouraging Strategic Litigation and Information Sharing
Outreach for Applications
Developing public, political and financial support for long-term funding and mandate expansion
Organizational support and development
Audited Financial Statements

PART II - EQUALITY RIGHTS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS FROM 2000-2001
Introduction - Equality Rights Test Cases
Criminal Law
Racism
Criminal Defences
Sentencing
Sexual Assault
Social and Economic Rights
Immigration
Customs/Taxation
Aboriginal Law
Projects, Negotiations and Impact Studies Reported
Program Promotion and Access Projects
Impact Studies
Negotiations
List of Authorities

PART III - LANGUAGE RIGHTS
Introduction
Minority Language Education Rights
The right to an education of equal quality
Right to homogeneous schools and programs
Continuity of language instruction
Language of Work, Communication and service delivery
The delegation of federal government powers and language rights
Territorial governments' linguistic obligations
Language Rights and Freedom of Expression
Judicial Rights
Legislative Bilingualism
The language of New Brunswick's municipal by-laws
Unwritten (underlying) constitutional principle of protection for minorities
Closing Comments
List of Authorities

PART IV - STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS
Equality Program
Language Program

PART V - RESOURCES
Annual Reports
Brochures
Papers
Court Challenges Web Site

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am very pleased to present to you the seventh annual report of the Court Challenges Program of Canada.

This report contains an overview of the activities undertaken and funded by the Court Challenges Program over the past year. The number of applications to the Program has increased in the past year, in both language rights and equality rights areas. The need for the Program and its important and unique contribution to the protection and promotion of the rights of official language minorities and historically disadvantaged groups is reaffirmed day after day.

The Program has risen to the challenge of meeting these increased demands, building on a strong foundation of well-developed systems for assisting applicants, facilitating the timely consideration of applications and managing the ever-growing number of open files.

Our staff and network of volunteer Panel, Board and Committee members rose to an additional challenge this year with a hiatus in the position of the Executive Director for more than half the fiscal year. After close to three years of service with the Program, Claudette Toupin returned to her former employer. The Program has recognized Ms Toupin for her contributions to the Program. We are also pleased to welcome Noël Badiou to the Court Challenges team as he takes on the functions of Executive Director in June 2001. Mr. Badiou brings a wealth of knowledge as well as experience in both equality rights and language rights issues to the Program.

Although the hiatus in the Executive Director's position resulted in some delay in achieving our long-term goals of long-term funding stability and the ability to fund an expanded mandate, steps toward this goal nevertheless continued at a reduced pace. With the arrival of our new Executive Director, we are now in a position to begin the campaign for a Court Challenges Fund in earnest. The Board of Directors looks forward to working closely with Program members toward these shared objectives.

The Program has also made progress in developing tools to encourage test-case litigation and facilitate information-sharing by initiating work on a new information kit, a factum bank and an accessible electronic communication tool which will be launched in the next year.

I would like to recognize and extend my gratitude to the members of the Board, staff, Panels and Advisory Committees for their hard work, dedication and support. It has been my privilege to have acted as Chair of the Board and/or Acting Executive Director for the majority of my five year term as a Board Member. I have been continually inspired by the commitment of all of the individuals affiliated with the Program. We are united in our common cause of achieving social justice. This powerful bond is in itself a source of great optimism for the future of the Court Challenges Program and the full recognition and implementation of equality and language rights in Canada.

Thank you.

Melina Buckley

Chair of the Board of Directors



PART I ADMINISTRATION

1. Program Structure and Composition
2. Annual General Meeting
3. Program Priorities and Planning
4. Audited Financial Statements

1. Program Structure and Composition

The Court Challenges Program is a national non-profit corporation whose mandate is to advance constitutional rights and freedoms related to equality and official language rights by providing financial assistance for test cases of national significance.

The Program's core function is to consider applications for funding and provide funding to successful applicants. The funding decisions are made by two independent expert panels, the Language Rights Panel and the Equality Rights Panel.

The management of the Program is overseen by a national Board of Directors, whose members serve on a voluntary basis. The Board establishes a number of Committees to assist it in carrying out its functions, including Panel Selection Committees that have an independent role in appointing members to the two Panels.

There are three categories of Court Challenges Program corporation members: Equality Members, Language Members and Director Members. The membership meets at the Annual General Meeting to conduct the Program's corporate business, including the election of Board members. The two membership groups have established an Equality Advisory Committee and a Language Advisory Committee. These Committees serve as fora on Program-related issues of interest to their members and provide advice to the Board on policy issues throughout the course of the year.

The work of these committees and panels is supported by a staff located at the Court Challenges Program office in Winnipeg.

The following sections set out the composition of these entities and Program staff and briefly describe their activities. It is an opportunity to recognize the important contribution all these individuals make towards carrying out the Program's mandate.

1.1 Panels

1.1.1 The Equality Rights Panel

The Equality Rights Panel reviews funding applications and makes all decisions regarding case and project funding that involve equality rights test cases. Each of its seven members brings to the Panel expertise in equality and human rights issues as well as considerable experience with a broad range of equality-seeking groups.

In 2000-2001, the Equality Rights Panel was composed of the following individuals:

- Claudyne Bienvenue (Québec) legal analyst for the Québec Human Rights Tribunal and author of numerous studies on human rights, young offenders and refugees;

- Patrick Case, Co-Chair (Ontario) - lawyer and director of the University of Guelph's Human Rights and Equity Centre, with extensive experience in family, refugee and immigration law and knowledge about equity, human rights and personal harassment matters;

- Shelagh Day, Co-chair (British Columbia) - human rights advocate in Vancouver, President and senior editor of the Canadian Human Rights Reporter, and author of articles and studies on equality rights of disadvantaged groups;

- Martha Jackman (Ontario) - Professor of Law (French Common Law Section) at the University of Ottawa and author of numerous studies on constitutional rights issues with particular focuses on social rights, poverty and women's equality;

- Leslie MacLeod (Newfoundland) - adult educator, community development worker, social researcher, technical writer, consultant, advocate, community and board member in the disability, mental health and women's movements;

- Sharon McIvor (British Columbia) - member of the Lower Nicola Band, practicing member of the Law Society of British Columbia, professor of Aboriginal Law who has written extensively on Aboriginal women's rights, Aboriginal self-determination and gender equality in the legal profession;

- Yvonne Peters (Manitoba) - lawyer and consultant for governments, community groups, labour unions and corporations on the impact of human rights legislation, the Charter and the advancement of human rights.

The Court Challenges Program received a total of 150 applications for equality-related cases and projects during this fiscal year. This is an increase of 19 applications or 14.5 per cent over the previous year. In 2000-2001, the Panel granted funding for 105 applications in the following categories:

- Case Development

Number of Cases 20

Amount of Money Granted $127,691

Percent of Total 20
- Case Funding
Number of Cases 48
Amount of Money Granted $1,350,802
Per cent of Total 49
- Impact Studies
Number of Cases 4
Amount of Money Granted $34,221
Per cent of Total 4
- Program, Promotion and Access and Negotiation
Number of Cases 33
Amount of Money Granted $313,555
Percent of Total 27
1.1.2 The Language Rights Panel

The Language Rights Panel reviews funding applications and makes all decisions regarding case and project funding related to language rights test cases. Its five members have expertise in language rights and official language minority communities in Canada.

In 2000-2001, the Language Rights Panel was composed of the following individuals:

- Yvan Beaubien (Alberta) - Secretary-Treasurer of the Conseil scolaire francophone du Centre-Est No. 3 in Alberta and a community development worker in minority language communities and international development organizations;

- Ronald Bisson Co-Chair (Ontario) - a private management consultant who has worked with various French-language minority communities outside of Québec as Director General of the Federation des jeunes canadiens-français and as a teacher in Manitoba's French language schools;

- Annette Boucher (Nova Scotia) - a lawyer and prothonotary of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court/registrar of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, who has also been both advocate and legal counsel for francophone groups working for the establishment of quality French first-language education in Nova Scotia;

- Sylvie Léger, Co-Chair (Ontario) - a lawyer and former Adjunct Professor and Director of the Canadian Centre for Linguistic Rights at the University of Ottawa;

- Kathleen Tansey (Québec) - a practicing lawyer and member of Alliance Québec and a former teacher in Montreal.

Yvan Beaubien resigned from the Language Rights Panel in September 2000 after a stellar contribution to the Program as a member of the Panel and the Board of Directors for more than five years.

The Court Challenges Program received 50 applications for support for language-related cases and projects during this fiscal year. This represents an increase of 7 applications or 16.3 per cent over the previous year. In 2000-2001, the Language Rights Panel granted funding for 53 applications in the following categories:

- Case Development

Number of Cases 13

Amount of Money Granted $78,711

Percent of Total 24

- Case Funding

Number of Cases 20

Amount of Money Granted $543,573

Percent of Total 37

- Impact Studies

Number of Cases 9

Amount of Money Granted $52,486

Percent of Total 16

- Program, Promotion and Access and Negotiation

Number of Cases 11

Amount of Money Granted $92,363

Percent of Total 23

1.2 Board of Directors

The Board of Directors is responsible for the administration of the Court Challenges Program, including budget, human resources management, establishing policies, and long and short-term plans for the effective operation of the Program.

The 2000-2001 Board of Directors consisted of:

- Chair and Representative of the Law Faculties/Bar Associations - Melina Buckley (British Columbia), a lawyer specializing in legal research and policy development and an author and speaker on federal law reform, constitutional law, equality issues and access to justice;

- Vice-Chair and Co-Chair of the Equality Rights Panel - Shelagh Day;

- Vice-Chair and Co-Chair of the Language Rights Panel - Yvan Beaubien (April-September) and Ronald Bisson (September-March);

- Treasurer and Elected Representative of the Language Members - Louise Somers (New Brunswick) a lawyer and notary in private practice in Saint Quentin and former president of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau Brunswick;

- Representative of Language Members - Suzanne Birks (Québec), former President and Executive Director of the Canadian Human Rights Foundation and presently Research Director in the firm of O'Reilly Mainville & Associates, where she specializes in administrative law, international trade, intellectual property, arbitration and employment;

- Representative of Equality Members - Burnley "Rocky" Jones (Nova Scotia), a lawyer in the firm of B.A. "Rocky" Jones and Associates. He is a founding member of numerous peace and civil rights movements including the Black United Front of Nova Scotia, the National Black Coalition of Canada, Dalhousie Transition Year Program, Dalhousie Law School Indigenous Blacks and Mi'kmaq Program, African Canadian Liberation Movement, and the Nova Scotia Project and Kwacha House.

- Representative of Equality Members - Chantal Tie (Ontario), Executive Director of the South Ottawa Community Legal Services; adjunct professor of Immigration and Refugee Law; and member of various equality-seeking groups. She is a former Co-Chair of the National Legal Committee for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

1.2.1 Panel Selection Committees

The Program solicits nominations for new Panel members from its members and other community groups. An Equality Rights Panel Selection Committee reviews nominations and appoints members to the Equality Rights Panel. Similarly, a Language Rights Panel Selection Committee selects Language Rights Panel Members.

1.2.1.1 The Equality Rights Panel Selection Committee

In 2000-2001, the Equality Rights Panel Selection Committee was composed of the following persons:

- Akua Benjamin (Ontario) - Professor of Social Work at Ryerson Polytechnic University;
- William Black (British Columbia) - Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia;
- Nitya Iyer (British Columbia) - Associate Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia and former Member of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal;
- Lucie Lamarche (Québec) - Professor of Law at the Université du Québec à Montreal;
- Gérald Miller (Québec) - lawyer and disability rights activist.

1.2.1.2 The Language Rights Panel Selection Committee

In 2000-2001, the Language Rights Panel Selection Committee was composed of the following persons:

- Marc Cousineau (Ontario) - Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa (Common Law Section) and Director of the Canadian Centre for Linguistic Rights; - Gérard Lévesque (Ontario) - lawyer and member of the Association de juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario;
- Guy Matte (Ontario) - Executive Director of the Association des enseignants et enseignantes franco-ontariens;
- Raymond Poirier (Manitoba) - Director of the Association des municipalités bilingues du Manitoba;
- Eric Sutton (Québec) - lawyer in private practice with the firm Girouard, Peris, Goldenberg, Pappas and Sutton.

1.3 The Membership

On April 1, 2000, the Court Challenges Program's membership was composed of 108 Equality Members and 19 Language Members. During the 2000-2001 fiscal year, the following organizations became new members:

1.3.1 New Equality Member

Trans Alliance Society

1.3.2 New Language Members

Coalition Québec
Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones
The Outaouais Alliance

1.4 Advisory Committees

The two categories of members have each established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committees meet on an as needed basis to discuss issues of mutual interest related to the Program and to provide assistance to the Board of Directors. A representative of each Advisory Committee participates in meetings of the Board of Directors in a non-voting capacity.

1.4.1 The Equality Advisory Committee

In 2000-2001, the Equality Advisory Committee consisted of the following organizations and persons:

African Canadian Legal Clinic - Margaret Parsons
Association multiculturelle francophone de l'Alberta - Igor César (mandate began in November 2000)
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies - Dawn McBride
Charter Committee on Poverty Issues - Bonnie Morton
Council of Canadians with Disabilities - David Martin (mandate expired in November 2000)
December 9 Coalition - Monika Chappell
Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere - John Fisher
Ligue des droits et libertés - Noël St. Pierre (mandate expired in November 2000)
Minority Advocacy and Rights Council - Indra Singh
National Association of Women and the Law - Margaret Denike
National Indo Canadian Council - Pravin Varma
Native Women's Association of Canada - Theresa Lanigan (mandate expired in November 2000)
Québec Native Women's Association - Debbie Thomas (mandate began in November 2000)
Women's Legal Education and Action Fund - Carissima Mathen

Monika Chappell (April-November) and Indra Singh (December-March) represented the Equality Advisory Committee at meetings of the Board of Directors during this fiscal year.

The Equality Advisory Committee has established a number of sub-committees to work on specific issues. The following sub-committees were active in the past fiscal year:

- Interventions at the Supreme Court Sub-Committee
- Poverty Issues Sub-Committee
- Race Issues Sub-Committee
- Trans National Consultation Sub-Committee
- Working with Lawyers Sub-Committee

1.4.2 The Language Advisory Committee

In 2000-2001, the Language Advisory Committee consisted of the following organizations and individuals:

Alliance Québec - Stephen Schenke
Commission nationale des parents francophones - Murielle Gagné-Ouellette
Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law - Jean-Paul Boily
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada - François Boileau

Jean-Paul Boily represented the Language Advisory Committee at meetings of the Board of Directors during this fiscal year.

1.5 Staff

In 2000-2001, the Court Challenges Program employed eight individuals. The position of Executive Director was vacant from September to the end of the year as Claudette Toupin returned to her former employer, the Government of Manitoba, after close to three years of service to the Program. This position was filled on an off-site acting basis, by the Board Chair, Melina Buckley, during the search process. All employees took on additional duties during this period and their additional work is greatly appreciated.

2. Annual General Meeting

The National Consultation and Annual General Meeting was held in Ottawa, November 17-19, 2000. Over 90 individuals participated in these two meetings.

This year the National Consultation focused on current challenges for test-case litigation and the integration of social science evidence in building test cases. These plenary sessions and workshops led to productive discussions among Program members and will assist in the effective use of Program funds.

The National Consultation also provided an excellent forum for the Program to reach out to organizations that are new to the Program and to provide the orientation required to assist them in the development of funding applications.

Members discussed and provided input into plans for establishing a Court Challenges Fund to ensure long-term funding stability and to finance an expansion of the Program mandate.

The Board, Panels and Advisory Committees reported to the membership about the previous year's activities. François Boileau gave a moving tribute to Fernand Landry, the founding Chair of the Board of Directors, who had passed away in July of 2000.

One of the main topics for discussion at the 2000 Annual General Meeting were changes to the membership by-laws. The Board has recommended a number of changes. Some of the changes related to the elaboration of certain criteria for membership. Another change involved the creation of a new category of "Associate Membership". The Associate Membership category was created for those individuals or groups who may not be eligible for full membership with voting rights but wish to receive information and notices from the Program about upcoming meetings. Another important change related to the terms of membership which are now for a 3 year duration. The proposed changes were adopted, approved by Industry Canada, and will be implemented by May 31, 2001.

Members discussed a Member's resolution in support of the struggle of transgendered persons. During the discussion, members expressed considerable support for this equality seeking community but were concerned about the appropriateness of the Court Challenges Program adopting policy resolutions of this type, given its mandate as a funding agency. Since the Program cannot advocate or lobby, Members decided that policy resolutions should not be considered and the motion was abandoned.

Due to changes in the length of Board members' terms of office, from 1 - 2 years to 3 years, there were no elections to the Board in 2000.

3. Program Priorities and Planning

During the 2000-2001 year, the Court Challenges Program continued to work on the five priority areas identified during our strategic planning process:

- Assisting Applicants - Encouraging Strategic Litigation and Information-Sharing - Outreach for Applications - Developing public, political and financial support for long-term funding and mandate expansion - Organizational support and development.

Progress in each of these areas is a shared responsibility among the Program's Committees, Panels, and staff. The following provides an overview of progress made in each of these areas over the past year.

3.1 Assisting Applicants

The priority for improving assistance to applicants has been the development of a new information kit. The revised kit has been prepared by staff and will be field-tested during the summer with a view to launching it in the fall of 2001.

3.2 Encouraging Strategic Litigation and Information-Sharing

The Program's main opportunities for encouraging strategic litigation and information-sharing are at its national consultation and in meetings with members and other groups throughout the year.

Over the course of the last few years, the Program has reviewed other potential mechanisms for achieving this objective. During the past year, progress has been made in establishing a factum bank through our website. Work has also begun to develop an accessible electronic communication tool for sharing information relevant to strategic litigation.

The Equality Advisory Committee had proposed that the Program consider developing a newsletter as another means to communicate with members and to encourage information-sharing related to the Program's work. After a close review of this proposal, the Board decided that while this was a worthwhile proposal, the Program simply did not have the funding to proceed with the newsletter. Alternative means of facilitating communications, such as enhanced mail outs to members, will be pursued.

A working committee of the Equality Advisory Committee is in the process of producing a manual to assist lawyers and community groups who wish to work together on equality rights litigation.

In 1999, the Program adopted a new confidentiality and information-sharing policy. The policy attempts to balance the requirement to protect applicant's privacy interests and any information covered by solicitor-client privilege with the Program's objectives and funding obligations. The policy permits the Program to release certain information, upon receiving permission from the applicant, to inform the public about the work of the Program, to promote strategic development of equality and official minority language rights in Canada, and to prepare reports required by the Program's funding agencies. The Board of Directors had committed to a review of the policy once it had been in operation for two years to address any questions and concerns that have been raised about the operation of this policy. This review will take place in 2001-2002.

3.3 Outreach for Applications

In 2000-2001, the Court Challenges Program staff, Panel and Board members made presentations to over 50 equality-seeking and official language minority groups in various locations across Canada. The outreach priority for this fiscal year was to meet with community groups, lawyers, academics, and other stakeholders in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Staff have also developed a speaker's kit to facilitate presentations about the Program's work by Panel and Board members.

3.4 Developing public, political and financial support for long-term funding and mandate expansion

During the past year, the Program has met with a number of member groups and other organizations to discuss plans for the establishment of a Court Challenges Fund and to enhance support for this plan within our membership. Progress on this objective has been delayed by the vacancy in the Executive Director position for over half the fiscal year. However, substantial work has been undertaken on developing a package of promotional materials about the Program's plans for achieving mandate expansion and long-term financial stability. The Program is now in a good position to initiate this campaign. Many member groups have signalled their commitment to participate in this initiative.

3.5 Organizational support and development

The vast majority of the Program's functions relate to the day-to-day work of facilitating the application process, ensuring timely consideration of applications, managing the over 400 active equality files and 90 active language files, fulfilling reporting requirements to Canadian Heritage and so on. An additional task in the past year has been the implementation of the new membership provisions through the development of new application forms and revision of the membership lists in accordance with these changes.

4.0 Audited Financial Statements

The following are the Program's audited financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2001. The statements consist of four main items:

1. The Balance Sheet - contains a breakdown of each fund.

2. The Statement of Operations and Fund Balances - provides a detailed list of monies received, transferred and disbursed in each funding category.

3. Notes to the Financial Statements

Note 1 includes information about the incorporation of the Program and its Contribution Agreement. Note 2 explains each of the funds, how they are accounted for and how the revenue is allocated between restricted and unrestricted funds. Note 3 explains how capital assets are recorded. Note 4 provides the breakdown between equality and language rights in each of the funds. Note 5 shows the Program's commitments, which includes Panel commitments and the Program's lease commitment.

4. Schedule of Operating Expenses - shows the revenue and the expenses for the Program's administrative monies.

- audited financial statements

Price Waterhouse Coopers Chartered Accountants

One Lombard Place
Suite 2300
Winnipeg, MB
Canada R3B 0X6
Telephone +1 (204) 926-2400
Facsimile +1 (204) 944-1020

May 25, 2001

AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors of Court Challenges Program of Canada/Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada

We have audited the balance sheet of Court Challenges Program of Canada -Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada as at March 31, 2001 and the statement of operations and fund balances for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Court Challenges Program of Canada - Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada as at March 31, 2001 and the results of its operations and changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Price Waterhouse Coopers

Chartered Accountants

COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM OF CANADA

PROGRAMME DE CONTESTATION JUDICIAIRE DU CANADA

BALANCE SHEET

ASSETS - As at MARCH 31, 2001

CASH -- Operating Fund ($46,726)

CASH -- Litigation Fund ($36,005)

CASH -- Programs and Promotion Access Fund and Negotiation Fund ($100,910)

CASH -- Case Development Fund $24,168

CASH -- Impact Studies Fund $25,052

CASH -- Total for 2001 $139,409

CASH total for 2000 ($148,322)

ASSETS - MARCH 31, 2001 continued

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -- Operating Fund $171,097

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -- Litigation Fund $270,719

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -- Programs and Promotion Access and Negotiation Fund $2,533

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -- Case Development Fund $31,945

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -- Impact Studies Fund $10,695

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -- Total for 2001 $486,989

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE total for 2000 $1,021,909

ASSETS - MARCH 31, 2001 continued

PREPAID EXPENSES -- Operating Fund $7,310

PREPAID EXPENSES -- Litigation Fund $-

PREPAID EXPENSES -- Programs and Promotion Access and Negotiation Fund $-

PREPAID EXPENSES -- Case Development Fund $-

PREPAID EXPENSES -- Impact Studies Fund $-

PREPAID EXPENSES -- Total for 2001 $7,310

PREPAID EXPENSES total for 2000 $7,310

SUB-TOTALS OF CASH, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PREPAID EXPENSES:

SUB-TOTAL -- Operating Fund $131,681

SUB-TOTAL -- Litigation Fund $306,724

SUB-TOTAL -- Programs Promotion AND Access and Negotiation Fund $103,443

SUB-TOTAL -- Case Development Fund $56,113

SUB-TOTAL -- Impact Studies Fund $35,747

SUB-TOTAL -- for 2001 $633,708

SUB-TOTAL for 2000 $880,897

CAPITAL ASSETS (NOTE 3)

CAPITAL ASSETS -- Operating Fund $12,766

CAPITAL ASSETS -- Litigation Fund $ -

CAPITAL ASSETS -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $-

CAPITAL ASSETS -- Case Development Fund $-

CAPITAL ASSETS -- Impact Studies Fund $-

CAPITAL ASSETS - Total for 2001 $12,766

CAPITAL ASSETS total for 2000 $29,305

ASSETS -- TOTAL

TOTAL -- Operating Fund $144,447

TOTAL -- Litigation Fund $306,724

TOTAL -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $103,443

TOTAL -- Case Development Fund $56,113

TOTAL -- Impact Studies Fund $35,747

TOTAL -- 2001 -- $646,474

TOTAL for 2000 $910,202

LIABILITIES - MARCH 31, 2001

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES -- Operating Fund $56,279

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES -- Litigation Fund $-

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $ -

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES -- Case Development Fund $-

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES -- Impact Studies Fund $-

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES -- Total for 2001 -- $56,279

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES total for 2000 $54,076

FUND BALANCES -- EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED (NOTE 4)

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED -- Operating Fund $ -

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED -- Litigation Fund $306,724

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $103,443

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED -- Case Development Fund $56,113

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED -- Impact Studies Fund $35,747

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED -- Total for 2001 -- $502,027

EXTERNALLY RESTRICTED total for 2000 $748,483

FUND BALANCES -- INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS

INVESTED -- Operating Fund $12,766

INVESTED -- Litigation Fund $ -

INVESTED -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $-

INVESTED -- Case Development Fund $ -

INVESTED -- Impact Studies Fund $ -

INVESTED -- Total for 2001 -- $12,766

INVESTED total for 2000 -- $29,305

FUND BALANCES -- UNRESTRICTED

UNRESTRICTED -- Operating Fund $74,402

UNRESTRICTED -- Litigation Fund $ -

UNRESTRICTED -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $ -

UNRESTRICTED -- Case Development Fund $ -

UNRESTRICTED -- Impact Studies Fund $ -

UNRESTRICTED -- Total for 2001 -- $75,402

UNRESTRICTED total for 2000 -- $78,338

SUB-TOTAL LIABILITIES

SUB-TOTAL -- Operating Fund $88,168

SUB-TOTAL -- Litigation Fund $306,724

SUB-TOTAL -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $103,443

SUB-TOTAL -- Case Development Fund $56,113

SUB-TOTAL -- Impact Studies Fund $35,747

SUB-TOTAL - Sub-Total for 2001 -- $590,195

SUB-TOTAL for 2000 -- $856,126

TOTAL LIABILITIES

TOTAL -- Operating Fund $144,447

TOTAL -- Litigation Fund $306,724

TOTAL -- Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $103,443

TOTAL -- Case Development Fund $56,113

TOTAL -- Impact Studies Fund $35,747

TOTAL - Sub-Total for 2001 -- $646,474

TOTAL for 2000 -- $910,202

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND FUND BALANCES

For the Year ended March 31, 2001

Operating Fund - 2001

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $650,000

Interest $34,035

Human Resource development $2,772

Total $686,807

Expenses -

Operating (Schedule) $706,282

Programs Delivery $-

Total $706,282

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($19,475)

Fund balance (beginning of year) $107,643

Fund balance, end of year $88,168

Operating Fund - 2000

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $650,000

Interest $26,576

Human Resource development $2,772

Total $679,348

Expenses -

Operating (schedule) $712,572

Programs Delivery $-

Total $712,572

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($33,224)

Fund balance (beginning of year) $140,867

Fund balance, end of year $107,643

RESTRICTED FUNDS

Litigation Fund

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $1,256,382

Interest $-

Human Resource development $-

Total $1,256,382

Expenses -

Operating (Schedule) $-

Programs Delivery $1,423,159

Total $1,423,159

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($166,777)

Fund balance (beginning of year) $473,501

Fund balance, end of year $306,724

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $185,000

Interest $-

Human Resource development $-

Total $185,000

Expenses -

Operating (Schedule) $-

Programs Delivery $249,154

Total $249,154

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($64,154)

Fund balance (beginning of year) $167,597

Fund balance, end of year $103,443

Case Development Fund

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $95,000

Interest $-

Human Resource development $-

Total $95,000

Expenses -

Operating (Schedules) $-

Programs Delivery $106,076

Total $106,076

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($11,076)

Fund balance (beginning of year) $67,189

Fund balance, end of year $56,113

Impact Studies Fund

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $45,000

Interest $-

Human Resource development $-

Total $45,000

Expenses -

Operating (Schedule) $-

Programs Delivery $49,449

Total $49,449

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($4,449)

Fund balance (beginning of year) ($40,196)

Fund balance, end of year $35,747

Total 2001

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $1,581,382

Interest $-

Human Resource development $-

Total $1,581,382

Expenses -

Operating (Schedule) $-

Programs Delivery $1,827,838

Total $1,827,838

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year ($246,456)

Fund balance (beginning of year) $748,483

Fund balance, end of year $502,027

Total 2000

Revenue -

Contributions - Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage $2,483,537

Interest $-

Human Resource development $-

Total $2,483,537

Expenses -

Operating (Schedule) $-

Programs Delivery $2,137,439

Total $2,137,439

Excess of Revenue over expenses (expenses over revenue) for the year $346,098

Fund balance (beginning of year) $402,385

Fund balance, end of year $748,483

Court Challenges Program of Canada - Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada

Notes to Financial Statements

March 31, 2001

1 Incorporation and contribution agreement

Court Challenges Program of Canada - Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada is a corporation incorporated without share capital under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. The Corporation's objective is to clarify the constitutional rights and freedoms related to equality rights and official language rights by providing financial assistance for test cases of national significance. The Corporation is non-taxable under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

The Corporation entered into a contribution agreement with the Government of Canada on March 31, 1998 which sets out terms and conditions governing the administration of the Corporation for the period April 1, 1998 to March 31, 2003.

2 Significant accounting policies

Fund accounting

The Corporation follows the restricted method of accounting for contributions.

Operating Fund

The Operating Fund accounts for the Corporation's administrative activities and reports unrestricted resources and operating grants.

Litigation Fund

The Litigation Fund reports restricted resources that are to be used to provide financial assistance for litigation expenses incurred for language and equality cases of potential national significance.

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund

The Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund reports restricted resources that are to be used for activities which promote awareness of, access to, or capacity to use the Program and provide financial assistance to individuals or organizations for negotiating expenses incurred to resolve disputes.

Case Development Fund

The Case Development Fund reports restricted resources that are to be used to provide financial assistance to develop potential language or equality, test cases.

Notes to Financial Statements

March 31, 2001

Impact Studies Fund

The Impact Studies Fund reports restricted resources that are to be used to provide financial assistance for the preparation of impact studies of important court decisions relevant to litigation under the Program.

Revenue recognition

Restricted contributions related to general operations are recognized as revenue of the Operating Fund in the year the expenses are incurred. All other restricted contributions are recognized as revenue of the appropriate restricted fund.

Unrestricted contributions are recognized as revenue of the Operating Fund in the year received or receivable if the amount to be received can be reasonably estimated and collection is reasonably assured.

Investment income is recognized on an accrual basis as revenue of the Operating Fund.

Capital assets

Capital assets are recorded at cost. Amortization is provided over the estimated useful lives of the related assets, using the following methods and rates:

Computer equipment 5 year straight-line, no residual value

Furniture and equipment 5 year straight-line, no residual value

Cash flows

A statement of cash flows has not been included as it would not provide any additional meaningful information.

3 Capital assets

2001

Computer Equipment

Cost $79,976

Accumulated amortization $69,093

Furniture and equipment

Cost $41,274

Accumulated amortization $39,391

Total cost $121,250

Total accumulated amortization $108,484

Net book value $12.766

2000

Computer Equipment

Cost $79,976

Accumulated amortization $57,165

Furniture and equipment

Cost $41,274

Accumulated amortization $34,780

Total cost $121,250

Total accumulated amortization $91,945

Net book value $29,305

4 Externally restricted fund balances

Categories of externally imposed restrictions on net assets are allocated as follows:

Equality rights

Litigation Fund $198,968

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $48,970

Case Development Fund $35,290

Impact Studies Fund $25,209

Total (2001) $308,435

Total (2000) $507,803

Language rights

Litigation Fund $107,756

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $54,473

Case Development Fund $20,823

Impact Studies Fund $10,538

Total (2001) $193,592

Total (2000) $240,680

Grand totals

Litigation Fund $306,724

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation Fund $103,443

Case Development Fund $56,113

Impact Studies Fund $35,747

Total (2001) $502,027

Total (2000) $748,483

5 Commitments

The Corporation's Equality and Language Rights Panels have approved commitments as follows:

Equality rights

Commitments approved by Panels

Litigation $1,350,802

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation $313,555

Case development $127,691

Impact studies $34,221

Total $1,826,269

Language rights

Commitments approved by Panels

Litigation $543,573

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation $92,363

Case development $78,711

Impact studies $52,486

Total $767,133

Grand total for equality rights and language rights $2,593,402

2001 -- Disbursements paid $1,827,838

Sub-total $765,564

Restricted cash ($186,135)

Future commitments to be funded by contributions $579,429

2000 Totals

Commitments approved by Panels

Litigation $2,401,016

Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation $374,210

Case development $121,554

Impact studies $94,073

Grand total for equality rights and language rights $2,990,853

Disbursements paid $2,137,439

Sub-total $853,414

Restricted cash $80,817

Future commitments to be funded by contributions $934,231

The Corporation has an operating lease commitment for office premises at an annual cost of $25,652 for a term that expires on April 15, 2003.

Schedule of Operating Expenses

For the year ended March 31, 2001

Advertising 2001 - $7,239 2000 - $248

Annual meeting 2001 - $10,051 2000 - $9,931

Audit fees 2001 - $5,401 2000 - $5,518

Bank charges 2001 - $602 2000 - $623

Board members' lost wages 2001 - $750 2000 - $1,445

Depreciation 2001 - $16,538 2000 - $26,060

Facilities 2001 - $25,682 2000 - $25,364

Insurance 2001 - $4,328 2000 - $3,778

Legal fees 2001 - $1,510 2000 - $-

Loss on write off of assets 2001 - $- 2000 - $1,000

Office equipment and maintenance 2001 - $7,139 2000 - $7,190

Panel members' fees 2001 - $16,500 2000 - $18,250

Photocopying and printing 2001 - $9,901 2000 - $11,100

Postage 2001 - $8,562 2000 - $5,120

Public relations and outreach 2001 - $18,453 2000 - $21,388

Research material 2001 - $6,646 2000 - $6,872

Salaries and benefits 2001 - $417,675 2000 - $406,026

Supplies 2001 - $12,346 2000 - $10,239

Telephone and fax 2001 - $15,049 2000 - $14,807

Translation and interpretation 2001 - $30,816 2000 - $33,074

Travel and meetings 2001 - $91,094 2000 - $104,539

TOTAL 2001 - $706,282 2000 - $712,572

PART II - EQUALITY RIGHTS PROGRAM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM 2000-2001

2.0 Introduction - Equality Rights Test Cases

The Equality Rights Program granted funding to a party and/or intervener(s) in a number of exciting test cases which were before the courts this year. Below is a short description of a number of these challenges. In keeping with the Program's obligation to respect the confidentiality of all applicants, only public information about the cases is provided, and this, with the permission of the applicants involved. The following pages show how inequality arises for diverse groups and communities in many areas of federal law or policy.

2.1 Criminal Law

2.1.1 Racism

R. v. Golden

This case was brought by an African Canadian man who was subjected to a strip search by Toronto police, without a warrant, in the dining area of a Toronto restaurant. Based partly on evidence collected during the search, Mr. Golden was convicted on January 28, 1998, of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Golden then applied to the trial judge, Justice McNeely of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, for a ruling that the search conducted by the police in his case violated his rights under section 8 of the Charter to privacy and to be protected from unreasonable searches by police. He argued that the evidence obtained during this strip search in a public place must not be allowed into court and his conviction should, therefore, be overturned. Justice McNeely rejected his Charter case. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's decision on September 23, 1999. Mr. Golden received permission to appeal his case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada is being urged to interpret Mr. Golden's other Charter rights in conjunction with the equality values protected by section 15. Such an interpretation must address the racism that African Canadians have experienced in dealings with the police and the risk faced by members of this community of being unfairly targeted for harmful and degrading public treatment by agents of the state on the basis of race. It is hoped that the Court will agree that the Charter requires a warrant and certain minimum standards before the conduct of a strip search. The Supreme Court heard this case on February 15, 2001. They have yet to deliver their decision.

R. v. Mankwe

While this challenge also addresses the impact of racism in the criminal justice system, the issue here is how to prevent racial biases from tainting the fairness of a jury's decision. Mr. Mankwe is an African Canadian man who was charged with sexually assaulting and unlawfully confining a young woman. Before his trial, he asked the trial judge for permission to question the potential jury members about their prejudices concerning African Canadian persons. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Williams case, where an Aboriginal accused succeeded in having the Court recognize his right to question jurors about biases against Aboriginal persons.

In a decision dated September 19, 1997, Justice Hébert of the Superior Court of Québec refused Mr. Mankwe's request. Justice Hébert noted that racism likely does exist in all provinces, but found that Mr. Mankwe also needed to bring evidence to the court to prove that anti-Black racism exists in Montréal. The judge further noted that the complainant (victim) was also African-Canadian in this case. The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's decision on January 11, 2000. Mr. Mankwe has obtained permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and is now waiting for his appeal to be heard. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will establish clearer guidelines to protect racialized accused from all communities and in all provinces from racial biases on the part of the juries judging their cases.

2.1.2 Criminal Defences

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada

The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, a national children's rights organization, has received funding to challenge section 43 of the Criminal Code, a provision which allows a schoolteacher or parent to defend him- or herself if charged with assault against a child where he or she can show that the assault involved the use of reasonable force in the discipline and correction of that child. As perpetrators of assaults against children are the only people who can use this defence, the Foundation argues that it discriminates against young people contrary to section 15 of the Charter.

On July 5, 2000, Justice McCombs of the Ontario Superior Court rejected the Foundation's Charter claim. In his view, the age distinction in the criminal defence is appropriate given the unique situation of children, and that their development, limitations, needs, and relationship with their parents differ fundamentally from those of adults. He did not agree that section 43 makes children more vulnerable, especially considering that special legislation is in place in all provinces to ensure that children are protected from abuse. The Foundation has now appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. This case is a powerful example of the struggle our society has with viewing children as persons with full and equal rights.

2.1.3 Sentencing

R. v. Latimer

This case involves an accused found guilty by a jury of the second-degree murder of his severely disabled daughter. The central issue in this case for equality seekers is the sentence imposed by a judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. In Mr. Latimer's second trial, Mr. Justice Noble convicted him of the crime; however, he granted Mr. Latimer a constitutional exemption from the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole for ten years. He found that this minimum was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated section 12 of the Charter. Mr. Latimer received a sentence of two years less a day, with one year served in a correctional facility and one year confined to his farm. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction, but rejected the trial judge's departure from the minimum sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered its decision in the case on January 18, 2001. In confirming the minimum sentence required by the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court reminded us that murder is the most serious of crimes, and stressed the extremely grave consequences of Mr. Latimer's crime in this case. The Court further noted that Mr. Latimer had violated his position of trust as a parent, and of a highly vulnerable child. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Saskatchewan Voice of People with Disabilities, Canadian Association for Community Living, People First of Canada, DisAbled Women's Network of Canada and People in Equal Participation received funding as a coalition to intervene in this case. Their intervention was essential to remind the Court that Mr. Latimer had killed a child, a child whose life was equally worthy of protection to that of her able-bodied peers.

2.1.4 Sexual Assault

R. v. Darrach

At the heart of this case was a constitutional challenge by an accused, charged with sexual assault, to the rules of evidence which prevent the Court from admitting evidence of prior sexual activity on the part of a sexual assault complainant unless certain strict requirements are met. These "rape shield" laws are in place to make sure that biases and myths about women who are sexually assaulted do not enter into the picture in such a trial. The accused was unsuccessful in challenging the constitutionality of these laws, both at his trial and before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On October 12, 2001, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada also affirmed the constitutionality of these provisions. The Court found that, as they stated in previous cases such as R. v. Mills, an accused person's rights under sections 7 and 11 of the Charter must be balanced with the privacy and equality rights of a sexual assault complainant. This decision is a further example of the interrelationship between equality and other rights in the Charter.

Women's LEAF, the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, the Disabled Women's Network of Canada and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women received funding for a coalition intervention in this case. They wished to ensure that the equality and privacy interests of women and children, who make up the majority of survivors of sexual assault, be weighed by the Court in considering the scope of an accused person's rights in this context.

2.2 Social and Economic Rights

Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Granovsky challenged Canada Pension Plan Act (CPP) provisions that required him to contribute a certain amount to the Plan for a specified period in order to be eligible for a disability pension. He has a progressive disability that prevented him from working continuously and from making sufficient contributions to qualify for CPP benefits when he did become permanently unable to work. Mr. Granovsky argued that this denial discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. The Pension Appeals Board rejected his claim. The Board's ruling was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal where the Court found that the Plan discriminated against persons with progressive disabilities contrary to section 15 of the Charter, but went on to find that the discrimination could be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Mr. Granovsky then brought his case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Both he and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, an intervener in the case, received funding from the Program.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision of May 18, 2000 found that the denial of disability pension benefits did not discriminate against Mr. Granovsky. The Court decided that the only difference in treatment contained in the eligibility requirements was between those with temporary disabilities such as Mr. Granovsky and those with severe and permanent disabilities. The Court then held that the provisions were meant to improve conditions for those in the latter group. As Mr. Granovsky was challenging a benefit which targeted a more disadvantaged group than that to which he belonged, excluding him did not violate his right to equality.

Equality seekers are concerned that the Supreme Court's comparison of temporary and permanent disabilities failed to recognize the needs of people with progressively disabling conditions. The eligibility criteria effectively bar people with progressive disabilities from the benefits of a program designed specifically to assist them as workers who acquire disabilities, thereby perpetuating a "hierarchy" of rights for such persons.

Lesiuk v. Canada (Employment Insurance Commission)

When Ms Lesiuk -- a mother and a part-time nurse-- tried to claim Employment Insurance benefits the Employment Insurance Commission turned down her claim because the hours she had worked fell slightly below the 700 hours she required. Under the weeks-worked system in the previous legislation, the Unemployment Insurance Act, she would have qualified for benefits. The reason for the difference is that the hours-based system in the new Employment Insurance Act is calculated using the norm of full-time employment at 35 hours per week while the weeks-worked system recognized a 15-hour week of work. As Ms Lesiuk worked part-time, due to her unpaid time spent caring for her children, she did not work enough hours to qualify.

In a decision delivered on March 22, 2001, Umpire Salhany found that the new provisions which set out this hours-based threshold discriminate against women in that women are more likely to be employed part-time than men, due to women's greater contribution to child care and household responsibilities. Women are, therefore, less likely to be able to meet the threshold number of hours. He refused to apply the new law and ordered that her claim be reconsidered using the Old Act's provisions. This case shows how seemingly neutral norms for determining social benefits may actually reflect the reality of a relatively privileged group. In this case the rules benefited men given their relative ease when compared to women in finding and maintaining full-time employment.

2.3 Immigration

T.Z.U. (Re)

A group of young persons from rural China who have been smuggled to North America against their will have brought a number of claims for refugee status. Together, they rely on section 15 of the Charter to argue that the protection Canada provides for persons found to be Convention Refugees should be extended to them, in light of their social context of disadvantage and lack of power. According to the minors, most of them had no choice in the decision to send them to Canada. Moreover, they face harm at the hands of their families, the Chinese government or the criminal smugglers (known as "snakeheads") should they return to China. As one of the children's expert witness' claimed, the children are often beaten, tortured or sexually assaulted by the snakeheads if payment by their parents is delayed. If parents cannot make the full payment, the children may be forced to engage in prostitution or even be killed.

The first decision regarding these minors was released by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on October 20, 2000. The first hearing included evidence and legal arguments relating to the equality rights of these young people that would then be considered in each of their individual claims for refugee status. The Board concluded that a young person in these circumstances who is able to prove both that he or she did not choose voluntarily to leave China and that he or she faces victimization on return, could validly claim Convention Refugee status. Equality seeking groups are watching these cases carefully to ensure that the Convention Refugee definition be consistently applied in a manner which respects the equality interests of this very vulnerable group of young people. 2.4 Customs/Taxation

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and the Canadian Aids Society (CAS) each received funding to intervene in this Charter challenge by a gay and lesbian bookstore located in British Columbia. Since opening in 1983, the Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium has had numerous shipments from the United States seized by Canada Customs. Customs officials in their case were applying laws which prohibit the importation of materials that are obscene, as set out in the Criminal Code. Little Sisters brought a challenge in which they argued that the provisions in the customs legislation, as applied by Canada Customs, violated their equality rights and freedom of expression, as guaranteed by sections 15 and 2(b) of the Charter, respectively.

In 1996, the trial judge, Justice Smith of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, found that the Customs officials had violated Little Sisters' freedom of expression and equality rights at times by targeting their shipments for search and seizure, but that the legislation itself was constitutional. This decision was confirmed by a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal on June 24, 1998. The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on December 15, 2000. Justice Binnie, writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, concluded that the administration of the customs legislation by Customs officials violated Little Sisters' freedom of expression and right to equality. However, the majority of the Court stated that the legislation the officials were applying, including the obscenity prohibition and its interpretation from past cases, was for the most part constitutional.

Little Sisters and the interveners were successful in convincing the Court that Canada Customs officials violated the Charter when they targeted this gay and lesbian bookstore. They were less successful, however, in their bid to challenge a law that set out a very broad discretion, leaving groups such as this one vulnerable to discriminatory biases on the part of the government officials entrusted with the broad decision-making powers.

2.5 Aboriginal Law

L'Hirondelle v. Canada (Formerly Twinn)

In this case, a number of Indian Bands had brought a challenge to Bill C-31. This Bill amended the Indian Act to oblige Indian Bands to include in their membership persons who, for various reasons, have been excluded from such membership. Such persons included women who had become disentitled to Indian status under the Act through marriage to non-Indian men; these women's children; those who had lost status because their mother and paternal grandmother were non-Indian and had gained Indian status through marriage to an Indian; and those who had lost status on the basis that they were the "illegitimate" children of an Indian woman and a non-Indian man. The Bands argued that they have the constitutional right to determine their own membership. As Bill C-31 was meant to remedy the historic inequality experienced by those mentioned above, this case had important implications for the equality rights of Aboriginal women.

The case has already gone through one trial and appeal and has returned to the trial level court. The Program has funded the Native Women's Association of Canada to intervene at the current trial level proceeding in this case to defend positive aspects of Bill C-31 for Aboriginal women. It is noteworthy that an attempt by the Band to obtain information regarding this intervener's funding application to and contract with the Court Challenges Program was rejected by a prothonotary (court official with the power to make certain decisions) of the Federal Court Trial Division. In an order dated April 27, 2000, Associate Senior Prothonotary Giles ordered that information concerning Court Challenges Program applications and funding contracts are protected by solicitor-client privilege and need not be disclosed by the applicant. Solicitor-client privilege is the legal term used for the strict obligation of confidentiality that lawyers owe to their clients.

Lovelace v. Ontario

Non-status and Métis Aboriginal people brought a section 15 Charter challenge to an Ontario government scheme that shares an on-reserve casino's revenues with the Indian Bands in the province. The claimants argued that their exclusion from the scheme violated their equality rights, and that Canada's Constitution gives only the Federal Government the authority to make laws affecting the status of Aboriginal people. Given the Program's mandate, an equality question of particular interest was the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that section 15 rights are respected when and if it delegates its authority regarding Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution. Aboriginal women have felt especially vulnerable to governments' failure to consider their needs and concerns in these situations.

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on July 20, 2000. It found that the province was only exercising its spending power and, as such, was not in contravention of the division of legislative powers as regards Aboriginal peoples laid out in subsection 91(24) the Constitution Act 1867. It further found that this casino program, being carefully tailored to correspond to the unique needs and circumstances of Indian Bands, did not violate the equality rights of other Aboriginal communities.

3.0 Projects, Negotiations and Impact Studies Reported

The Equality Rights Program also provides financial assistance for promotion and access projects, negotiations and impact studies which assist equality seeking communities in developing their capacity to seek redress for equality rights violations which come within the Program's test case mandate. Following is a summary of some of the initiatives which were completed and reported to the Program in the last year.

3.1 Program Promotion and Access Projects

Québec Native Women's Association - Regional Consultation -- This group conducted a province wide meeting regarding gender in the context of Aboriginal self-government.

Black Coalition of Québec - Regional Consultation -- This coalition hosted a consultation regarding the impact of the Immigration Act's family sponsorship provisions on African Canadians.

Trans/Action - Discussion Paper -- Trans/Action commissioned a strategic discussion paper on Charter remedies to discrimination against transgendered persons.

3.2 Impact Studies

Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations - Law and Corbiere -- The study reviewed the implications for recent Supreme Court equality jurisprudence for cases where multiple grounds of discrimination intersect. Canadian Association for Community Living - Law -- This study reviewed the impact of the Supreme Court's section 15 analysis in its decision in Law v. Canada for people with intellectual disabilities.

Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation/National Association of Women and the Law -- Section 15 cases raising international human rights -- These two groups worked together to complete an impact study of cases relevant to the use of international human rights norms to interpret the Charter's equality guarantees so as to advance social and economic equality. Particular reference is made to the notion of "social condition" as a ground of discrimination.

3.3 Negotiations

EGALE - definition of spouse in federal legislation (Bill C-23) -- This group undertook negotiations with the Federal Government concerning proposed changes meant to bring Federal laws dealing with relationship issues into conformity with the Charter. The Federal government's Bill- 23 amended the opposite-sex definition of spouse in 68 pieces of federal legislation to include "common-law partnerships" of either heterosexual or same-sex partners. List of Authorities

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (A.G.) [2000] O.J. No. 2535

R. v. Darrach [2000] S.C.J. No. 46 R. v. Darrach [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 184 R. v. Darrach [1998] O.J. No. 397 (Ont. C.A.) R. v. Darrach [1994] O.J. No. 3161, 17 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. Ct. Prov. Div.)

R. v. Golden [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 498 R. v. Golden [1999] O.J. No. 5585 (Ont. C.A.) R. v. Golden [1998] O.J. No. 5963 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)

Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [2000] S.C.J. No. 29

L'Hirondelle v. Canada [2000] F.C.J. No. 749 (FCTD)

R. v. Latimer [2001] S.C.J. No. 1 R. v. Latimer [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 40 R. v. Latimer [1997] 1 S.C.R. 217 R. v. Latimer [1998] S.J. No. 731 (Sask C.A.) R. v. Latimer [1995] S.J. No. 402, 126 D.L.R. (4th) 203 (Sask. C.A.) R. v. Latimer [1994] S.J. No. 480 (Sask. Q.B.)

Lesiuk v. Canada (Employment Insurance Commission) [2001] C.U.B.D. No. 1

Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120 Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [1998] B.C.J. No. 1507 (B.C. C.A.) Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [1996] B.C.J. No. 71 (B.C. S.C.)

Lovelace v. Canada [2000] S.C.J. No.36 Lovelace v. Canada [1997] O.J. No. 2313 (Ont C.A.) Lovelace v. Canada [1996] O.J. No. 3176 (Ont Gen Div)

R. v. Mankwe [2000] C.S.C.R. No. 110 R. v. Mankwe [1997] 12 C.R. (5th) 273 (Que. S.C.)

R. v. Mills, [1999] S.C.J. No. 68; 3 S.C.R. 668 (S.C.C.)

T.Z.U. (Re) [2000] C.R.D.D. No. 249

Twinn v. Canada [1997] F.C.J. No. 794 (F.C.A.) Twinn v. Canada [1995] F.C.J. No. 1013 (FCTD)

R. v. Williams [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128

PART III ‹ LANGUAGE RIGHTS

1. Introduction

This section of the annual report deals with the main cases granted funding by the Language Rights Panel during the 2000-2001 financial year, as well as the major court decisions that had an impact on language rights.

The section is divided into the following categories:

1. Minority language education rights 2. Language of work, communication, and service delivery 3. Language rights and freedom of expression 4. Judicial rights 5. Legislative bilingualism 6. Unwritten constitutional principle of protection for minorities

2.0 Minority language education rights

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers a scale of progressive rights to parents belonging to an official language minority group. At the low end of the scale, parents are granted the general right to have their children educated in the official language of the minority group to which they belong, provided that the number of children warrants it. Where the number of children is high enough, section 23 also bestows the right to have these children educated in minority language education facilities. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized a higher level of rights in Mahé v. Alberta‹the right of parents belonging to an official language minority group to govern minority language education facilities. This right to school governance can range from a guarantee to the parents of minority representation on a mixed school board and absolute control of all cultural and linguistic aspects of their children's education, to setting up an independent school board for the linguistic minority.

The education rights category remains the one in which the Program funds the greatest number of cases. This is not surprising, given the significance of education rights in the protection of Canada's linguistic minorities. As Justices Major and Bastarache stated in Arsenault-Cameron, a case involving a request by parents holding minority language educational rights under s. 23 to the French Language Board in Prince Edward Island for the establishment of a French school in the Summerside area:

Section 23 imposes a constitutional duty on the province to provide official minority language education to children of s. 23 parents where the numbers warrant. In Mahe, Š, this Court affirmed that language rights cannot be separated from a concern for the culture associated with the language and that s. 23 was designed to correct, on a national scale, the historically progressive erosion of official language groups and to give effect to the equal partnership of the two official language groups in the context of education; see Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), Š. Section 23 therefore mandates that provincial governments do whatever is practically possible to preserve and promote minority language education; see Mahe, Š.

The Supreme Court of Canada further stressed the importance of this provision by accepting expert testimony that "a school is the single most important institution for the survival of the official language minority."

This year, as in the past, the Program granted funding in cases involving several important issues. Also some noteworthy legal decisions were handed down that further clarified the scope of this right. We wish to highlight a few of these.

2.1 The right to an education of equal quality

As soon as Newfoundland's francophone school board, the Conseil scolaire francophone provincial de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador, was set up in 1997, the Saint John's parents' council tried to establish a new community school centre to replace the existing school which does not meet the province's standards for school buildings. Negotiations to set up the new centre have been on-going with the provincial government ever since.

According to the parents, lack of government action in setting up a school of a quality equal to those for majority language groups is having serious consequences on the ability of the minority language school to recruit and retain pupils. Many pupils choose to attend majority language schools to gain access to a more varied curriculum, better facilities and better equipment. This situation hastens assimilation, which has already reached an alarmingly high rate in Newfoundland.

The Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador and the Conseil scolaire francophone provincial de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador were approved for funding to take the provincial government to court. The purpose of this action is to force the government to honour its obligation under section 23 to provide a school facility that takes into account the needs of St. John's francophones.

This case raises the issue of equivalent quality of education and the link between the quality of education and the quality of the school building and equipment. Moreover, this is the first time, since the Supreme Court of Canada brought down its ruling in Arsenault-Cameron, that a minority language school board will be availing itself of the power of this ruling to contest government inaction following a legitimate decision of the school board.

2.2 Right to homogeneous schools and programs

Last year's annual report reported on funding granted to the Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse for Doucet-Boudreau v. the Government of Nova Scotia (Department of Education). In that case the parents of Cheticamp, Isle Madame, Argyle, and Kingston/Greenwood demanded that they be provided with homogeneous French-language school programs and high schools. The term homogeneous schools and programs relates to the administration, facilities and delivery of an educational service in one language. Because this issue was a controversial one in the community, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial had adopted a step-by-step approach to establishing homogeneous programs. Moreover, the government was delaying the decision for the funding required to build the new minority language schools.

In June 2000, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled in favour of the parents. Justice LeBlanc accepted the link between the alarming assimilation rates in some regions of the province and the lack of suitable schools for the linguistic minority. He concluded that the Department had not given due consideration to this factor and to how important homogeneous French programs and educational facilities were in preventing assimilation. Justice LeBlanc issued five orders to establish homogeneous French schools and programs in each of the regions in question. He based his decision on the principle of substantive equality and the positive duty on the part of the government to establish institutional structures ensuring the delivery of quality education for children of the minority official language.

At the request of the parents, Justice LeBlanc retained his jurisdiction in this case to ensure compliance with the orders issued. However, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia launched an appeal on this particular point. The Language Rights Panel granted funding to the Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse to ensure that their rights were respected and effectively implemented. Funding was also granted to the Commission nationale des parents francophones to intervene for the Fédération before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

2.3 Continuity of language instruction

Once again, the Program granted funding for Solski v. Québec‹a case dealing with the scope of subsection 23(2) of the Charter, guaranteeing continuity of language instruction for children of the same family. In December 2000, the Québec Superior Court ruled in favour of the parents who were claiming this right in Québec.

The parents, who were not Canadian citizens, came to Québec in 1990 for work. Upon their arrival, they enrolled their children in a French-language school, but subsequently were given permission to send their children to an English-language school for the duration of their stay in Québec, i.e., until 1994. In the meantime, the Solski's decided to stay in Canada. They became permanent residents in 1993 and acquired Canadian citizenship in 1997.

The children were enrolled in an English-language school for September 1994, but were transferred to a French school during the school year and continued their elementary education in that school until September 1997. In the fall of 1997, the children were enrolled in an English school for the first year of secondary education, but without the required ministerial permit. As they lacked the permit, the children completed their second year in a French secondary school. For the 1999-2000 school year, they attended a private English-language secondary school, access to which was not regulated by the Charter of the French Language.

In her decision, Superior Court Justice Grenier recognized that subsection 23(2) applied to children living in Québec to the same extent as to those moving to Québec from another province in Canada. She ruled that the only condition to applying subsection 23(2) was that one of the children had to have been educated in the minority language in Canada. According to her, this subsection operates on an objective criterion: the child's language of instruction. There is no time limit or minimum requirement. In the case at bar, the judge concluded that the applicants met the criteria set out in subsection 23(2) since their children were currently enrolled in a private, non-subsidized English-language school at the time of the hearing.

Québec's Attorney General appealed this decision in the Québec Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal accepted an application from Ms Edwidge Casimir to intervene in the case since the Solskis had decided not to pursue the matter any further. The Program granted funding to Ms Casimir to intervene in the case.

3.0 Language of work, communication and service delivery

Subsection 16(l) of the Charter stipulates that French and English are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in the institutions of Parliament and government of Canada. Subsection 16(2) has similar provisions regarding the institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick, while subsection 16(3) confirms the authority of Parliament and the legislatures to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

Section 16.1 of the Charter is unique in that it enshrines the equality of New Brunswick's two official language communities in the Constitution.

Section 20 of the Charter confers to individuals the right to use their language of choice to communicate with, or to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada and of the legislature or government of New Brunswick. Except for head or central offices, the above-mentioned right to receive services in the official language of one's choice is subject to significant demand or the nature of the office.

3.1 The delegation of federal government powers and language rights

Last year's annual report noted that one of the issues that still needed clarification was the duty of the federal government to ensure delivery of services in both official languages when delegating some of its powers to provinces, territories or third parties. The Program had granted funding to the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario (AJEFO) so it could intervene in a court challenge calling into question the Federal Contraventions Act (CA) and the issue of delegation of powers. The court challenge related to the Ontario government's sub-delegation of its federally imposed duties of providing the court services relating to contraventions under the Federal Contraventions Act in both official languages to the municipalities. However, when an agent of a municipality conducts a trial, the agent is not obligated to honour the obligations of providing services in both official languages. AJEFO was concerned that, in the Act, the federal government had failed to confirm the protection of acquired language rights provided for in federal law, and more particularly Bill 108 (Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1998). This bill provided for agreements authorizing a municipality to perform court administration and court support functions, including the functions of the clerk of the court, notably for application of the CA, but did not provide for the maintenance of existing language rights in Ontario at the municipal level.

In March 2001, the Federal Court ruled in favour of AJEFO in Commissioner of Official Languages v. Her Majesty the Queen (Department of Justice of Canada). Justice Blais reiterated the constitutional principle that a government cannot divest itself of constitutional obligations by delegating its responsibilities. He concluded that it is the duty of the Attorney General of Canada to offer administrative services relating to prosecutions for federal contraventions in both official languages under Part IV of the OLA as well as under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court recognized that the federal government has full power to delegate the administration of prosecutions for violations of federal statutes and regulations to the provincial government or to municipalities. However, the authority that has received the delegated power still has a duty to comply with the language laws that were binding on the delegating authority, i.e., the Government of Canada. According to Justice Blais, it is important to ensure that the legal obligations of the delegating authority,

. . . particularly with regard to language rights, which were characterized earlier as constitutional rights, are delineated and specified sufficiently to ensure that the rights of every accused person will be respected, whether the legislation relating to contraventions is administered by the federal government, the Ontario government or the municipal authorities.

In this case, he concluded that the measures taken by the federal government regarding the application of the CA and the agreements entered into by the respondents and the Government of Ontario and the subsequent municipal agreements did not adequately protect the language rights provided by sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code and by Part IV of the OLA. According to Justice Blais, this also constituted a violation of the rights provided in sections 16 to 20 of the Charter.

3.2 Territorial governments' linguistic obligations

Last year, the Program granted funding to the Fédération franco-ténoise for a court challenge that could clarify whether the government of the Northwest Territories and, by extension, all territorial governments, were institutions of the Government of Canada in the application of section 20 of the Charter and of language rights in the area of services.

The Fédération had launched the proceedings by filing a statement with the Federal Court involving the federal and territorial governments. The last two filed motions challenging the jurisdiction of the court. During the current financial year, the Program granted funding to the Fédération franco-ténoise to take part in these proceedings.

In September, Justice Rouleau rejected the motion of the federal and territorial governments. He declared that the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to hear the claim against the Crown. He rejected the argument that territorial governments were moving towards a constitutional status similar to that of the provinces. According to Justice Rouleau, the Northwest Territories (NWT) were part of the federal Crown and were therefore subject to the linguistic obligations set out in the Charter.

The NWT government launched an appeal of this ruling before the Federal Court of Appeal. The Program also granted funding to the Fédération to take part in these proceedings.

4.0 Language rights and freedom of expression

Some of the basic rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have a linguistic component. The most obvious example of this type of right is the freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on the link between language and freedom of expression in cases raised in Québec, especially regarding the language in commercial signs.

The Contribution Agreement the Program reached with the federal government makes it possible for the Language Rights Panel to grant funding to cases dealing with freedom of expression provided for under paragraph 2b) of the Charter, provided that the cases were directly tied to the language rights of an official language minority.

The Program did not receive any applications for funding regarding the language aspects of freedom of expression during the 2000-2001 financial year.

5.0 Judicial rights

In judicial matters, language rights are guaranteed under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867; section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870; and section 19 of the Charter. These provisions allow French or English to be used in any trial by tribunals set up in certain provinces, namely Québec, New Brunswick, and Manitoba, or by the Parliament of Canada.

In judicial spheres, language rights relate mainly to the choice of language in the proceedings and the right to address the court in the official language of one's choice.

During the current financial year, the panel has awarded funding to Mr. Jules Chartier to appear before the Manitoba Court of Appeal to challenge the fact that he had not been given a hearing in French before Manitoba's Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission. Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provides for the use of French or English before the province's courts. This case raises a number of language issues that are important for Manitoba's official language minority, including the scope of their constitutional language rights before administrative tribunals such as the Commission.

6.0 Legislative bilingualism

The Program may contribute financially to cases seeking clarification of the linguistic obligations of the Parliament of Canada, the legislatures of New Brunswick and Manitoba, and Québec's National Assembly. Section 17 of the Charter protects the right to use French and English in the debates and other proceedings of Parliament and the New Brunswick legislature. Section 18 requires that all documents emanating from these two institutions be printed and published in both languages.

Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, which both preceded the Charter, impose similar duties on Parliament, the Manitoba legislature and the Québec National Assembly.

6.1 The language of New Brunswick's municipal by-laws

A City of Moncton building inspector issued Mr. Charlebois, a French-speaking resident of Moncton, an order that was written in English only. Mr. Charlebois is challenging the constitutional validity of the order as well as that of the bylaw under which the order was issued, since the bylaw was not adopted in both of New Brunswick's official languages.

In July 2000, the trial court judge dismissed Mr. Charlebois' motion and stated that the City of Moncton had no constitutional obligation to adopt its bylaws in both official languages and that the fact that its bylaws were adopted in one or the other, but not both, official languages could not serve as a basis to having them declared null and void.

The plaintiff appealed this decision before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The Program granted funding to the Société des acadiens et acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick and the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick to intervene in Mr. Charlebois' favour. The intervenors based their arguments on the Charter provisions that applied to New Brunswick, i.e., subsections 16(2), 16(3), 18(2) and section 16.1; on recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which had dismissed the rule of giving a restrictive interpretation to language rights; and on the principle of protection for minority language communities.

This case also touched upon subsection 20(2) of the Charter which grants citizens of New Brunswick the right to communicate with, and to receive services from, any government office in either English or French.

7.0 Unwritten (underlying) constitutional principle of protection for minorities

Some of the significant developments occurring in language rights with respect to the protection for minorities in the past few years are largely due to Gisèle Lalonde, Michelle de Courville-Nicol and Montfort Hospital v. the Health Services Restructuring Commission of Ontario, which was still before the Ontario Court of Appeal at the writing of this report. In this case, the applicants were contesting the Ontario Government's decision to close the only fully Francophone hospital in the Ottawa region.

One of the legal arguments brought forward by Montfort Hospital lawyers and the intervenors who supported their position was the underlying or unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities set out in the Reference re Secession of Québec1.. Although the Reference did not deal directly with language rights, the right of minorities to protection that stemmed from the case would appear to have major repercussions on language rights case law. This is what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject of these principles, on page 229 of the Reference:

Underlying constitutional principles may in certain circumstances give rise to substantive legal obligations (have "full legal force," as we described it in the Patriation Reference, supra, at p. 845), which constitute substantive limitations upon government action. These principles may give rise to very abstract and general obligations, or they may be more specific and precise in nature. The principles are not merely descriptive, but are also invested with a powerful normative force, and are binding upon both courts and governments.

In November 1999, the Ontario Division Court based its decision on this principle in Montfort Hospital to invalidate the directives of Ontario's Health Services Restructuring Commission. During the current financial year, the Program granted funding to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, à l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario and the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario (Toronto) to intervene in favour of the applicants/respondents (Montfort Hospital et. al.) before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

8.0 Closing Comments

The tables at the end of the annual report demonstrate that the number and diversity of funding applications in the area of language rights have continued to rise markedly in the past year. The Program foresees that the number of applications will continue to climb, over the coming year in view of the reticence of some provincial and territorial governments to honour the constitutional rights of their official language minorities.

In closing, it should be noted that language rights continue to change rapidly and that these changes are mainly favourable to linguistic minority groups. The Program will continue to play a leading role in ensuring that the constitutional language rights of Canada's official language minority groups continue to build on these positive developments.

1. The other underlying principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Reference were the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. List of Authorities

Arsenault-Cameron et al. v. the Government of Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3.

Doucet-Boudreau v. the Government of Nova Scotia (Department of Education), [2000] N.S.J. No. 191.

Fédération franco-ténoise et al. v. Canada, [2000] Federal Court of Canada No. T-110-00.

Commissioner of Official Languages v. the Queen et al. (Justice Canada), Federal Court of Canada No. T-2170-98.

Gisèle Lalonde, Michelle de Courville-Nicol and Hôpital Montfort v. the Health Services Restructuring Commission of Ontario, [1999] Ontario Division Court decision, rendered in November 1999.

Mahé v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342.

Mario Charlebois v. John R. Mowat, the City of Moncton et al., (New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench), Trial Division judgment. New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, June 23, 2000, brought before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Reference re Secession of Québec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.

Solski v. the Government of Québec, [2000] Q.L.R. 218. Part IV Statistical Highlights Table 1 Breakdown of Equality Applications Received October 24, 1994 - March 31, 2001

Province/Territory Yukon % of Canadian Population 0.1

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 0 % of Applications 0.0

1997/1998 1 % of Applications 0.7

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 1 % of Applications 0.7

Total 2 % of Applications 0.2

Province/Territory Nunavut (Nunavut became a Territory in April 1999) % of Canadian Population 0.1

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 0 % of Applications 0.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 0 % of Applications 0.0

Total 0 % of Applications 0.0

Province/Territory Northwest Territories % of Canadian Population 0.1

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 2 % of Applications 2.3

1996/1997 0 % of Applications 0.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 0 % of Applications 0.0

Total 2 % of Applications 0.2

Province/Territory British Columbia % of Canadian Population 12.9

1994/1995 16 % of Applications 28.1

1995/1996 14 % of Applications 15.9

1996/1997 17 % of Applications 15.0

1997/1998 16 % of Applications 11.5

1998/1999 17 % of Applications 13.6

1999/2000 15 % of Applications 11.5

2000/2001 9 % of Applications 6.0

Total 104 % of Applications 13.0

Province/Territory Alberta % of Canadian Population 9.3

1994/1995 5 % of Applications 8.8

1995/1996 7 % of Applications 8.0

1996/1997 8 % of Applications 7.1

1997/1998 13 % of Applications 9.4

1998/1999 10 % of Applications 8.0

1999/2000 15 % of Applications 11.5

2000/2001 12 % of Applications 8.0

Total 70 % of Applications 8.7

Province/Territory Saskatchewan % of Canadian Population 3.4

1994/1995 2 % of Applications 3.5

1995/1996 9 % of Applications 10.2

1996/1997 3 % of Applications 2.6

1997/1998 10 % of Applications 7.1

1998/1999 1 % of Applications 0.8

1999/2000 3 % of Applications 2.3

2000/2001 4 % of Applications 2.7

Total 32 % of Applications 4.0

Province/Territory Manitoba % of Canadian Population 3.8

1994/1995 7 % of Applications 12.3

1995/1996 15 % of Applications 17.0

1996/1997 11 % of Applications 9.7

1997/1998 25 % of Applications 18.0

1998/1999 24 % of Applications 19.2

1999/2000 24 % of Applications 18.3

2000/2001 17 % of Applications 11.3

Total 123 % of Applications 15.3

Province/Territory Ontario % of Canadian Population 37.6

1994/1995 19 % of Applications 33.3

1995/1996 29 % of Applications 33.0

1996/1997 45 % of Applications 39.8

1997/1998 54 % of Applications 38.8

1998/1999 49 % of Applications 39.2

1999/2000 52 % of Applications 39.7

2000/2001 63 % of Applications 42.0

Total 311 % of Applications 38.8

Province/Territory Quebec % of Canadian Population 24.7

1994/1995 3 % of Applications 5.2

1995/1996 5 % of Applications 5.7

1996/1997 15 % of Applications 13.2

1997/1998 13 % of Applications 9.4

1998/1999 16 % of Applications 12.8

1999/2000 10 % of Applications 7.6

2000/2001 27 % of Applications 18.0

Total 89 % of Applications 11.1

Province/Territory New Brunswick % of Canadian Population 2.5

1994/1995 3 % of Applications 5.2

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 6 % of Applications 5.3

1997/1998 1 % of Applications 0.7

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 3 % of Applications 2.0

Total 13 % of Applications 1.6

Province/Territory Nova Scotia % of Canadian Population 3.1

1994/1995 1 % of Applications 1.8

1995/1996 3 % of Applications 3.4

1996/1997 4 % of Applications 3.5

1997/1998 4 % of Applications 2.9

1998/1999 7 % of Applications 5.6

1999/2000 11 % of Applications 8.3

2000/2001 7 % of Applications 4.7

Total 37 % of Applications 4.6

Province/Territory Prince Edward Island % of Canadian Population 0.5

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 4 % of Applications 4.5

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 1.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 2 % of Applications 1.2

Total 7 % of Applications 0.9

Province/Territory Newfoundland/Labrador % of Canadian Population 1.9

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 2 % of Applications 1.8

1997/1998 2 % of Applications 1.5

1998/1999 1 % of Applications 0.8

1999/2000 1 % of Applications 0.8

2000/2001 4 % of Applications 2.7

Total 10 % of Applications 1.2

Province/Territory Any location outside of Canada % of Canadian Population

1994/1995 1 % of Applications 1.8

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 1.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 1 % of Applications 0.7

Total 3 % of Applications 0.4

Totals

% of Canadian Population 100

1994/1995 57 % of Applications 100

1995/1996 88 % of Applications 100

1996/1997 113 % of Applications 100

1997/1998 139 % of Applications 100

1998/1999 125 % of Applications 100

1999/2000 131 % of Applications 100

2000/2001 150 % of Applications 100

Total 803 % of Applications 100

Table 2 Breakdown of Equality Applications Received October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 8 column headings are as follows: 1994/1995 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 TOTAL) Aboriginal 9 19 21 33 15 39 29 165 Age 2 0 5 5 3 5 7 27 Citizenship 2 2 1 4 4 2 5 20 Colour/Race/National Origin/Ethnicity -- Colour 0 7 6 4 0 0 0 17 -- Race 0 0 2 9 17 16 24 68 -- National Origin 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 9 -- Ethnicity 2 1 6 4 9 2 7 31 -- General (Note a) 2 5 9 3 3 0 0 22 Disability 7 12 10 19 17 13 17 95 Family/Marital/Parental 3 6 6 4 6 5 7 37 Geography 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 7 Language 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 Poverty 4 6 5 6 10 6 12 49 Prisoner/Criminal Record 5 2 3 3 6 9 6 34 Refugee 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Religion 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 Section 15 General 3 2 8 9 2 2 1 27 Sex 3 6 9 16 18 14 13 79 Sexual Orientation 6 10 10 9 6 7 8 56 Transgendered 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 7 Unknown (Note b) 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Other (Note c) 5 4 3 6 5 9 9 41

TOTAL 57 88 113 139 125 131 150 803

Note a: Applications involving all of the following grounds of discrimination: colour, race, national origin and ethnic origin.

Note b: Applications involving no known ground for discrimination.

Note c: Applications involving a ground of discrimination other than those listed in this table.

Table 3 Breakdown of Decisions Made by the Equality Rights Panel from October 24, 1994 - March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 5 column headings are as follows: Decision Pending, Panel/Admin Rejection, Applicant Withdrawn, Panel Granted, Total)

Aboriginal 12 18 8 127 165

Age 1 6 2 18 27

Citizenship 0 6 3 11 20

Colour/Race/National Origin/Ethnicity

-- Colour 0 5 2 10 17

-- Race 6 9 1 52 68

-- National Origin 0 4 2 3 9

-- Ethnicity 1 10 2 18 31

-- General (Note a) 0 1 2 19 22

Disability 5 23 5 62 95

Family/Marital/Parental 2 17 3 15 37

Geography 1 5 0 1 7

Language 0 2 0 2 4

Poverty 3 12 4 30 49

Prisoner/Criminal Record 1 9 2 22 34

Refugee 1 0 0 0 1

Religion 0 4 0 0 4

Section 15 General 1 1 1 24 27

Sex 6 19 4 50 79

Sexual Orientation 1 7 4 44 56

Transgendered 0 2 1 4 7

Unknown (Note b) 0 2 1 0 3

Other (Note c) 10 19 4 8 41

TOTAL 51 181 (Note d) 51 520 (Note e) 803

Acceptance Rate = 74.2%

Note a: Applications involving all of the following grounds of discrimination: colour, race, national origin and ethnic origin.

Note b: Applications involving no known ground for discrimination.

Note c: Applications involving a ground of discrimination other than those listed in this table.

Note d: See table 5 for a further breakdown

Note e: See table 4 for a further breakdown

Table 4 Breakdown of Type of Funding Granted by the Equality Rights Panel from October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 5 column headings are as follows: Case Development, Case Funding, Impact Study, Program Promotion and Access and Negotiation, Total)

Aboriginal 39 71 6 10 126

Age 5 11 0 2 18

Citizenship 2 7 0 2 11

Colour/Race/National Origin/Ethnicity

-- Colour 2 6 0 2 10

-- Race 9 15 1 27 52

-- National Origin 2 1 0 0 3

-- Ethnicity 5 7 0 6 18

-- General (Note a) 5 5 0 9 19

Disability 17 30 5 10 62

Family/Marital/Parental 4 11 0 0 15

Geography 0 0 0 1 1

Language 1 1 0 0 2

Poverty 8 10 0 12 30

Prisoner/Criminal Record 7 12 1 2 22

Refugee 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0

Section 15 General 1 6 0 17 24

Sex 8 24 1 18 51

Sexual Orientation 7 22 3 12 44

Transgendered 1 0 0 3 4

Unknown (Note b) 0 0 0 0 0

Other (Note c) 0 1 2 5 8

TOTAL 123 240 (Note d) 19 138 520

Note a: Applications involving all of the following grounds of discrimination: colour, race, national origin and ethnic origin.

Note b: Applications involving no known ground for discrimination.

Note c: Applications involving a ground of discrimination other than those listed in this table.

Note d: See table 6 for a further breakdown

Table 5 Breakdown of Unsuccessful Equality Rights Applications from October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 5 column headings are as follows: No Federal Link (Note a), Not a Test Case (Note b), Duplication (Note c), Canadian Human Rights Act (Note d), Total)

Aboriginal 6 7 4 1 18

Age 2 3 1 0 6

Citizenship 2 3 1 0 6

Colour/Race/National Origin/Ethnicity

-- Colour 4 1 0 0 5

-- Race 4 4 1 0 9

-- National Origin 2 1 0 1 4

-- Ethnicity 2 7 0 1 10

-- General (Note e) 1 0 0 0 1

Disability 12 9 2 0 23

Family/Marital/Parental 5 11 0 1 17

Geography 1 4 0 0 5

Language 2 0 0 0 2

Poverty 10 1 1 0 12

Prisoner/Criminal Record 3 6 0 0 9

Refugee 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 3 1 0 0 4

Section 15 General 0 1 0 0 1

Sex 5 11 3 0 19

Sexual Orientation 0 2 5 0 7

Transgendered 0 1 0 1 2

Unknown (Note f) 2 0 0 0 2

Other (Note g) 13 6 0 0 19

TOTAL 79 79 18 5 181

Note a: The Program's Contribution Agreement states that cases which receive funding must challenge a Federal law, policy or practice and cannot challenge a provincial or territorial law, policy or practice. These applications did not receive funding because they did not meet this requirement. Either they challenged provincial government action or they did not challenge government action at all.

Note b: A "test case" is a legal case which deals with a problem or raises an argument that has not already been decided by the courts and has the potential to stop discrimination or improve the way the law works for members of a disadvantaged group or groups in Canada. These are applications where the Equality Rights Panel found that the proposed challenge was not a strong test case based on section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Common reasons leading to such a decision by the Panel are: the case, if successful, will benefit only the individual involved as opposed to a broader group of equality seekers; the case does not provide the opportunity to advance equality for an historically disadvantaged group; and/or the equality issue in the case has already been determined by the courts.

Note c: These applications covered legal issues already funded by the Program or already before the courts. The Program's Contribution Agreement does not allow it to fund such "duplicate" cases.

Note d: These applications involved complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Program's Contribution Agreement prevents it from funding such cases.

Note e: Applications involving all of the following grounds of discrimination: colour, race, national origin and ethnic origin.

Note f: Applications involving no known ground of discrimination.

Note g: Applications involving a ground of discrimination other than those listed in this table.

Table 6 Breakdown of Case Funding Granted by the Equality Rights Panel October 24, 1994 - March 31, 2001

Case Funding: Aboriginal First Instance 55 (5 interventions) Appeal 6 (2 intervention) Supreme Court of Canada 10 (8 interventions) Total 71

Case Funding: Age First Instance 6 Appeal 3 Supreme Court of Canada 2 (1 intervention) Total 11

Case Funding: Citizenship First Instance 2 Appeal 2 Supreme Court of Canada 3 (1 intervention) Total 7

Case Funding (Color/Race/National Origin/Ethnicity): Color First Instance 2 Appeal 1 Supreme Court of Canada 3 (2 interventions) Total 6

Case Funding: Race First Instance 6 (1 intervention) Appeal 3 (1 intervention) Supreme Court of Canada 6 (5 interventions) Total 15

Case Funding National Origin First Instance 1 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 1

Case Funding Ethnicity First Instance 5 (1 intervention) Appeal 2 (1 intervention) Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 7

Case Funding General (Note a) First Instance 2 (1 intervention) Appeal 2 (1 intervention) Supreme Court of Canada 1 Total 5

Case Funding Disability First Instance 12 (4 interventions) Appeal 10 (5 interventions) Supreme Court of Canada 8 (5 interventions) Total 30

Case Funding Family/Marital/Parental First Instance 7 Appeal 3 (1 intervention) Supreme Court of Canada 1 (1 intervention) Total 11

Case Funding Geography First Instance 0 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 0

Case Funding Language First Instance 1 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 1

Case Funding Poverty First Instance 6 Appeal 2 Supreme Court of Canada 2 (2 interventions) Total 10

Case Funding Prisoner/Criminal Record First Instance 3 Appeal 4 (3 interventions) Supreme Court of Canada 5 (4 interventions) Total 12

Case Funding Refugee First Instance 0 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 0

Case Funding Religion First Instance 0 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 0

Case Funding Section 15 General First Instance 1 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 5 (4 interventions) Total 6

Case Funding Sex First Instance 10 (1 intervention) Appeal 5 (3 interventions) Supreme Court of Canada 9 (7 interventions) Total 24

Case Funding Sexual Orientation First Instance 10 (1 intervention) Appeal 8 (5 interventions) Supreme Court of Canada 4 (3 interventions) Total 22

Case Funding Unknown (Note b) First Instance 0 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 0

Case Funding Other (Note c) First Instance 1 Appeal 0 Supreme Court of Canada 0 Total 1

Case Funding Total First Instance 130 Appeal 51 Supreme Court of Canada 59 Total 240

Note a: Applications involving all of the following grounds of discrimination: colour, race, national origin and ethnic origin.

Note b: Applications involving no known ground for discrimination.

Note c: Applications involving a ground of discrimination other than those listed in this table.

Table 7 Breakdown of Language Applications Received October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

Province/Territory Yukon % of Canadian Population 0.1

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 4.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 3 % of Applications 6.5

2000/2001 1 % of Applications 2.0

Total 5 % of Applications 2.4

Province/Territory Nunavut (Nunavut became a Territory in April 1999.) % of Canadian Population 0.1

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 0.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 1 % of Applications 2.4

2000/2001 0 % of Applications 0.0

Total 1 % of Applications 0.5

Province/Territory Northwest Territories % of Canadian Population 0.1

1994/1995 1 % of Applications 7.1

1995/1996 1 % of Applications 4.3

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 4.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 2 % of Applications 4.3

2000/2001 5 % of Applications 10.0

Total 10 % of Applications 4.7

Province/Territory British Columbia % of Canadian Population 12.9

1994/1995 1 % of Applications 7.1

1995/1996 3 % of Applications 13.1

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 4.0

1997/1998 1 % of Applications 3.7

1998/1999 0 % of Applications 0.0

1999/2000 1 % of Applications 2.4

2000/2001 0 % of Applications 0.0

Total 7 % of Applications 3.3

Province/Territory Alberta % of Canadian Population 9.3

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 3 % of Applications 13.1

1996/1997 0 % of Applications 0.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 3 % of Applications 11.5

1999/2000 5 % of Applications 10.7

2000/2001 3 % of Applications 6.0

Total 14 % of Applications 6.7

Province/Territory Saskatchewan % of Canadian Population 3.4

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 1 % of Applications 4.3

1996/1997 0 % of Applications 0.0

1997/1998 2 % of Applications 7.4

1998/1999 1 % of Applications 3.9

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 0 % of Applications 0.0

Total 4 % of Applications 1.9

Province/Territory Manitoba % of Canadian Population 3.8

1994/1995 2 % of Applications 14.3

1995/1996 4 % of Applications 17.5

1996/1997 6 % of Applications 24.0

1997/1998 1 % of Applications 3.7

1998/1999 7 % of Applications 23.1

1999/2000 11 % of Applications 26.1

2000/2001 10 % of Applications 20.0

Total 41 % of Applications 19.4

Province/Territory Ontario % of Canadian Population 37.6

1994/1995 7 % of Applications 50.1

1995/1996 1 % of Applications 4.3

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 4.1

1997/1998 9 % of Applications 33.3

1998/1999 8 % of Applications 27.0

1999/2000 4 % of Applications 10.7

2000/2001 7 % of Applications 14.0

Total 37 % of Applications 17.5

Province/Territory Qubébec % of Canadian Population 24.7

1994/1995 1 % of Applications 7.1

1995/1996 5 % of Applications 21.7

1996/1997 6 % of Applications 24.0

1997/1998 6 % of Applications 22.2

1998/1999 2 % of Applications 3.9

1999/2000 7 % of Applications 17.4

2000/2001 8 % of Applications 16.0

Total 35 % of Applications 16.6

Province/Territory New Brunswick % of Canadian Population 2.5

1994/1995 2 % of Applications 14.3

1995/1996 2 % of Applications 8.7

1996/1997 3 % of Applications 12.0

1997/1998 8 % of Applications 29.7

1998/1999 1 % of Applications 3.9

1999/2000 6 % of Applications 13.0

2000/2001 11 % of Applications 22.0

Total 33 % of Applications 15.6

Province/Territory Nova Scotia % of Canadian Population 3.1

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 0 % of Applications 0.0

1996/1997 3 % of Applications 12.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 2 % of Applications 7.6

1999/2000 3 % of Applications 6.5

2000/2001 2 % of Applications 4.0

Total 10 % of Applications 4.7

Province/Territory Prince Edward Island % of Canadian Population 0.5

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 2 % of Applications 8.7

1996/1997 1 % of Applications 4.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 3 % of Applications 11.5

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 0 % of Applications 0.0

Total 6 % of Applications 2.9

Province/Territory Newfoundland Labrador % of Canadian Population 1.9

1994/1995 0 % of Applications 0.0

1995/1996 1 % of Applications 4.3

1996/1997 2 % of Applications 8.0

1997/1998 0 % of Applications 0.0

1998/1999 2 % of Applications 7.6

1999/2000 0 % of Applications 0.0

2000/2001 3 % of Applications 6.0

Total 8 % of Applications 3.8

Totals

% of Canadian Population 100

1994/1995 14 % of Applications 100

1995/1996 23 % of Applications 100

1996/1997 25 % of Applications 100

1997/1998 27 % of Applications 100

1998/1999 29 % of Applications 100

1999/2000 43 % of Applications 100

2000/2001 50 % of Applications 100

Total 211 % of Applications 100

Table 8 Breakdwon of Language Applications Received October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 8 column headings are as follows: 1994/1995 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 TOTAL)

Education Rights 11 14 19 14 16 26 111 Judicial Rights 1 3 2 1 2 5 0 14 Language of Work, Communication and Service 1 6 6 6 3 9 13 44 Legislative Bilingualism 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 9 Other 0 1 1 1 8 12 10 33

TOTAL 14 23 25 27 29 43 50 211

Table 9 Breakdown of Decisions Made by the Language Rights Panel From October 24, 1994 - March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 5 column headings are as follows: Decision Pending, Panel/Admin Rejection, Applicant Withdrawn, Panel Granted, Total) Education Rights 9 13 2 87 111 Judicial Rights 0 4 2 8 14 Language of Work, Communication and Service 1 7 0 36 44 Legislative Bilingualism 0 4 0 5 9 Other 1 6 0 26 33

TOTAL 11 34 (see note a. below) 4 162 (see note b. below) 211

Transcriber's note a. See Table 11 for a further breakdown.

Transcriber's note a. See Table 10 for a further breakdown.

Table 10 Breakdown of Type of Funding Granted by the Language Rights Panel From October 24, 1994 - March 31, 2001

Transcriber's note: the 5 column headings are as follows: Case Development, Case Funding, Impact Study, Program Promotion & Access and Negotiation, Total)

Education Rights 15 50 6 16 87

Judicial Rights 2 5 1 0 8

Language of Work,

Communication and Service 12 17 1 6 36

Legislative Bilingualism 1 3 1 0 5

Other 3 8 6 9 26

TOTAL 33 83(see note a. below) 15 31 162

Transcriber's note a. See Table 12 for a further breakdown.

Table 11

Breakdown of Unsuccessful Language Rights Applications

October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

Transcriber's note: the 5 column headings are as follows:

No Constitutional Link (see note a. below), Not a Test Case(see note b. below), Duplication (see note c. below), Other (see note d. below), Total)

Education Rights 5 2 2 7 13

Judicial Rights 2 1 0 1 4

Language of Work,

Communication and Service 1 3 2 1 7

Legislative Bilingualism 2 1 0 1 4

Other 3 1 0 2 6

TOTAL 13 8 4 9 34

Transcriber's note a. The Program's Contribution Agreement states that cases which receive funding must advance official language minority rights as guaranteed by the interpretation or application of section 93 or 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or as guaranteed in section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, sections 16 to 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or parallel constitutional provisions.

Transcriber's note b. A "test case" is a legal case which deals with a problem or raises an argument for the resolution of a linguistic rights issue. These are applications where the Language Rights Panel found that the proposed challenge was not a strong test case. Common reasons leading to such a decision by the Panel are: the case, if successful, will benefit only the individual involved as opposed to a broader group of official language minorities; the case does not provide the opportunity to advance the linguistic rights of the official language minority; and/or the language issue in the case has already been determined by the courts.

Transcriber's note c. These applications covered legal issues already funded by the Program or already before the courts. The Program's Contribution Agreement does not allow it to fund such "duplicate" cases.

Transcriber's note d. Applications involving a reason other than those listed in this table.

Table 12 Breakdown of Case Funding Granted by the Language Rights Panel October 24, 1994 to March 31, 2001

(Transcriber's note: the 4 column headings are as follows: First Instance, Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada, Total)

First Instance: Education Rights 33 (9 interventions) Judicial Rights 3 Language of Work and Service 13 (1 intervention) Legislative Bilingualism 1 Other 1 Total 51

Appeal level: Education Rights 11 (8 interventions) Judicial Rights 1 (1 intervention) Language of Work and Service 4 (1 intervention) Legislative Bilingualism 1 (1 intervention) Other 5 (3 intervention) Total 22

SCC Level: Education Rights 6 (5 interventions) Judicial Rights 1 (1 intervention) Language of Work and Service 0 Legislative Bilingualism 1 (1 intervention) Other 2 (1 intervention) Total 10

Grand total: Education Rights 50 Judicial Rights 5 Language of Work and Service 17 Legislative Bilingualism 3 Other 8 Total 83

PART V - RESOURCES

The Court Challenges Program has developed various information materials to promote the Program and its objectives. The following documents are available to the public for free upon request.

Annual Reports

1994/1995 Annual Report - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a report of the activities undertaken by the Program from the time of its reinstatement to March 31, 1995. Available in English, French and on computer diskette.

1995/96 Annual Report - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a report of the activities undertaken by the Program from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996. ISBN #1-896894-00-3 Available in English, French and on computer diskette.

1996/97 Annual Report - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a report of the activities undertaken by the Program from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997. ISBN #1-896894-02-X Available in English, French and on computer diskette.

1997/98 Annual Report - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a report of the activities undertaken by the Program from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998. ISBN #1-896894-04-6 Available in English, French and on computer diskette.

1998/99 Annual Report - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a report of the activities undertaken by the Program from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1998. ISBN #1-896894-06-2 Available in English, French and on computer diskette.

1999/00 Annual Report - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a report of the activities undertaken by the Program from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. ISBN #1-896894-06-2 Available in English, French and on computer diskette.

Brochures

Court Challenges Program of Canada - a brochure on the mandate and the different types of funding available from the Program. Available in English, French, audio-tape, large print, braille or on computer diskette.

Your Right to Equality - a brochure on equality rights and the Court Challenges Program. Available in English, French, audio-tape, large print, braille or on computer diskette.

Information Kit - Court Challenges Program of Canada - a series of information sheets which explain how to apply for funding from the Court Challenges Program. Available in English, French, audio-tape, large print, braille or on computer diskette.

Papers

Charter Litigating for Racial Equality, Nitya Iyer, February 1996 - The paper discusses the comparative absence of Charter s. 15 cases of racial inequality. Available in French and English.

L'article 23 et les défis de l'éducation pour la minorité linguistique francophone : Frondeurs et Tyrans, Jean Pierre Dubé, Novembre 1999 - The paper reviews the state of education for French-language minorities and outlines the challenges to be overcome in the area of French-language education for minority francophone communities. Available in French.

L'Entente sur l'union sociale et ses conséquences sur les communautés minoritaires de langue officielle, François Boileau, November 1999 - Mr. Boileau gives a brief description of the Social Union Framework Agreement and explains the effects of federal spending on official language minority communities. Available in French.

Le bilan des droits linguistiques au Canada, Benoît Pelletier, Août 1995 - The study examines the state of language rights in Canada to August 1995. Available in French.

Les changements économiques et les communautés minoritaires de langue française, Jean Guy Vienneau, November 1999 - This paper describes the current economic situation of Canada's French-language minority communities and proposes a variety of solutions that would enable these communities to meet future economic challenges. Available in French.

Les élements essentiels pour avoir des communautés minoritaires vibrantes de langue officielle, Rodrigue Landry, PhD, November 1999 - Using a theoretical model and concrete examples, Dr. Landry lists and explains the political, demographic, cultural and economic factors that are needed to sustain healthy minority linguistic communities. Available in French.

Les transformations gouvernementales et les communautés minoritaires de langues officielle, Linda Cardinal, Political Science Department, University of Ottawa, November 1999 - This paper summarizes the Savoie and Fontaine reports on the impact of government transformations on official language minority communities and sets out some implementation strategies that might be pursued. Available in French.

Official-Language Minorities: Demographic Trends, Charles Castonguay, Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, July 20, 1999 - The paper discusses the demographic trends in official language minority communities and the need to adopt a strategy to counter the effects of assimilation. Available in French and English.

Section 15 in the New Millennium: The Recognition of Human Dignity and Substantive Equality, Norma Won, August 1999 - This paper analyzes the Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) decision and discusses its current and future impact for equality seeking communities. Available in French and English.

Sections 16, 20 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Unanswered Questions, Richard L. Tardif, Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, August 1999 - Mr. Tardif reviews unanswered questions arising out of Sections 16, 20 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Available in French and English.

The Equality Guarantee of the Charter in the 1990's, Gwen Brodsky, April 19, 1996 - This paper provides an overview of equality rights litigation issues, concentrating on developments subsequent to 1992 when the original Court Challenges Program was cancelled. Available in French and English.

Transcending Language, Transforming Context: Reclaiming Charter(ed) Territory, Norma Won, August 1998 - Ms Won discusses the strengths and limitations of the interpretation of Equality Under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Available in French and English.

Transformations technologiques et l'évolution des communautés minoritaires de langue officielle, Sylvio Boudreau, Fondation Concept Art Multimedia, November 1999 - Mr. Boudreau takes a quick look at current technological changes and discusses how francophone minorities are making use of the Internet. Available in French.

Working Together Across Our Differences, Avvy Go and John Fisher, August 1998 - This paper discusses various experiences and lessons learned when community groups participate in coalition-building, participatory litigation and strategic litigation. Available in French and English

The Court Challenges Web Site

The Program has also developed a Web Site at http://www.ccppcj.ca. Information contained on the site includes the following materials:

- the Program's organizational chart,
- the Program's general brochure,
- Your Right to Equality brochure,
- the information kit,
- biographies of Board members, Panel members and staff, and
- information about the Program's logo.

In addition to the on-going collection of Program materials, links to other web sites, and other information is available in the library. The library also contains an alphabetical listing of key words and can be searched for words or phrases. The site also contains a discussion area called "Law Talk/Parlons droit". Interested people can contribute to the dialogue or catch up on a discussion about equality and language rights in Canada.