English translation of reasons for judgment in Droits collectifs Québec c. Canada (Cour suprême), unpublished decision dated January 15, 2026

Translated

Original text: Federal Court file T-2936-24 document number 126 retrieved (see Reproduction of Federal Law Order, SI/97-5).

This translation is not an authoritative English language translation.

Date:

File: T-2936-24

Ottawa (Ontario), January 15, 2026

Presiding: Case Management Judge Sylvie M. Molgat

BETWEEN:

DROITS COLLECTIFS QUÉBEC and
ETIENNE-ALEXIS BOUCHER

Plaintiffs

and

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Defendant

JUDGMENT

HAVING CONSIDERED the motion in writing, submitted by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada [Commissioner] pursuant to Rules 109 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules], which seeks:

  1. (i) leave to intervene on the interpretation of the Official Languages Act, RSC 1985, c. 31 [OLA], in particular in relation to the application of Part III of the OLA on the online publication of judicial decisions or in the alternative, the scope of Part IV;
  2. (ii) leave to take procedural steps necessary to intervene, in particular leave to file a memorandum, leave to make oral submissions at the hearing and leave to appeal decisions of the Court in the matter, subject to the following conditions:
    1. (a) The Commissioner shall serve and file a preliminary memorandum by December 23, 2025; and
    2. (b) the commissioner shall not be entitled to costs and ask that costs not be awarded against it;
  3. (iii) a modification to the style of cause to add the commissioner as an intervenor in the file; and
  4. (iv) any other order the Court deems just.

HAVING CONSIDERED the motion dossier of the Commissioner, the response dossier of the defendant and the Commissioner's reply submissions, which were served and filed pursuant to a Court directive dated December 17, 2025;

AND HAVING CONSIDERED that the plaintiffs did not respond to the Commissioner's motion;

CONSIDERING that the current proceeding has its roots as a complaint from one of the plaintiffs to the Commissioner of Official Languages in December 2023. The commissioner conducted an investigation following this complaint and concluded that the complaint was well-founded;

CONSIDERING that the application filed by Droits collectifs Québec and Étienne-Alexis Boucher is an application for recourse pursuant to s. 77 of the OLA seeking a declaration that the defendant has not fulfilled its language obligations proscribed by the OLA, violated the language rights of the plaintiffs and in a similar manner, "a fait défaut de respecter et de veiller au respect des droits linguistiques de l'ensemble des citoyens et communautés Francophones du Canada" ("has failed to respect and safeguard the language rights of all Francophone citizens and communities across Canada").

CONSIDERING that in terms of relief, pursuant to s. 77(4) of the OLA, the plaintiffs seek "une lettre d'excuses formelle et officielle adressée aux citoyens et communautés Francophones du Canada pour avoir déconsidéré et enfreint leurs droits linguistiques et leur accessibilité à la justice en raison de son défaut de rendre l'ensemble de la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême disponible en langue française" ("a formal letter of apology addressed to the Francophone citizens and communities of Canada for having disrespected and infringed on their language rights and their access to justice due to their failure to publish the complete jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in French"), an order requiring the defendant to translate all pre-1970 Supreme Court of Canada [SCC] decisions that remain available on its website only in English and damages of one million ($1,000,000) dollars.

CONSIDERING that the Court file shows that:

  1. (i) The plaintiffs filed the notice of application on November 1, 2024.
  2. (ii) On June 25, 2025, the Court issued a directive fixing a timeline for the parties to serve and file their dossiers;
  3. (iii) On June 26, 2025, the Judicial Administrator issued an order under direction from the Chief Justice, setting the hearing date of this proceeding to October 27, 2025;
  4. (iv) On July 25, 2025, the plaintiffs served and filed its dossier pursuant to Rule 309;
  5. (v) On September 5, 2025, the defendant served and filed a motion for leave to file an additional affidavit and a motion to extend the time limit to serve and file its dossier to September 5, 2025, pursuant to Rule 310. The defendant included, with its motion dossier, its late dossier which was filed by the registry on September 5, 2025;
  6. (vi) On September 12, 2025, the Court issued a directive removing the plaintiffs'TR1 dossier from the Court file pending a decision on the motion to extend the deadline;
  7. (vii) On October 2, 2025, the Judicial Administrator issued a new order under direction from the Chief Justice, adjourning the hearing of this proceeding to January 21, 2026;
  8. (viii) On November 5, 2025, Deputy Judge Denise A. LeBlanc allowed the defendant's motion and ordered that the defendant's dossier submitted to the registry on September 5, 2025 be formally filed on that date;
  9. (ix) On December 3, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their own motion for leave to file an additional affidavit. The parties were advised by a directive dated December 17, 2025 that this motion would be decided by the judge presiding at the hearing on the merits at a time he/she deems appropriate.
  10. (x) On December 12, 2025, the Commissioner communicated its intention to file a motion for leave to intervene in this proceeding;
  11. (xi) On December 16, 2025, the Commissioner served and filed its intervention motion dossier;

CONSIDERING that anyone seeking leave to intervene in a proceeding must explain, in its notice of motion, how it intends to participate in the proceeding, and "how that participation will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding". Compliance with s. 109 and its listed conditions are mandatory: Pictou Landing First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 21 at para. 10; Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 102 [Tsleil-Waututh] at para. 31;

CONSIDERING that to satisfy the requirements of s. 109(2) of the Rules, a proposed intervenor must "show its potential contribution to the advancement of the issues on the table, not how it will change the issues on the table": Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, 2015 FCA 34 [Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care] at para. 19;

CONSIDERING that the test for intervention pursuant to s. 109 of the Rules has three elements or criteria, those being usefulness, genuine interest and the interests of justice: Le-Vel Brands, LLC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 66 at paras. 7 and 19; Chelsea (Municipality) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 179 [Chelsea] at para. 9;

CONSIDERING, in particular, that jurisprudence has clarified the following criteria and questions (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 13 [Canadian Council for Refugees] at paras. 6 and 9; Chelsea at para. 9):

  1. I. The proposed intervener will make different and useful submissions, insights and perspectives that will further the Court's determination of the legal issues raised by the parties to the proceeding, not new issues. To determine usefulness, four questions need to be asked:
    1. (a) What issues have the parties raised?
    2. (b) What does the proposed intervener intend to submit concerning those issues?
    3. (c) Are the proposed intervener's submissions doomed to fail?
    4. (d) Will the proposed intervener's arguable submissions assist the determination of the actual, real issues in the proceeding?
  2. II. The proposed intervener must have a genuine interest in the matter before the Court such that the Court can be assured that the proposed intervener has the necessary knowledge, skills and resources and will dedicate them to the matter before the Court;
  3. III. It is in the interests of justice that intervention be permitted. In the determination of the interests of justice, the Court may consider, inter alia: (a) whether the intervention is compatible with s. 3 of the Rules (for example, whether the proceeding's progression or schedule be unduly disrupted); (b) whether the proceeding involves an important or complex question of public interest such that the Court ought to expose itself to perspectives other than those of the existing parties; (c) whether granting leave to multiple intervenors would lead to an "inequality of means" or an imbalance to one side or the apperance of such.

CONSIDERING that these criteria must be applied with flexibility and the weight of each criterion depends on the circumstances of the proceeding. The list of criteria is not exhaustive and it is not necessary to satisfy all of them. At the end of the day, the main consideration is whether the interests of justice require the Court to grant or deny leave to intervene: Canadian Council for Refugees at para. 7;

CONSIDERING that the raised issues are found in the notice of application. The plaintiff is required to include a specific statement of orders sought, as well as a complete and concise statement of supporting reasons. A proposed intervenor must take those issues as-is and may not change or add to them: Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care at paras. 18-21;

CONSIDERING that intervenors in an application for judicial review must accept the file as-is and may not submit evidence directly or indirectly through submissions of facts or law. The proposed intervenor must limit its submissions to how it can assist the Court based on the existing evidence on file: Tsleil-Waututh at paras. 54-56; Teksavvy Solutions Inc. v. Bell Media Inc., 2020 FCA 108 [Teksavvy] at paras. 11 and 22; Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care.

CONSIDERING that the Commissioner is a federal ombudsperson and it exercise the powers that the OLA confers on it. Pursuant to s. 78(3) of the OLA, it has the power to "seek leave to intervene in any judicial proceedings relating to the status or use of English or French" and in this way, has been granted intervenor status pursuant to Rule 109 of the Rules in several proceedings before this Court and the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the application and interpretation of the OLA.

CONSIDERING that the commissioner submits in its notice of motion that it can provide a different perspective from those of the parties; that its participant will assist the Court in framing important and complex questions of rights relevant to the matter and that its intervention will clarify the principles of interpretation of language rights to ensure that Part IV rights have full effect;

CONSIDERING that, in its affidavit in support of this motion, the Commissioner affirms that in addition to its investigations of publication of federal tribunal decisions on the internet, a large number of complaints relate to general services and information provided online. Therefore, the Court's interpretation of the scope of the obligations imposed on institutions providing communications and services on their webistes or other electronic medium is of great interest to it;

CONSIDERING that the Commissioner affirms that its intervention is justified, in particular because it can provide the Court a comprehensive submission on it and its predecessors' interpretation on the application of Part IV of the OLA regarding the online publication of decisions;

CONSIDERING that the Commissioner affirms that its intervention is also justified to ensure that there is consistency with the online publication of information generally and that it believes that its presence is necessary to give further details regarding the complex issues raised by the application;

CONSIDERING, in regards to the first criterion and the questions to determine the usefulness of the proposed intervention, the issues raised by the parties focus on the interpretation of Parts III and IV of the OLA. In particular, the meanings of the notions of "services" and "communications" to the public in ss. 21 and 22 of the OLA are contested. If the Court determines that the defendant is not compliant with the OLA, the parties contest whether the relief sought is [TRANSLATED] "appropriate and just";

CONSIDERING that if it is granted intervenor status, the Commissioner intends to advance arguments on the two following points: (a) Part IV is more applicable than Part III in regards to the publication of judicial decisions on the defendant's website because the publication constitutes a service or a communication as described in Part IV of the OLA; and (b) contrary to paragraph 84 of the defendant's memorandum, the term "communicate" in Part IV of the OLA includes both one-way and two-way communications;

CONSIDERING that the Court agrees with the defendant that Commissioner's proposed submissions are essentially a reformulation of the issues raised by the parties and that the Commissioner does not clarify how its interpretation differs from those of the parties or how it is presenting a new and useful opinion which will assist the Court in its decision;

CONSIDERING that Court is also of the view that the Commissioner's observations have already been covered by both the parties in their memorandums and in the documentary evidence, in particular the Commissioner's Preliminary Investigative Report (D-4), the Commissioner's Final Follow-up Report of Recommendations (D-8) and the Final Report of Recommendations (D-9);

CONSIDERING that even if its submissions are not doomed to fail, that alone is insufficient to discharge the Commissioner's burden to demonstrate that its submissions are actually distinct from those of the plaintiffs and to show how its perspective in the matter would be useful and assist the determination of a question of fact or law in the proceeding;

CONSIDERING that the Court finds that the Commissioner's proposed submissions are not sufficiently distinct to assist the Court in deciding the actual, real issues in the proceeding;

CONSIDERING that the Commissioner has not persuaded the Court that its intervention would be useful. For this sole reason, the motion is dismissed;

CONSIDERING however that in the second criterion of genuine interest, the defendant submits that the Commissioner's interest in this proceeding appears to be a jurisprudential interest and that this type of interest alone is insufficient to satify the tests for intervention (Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, 2025 FCA 170 at para. 7);

CONSIDERING, with respect, that the Court disagrees with the defendant on this point and accepts that the Commissioner has a genuine interest in this matter and that it possesses the necessary resources and competence. However, a genuine interest alone does not justify granting leave to intervene;

CONSIDERING that, in regards to the third criterion, the Court must decide whether it is in the interests of justice to allow the motion to intervene;

CONSIDERING that the defendant alleges a lack of urgency on the part of the Commissioner in filing the present motion and maintains that if the proceeding were as important to the Commissioner as it claims, there is no reason that its motion shouldn't have been filed earlier;

CONSIDERING that motions to intervene must be submitted promptly since late interventions can disrupt the orderly progression of a proceeding and cause prejudice and that: "[t]hose really concerned about a proceeding, who have much to say about it, and who are concerned that no one else will say it, proceed quickly": Canadian Council for Refugees at paras. 21-22, citing ViiV Healthcare ULC v. Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FCA 33 at para. 11; Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care at para. 28.

CONSIDERING that this proceeding has been subject to extensive media coverage since its filing on November 1, 2024, notably in Le Devoir, La Presse and on Radio-Canada and that the Commissioner has had knowledge of this matter and the issues being raised for thirteen (13) months;

CONSIDERING that, given the steps taken in the proceeding as reflected in the file, the Court finds that the delay until December 16, 2025 to file this motion has not been clearly explained by the Commissioner nor been justified by the circumstances of the proceeding;

CONSIDERING that even if the Court accepts that it is reasonable to examine the parties' memorandums before asking for intervenor status, the parties' memorandums have been available since September 5, 2025 and there has been no explanation to justify the ten (10) week delay to file this motion on December 16, one (1) month before the hearing on the merits;

CONSIDERING that the Commissioner's motion was served and filed three (3) days before the court's seasonal holidays, requiring the Court to issue a directive pursuant to s. 6(3) of the Rules and forcing the registry to work quickly to ensure the motion was presented to the Court for a decision in a short amount of time to accommodate the upcoming hearing date;

CONSIDERING that the Court finds that the delay in filing this motion is incompatible with Rule 3 of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that, given the circumstances of the file and the tardy nature of the motion, the orderly progression and the timetable of the proceeding would be disrupted and possibly delayed. Thus, the Court finds that it is not in the interests of justice to grant the Commissioner leave to intervene in this proceeding;

AND CONSIDERING the Court's previous conclusion on the lack of usefulness of the proposed intervention, the motion is dismissed;

THE COURT ORDERS that the motion to intervene by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada is dismissed, without costs.

       "Sylvie M. Molgat"        Associate Judge

  1. TR1. Sic.