Section Thirty of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Judicial Interpretation

Judicial Interpretation

In the case Fédération Franco-ténoise v. Canada (C.A.) (2001), the Federal Court of Appeal discussed section 30 when it rejected the government of the Northwest Territories' claim that the territory now had legal power and independence similar to those of the provinces. (The purpose of this claim was to avoid the obligations of providing official language rights under the Charter, which the federal government has to do but no provinces besides New Brunswick have to do). The territorial government based its theory in Parliament's treatment of the territories, which was becoming more like how it treated the provinces. Some of Parliament's laws had been designed so that they would not be applicable in the territories. Moreover, section 30 created another similarity between the provinces and territories. However, the Court replied that section 30 of the Charter creates similarities between provinces and territories only in regard to the reading of the Charter. Moreover, section 31, which stipulates that the Charter does not increase powers of legislative bodies, indicates section 30 cannot increase the powers of the territorial legislature to the extent that a territory can achieve equality with the provinces. However, the Court also rejected the claim by those who had brought legal action against the territorial government that section 30 is limited by section 32; together these two sections simply mean that the Charter applies to all territorial laws.

Earlier, in 1983, similar arguments were made to achieve section 20 rights in the Yukon, so that traffic tickets could be available in the French language. It was argued sections 30 and 32 should together indicate such rights exist in the territories. The courts dismissed the argument since a literal reading of section 20 shows it bounds only the federal government (and New Brunswick), not the territorial governments.