Newfoundland and Labrador’s largest airport authority says a recent Federal Court decision makes official language rules stricter at privatized airports than at those operated by the federal government.
The St. John’s International Airport Authority is appealing the ruling, which could have far-reaching consequences for airports across the country.
In April, Judge Sébastien Grammond ruled that the airport authority must communicate in English and French not only with travelers at the airport, but also with potential travellers, which means that all messages and documents accessible to the general public public must be translated.
He ordered the airport authority to pay $11,000 to Michel Thibodeau, a retired Ottawa-based civil servant who filed a series of complaints with the federal Commissioner of Official Languages because the airport failed to translate his annual reports, social media posts and parts of its website. .
Translation rules developed
Although violations frequently occur, it is widely accepted that airports welcoming more than one million travelers per year or located in a provincial capital must offer bilingual services to the “traveling public”, according to the Official Languages Act.
In its ruling, Grammond not only expanded the definition of “traveling public” beyond those who are at the airport to board a flight, but also ruled that the administrative offices of the airport authority should be considered as the “head office” of a “federal institution”, as determined by law.
This means that it must respect the same official languages rules as the central administration of federal departments. Any information made public, from press releases to annual reports, must be translated, regardless of local demand.
“This conclusion was an error of law”
The airport authority says airports are exempt from the ‘head office rule’ by the Airports Transfer Act, legislation passed in the 1990s when Ottawa privatized a number of government-run airports .
“This conclusion was an error of law. Parliament never intended to impose such a requirement,” reads a brief submitted to the Federal Court of Appeal by the airport authority. “If each privatized airport has a head office, then the OLA obligations of privatized airports would exceed those of airports that remain under Transport Canada operation.”
At government-run airports, the brief says, local administrative offices are not covered by the “head office” rule because their head office is Transport Canada’s main office in Ottawa.
“At government-run airports, there would be no ‘head office’ at that airport, the head office rule would not apply, and bilingual communication requirements would be determined solely by significant demand,” says the memory.
Lisa Bragg, the airport authority’s vice president of business development and marketing, said her organization has a small communications staff and she’s worried about the administrative burden of the decision.
“The outcome of this case is really important to many different organizations and we all want to do what’s right, but we also want to do what’s reasonable,” she said Monday.
Who should receive damages?
In its brief, the airport authority also argues that Thibodeau, who had not set foot in the airport when he filed the complaints, should not receive damages since his personal language rights have not never been violated.
He also indicated that some translation issues had been corrected by the time he learned of Thibodeau’s complaints.
A self-proclaimed defender of official languages, Thibodeau has become a thorn in the side of many airports, spending countless hours filing hundreds of complaints and seeking thousands in damages. In a separate Federal Court case, the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority described him as a “serial plaintiff” seeking to “monetize” his language rights.
In its ruling, Grammond rejected the airport’s arguments, writing, “An award of damages is an appropriate and just remedy to ensure deterrence and the assertion of rights arising from the act.”
“Neither the circumstances in which Mr. Thibodeau discovered the breaches of law nor [the airport authority’s] the alleged efforts to comply with the law bar an award of damages. »
In September, Thibodeau launched another lawsuit against the airport authority involving a series of other official language violations. He was not available for comment.
A “chilling effect” on communications
Several airports and port authorities are following the appeal closely, and the Canadian Airports Council, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities and the Commissioner of Official Languages have requested to appear as intervenors.
In a statement last April, Commissioner Raymond Théberge said in a tweet that he was “very satisfied” with the decision and that the court had “clarified, once and for all, the linguistic obligations of airports and airport authorities under the Official Languages Act when communicating with the public. »
In an affidavit, APAC President and CEO Daniel-Robert Gooch said the decision, if upheld, could have a “chilling effect on the quality and quantity of information made available.” of the public in the context of “scarce resources”.
He said the decision could “impose on all local port authorities the same requirements as the headquarters of a large government department”.
“Evil alcohol lover. Twitter junkie. Future teen idol. Reader. Food aficionado. Introvert. Coffee evangelist. Typical bacon enthusiast.”