Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Legitimacy of naming the Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King as respondents in an application under the Official Languages Act.

• Status of “One Parliament for Canada” as a federal institution under the Official Languages Act.

• Application of the doctrine of issue estoppel to the removal of parties from the proceedings.

• Necessity of the Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King as parties for adjudicating the matter.

• Interpretation and application of Federal Courts Rules regarding joinder and removal of parties.

• Award of costs following the dismissal of the appeals.

Facts of the case

On June 10, 2024, acoustic feedback (the Larsen effect) occurred during Question Period in the House of Commons, resulting in the interruption of simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings. The Speaker of the House of Commons commented on the incident only in English. On June 11, 2024, Michael Moreau filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages, alleging a violation of language rights due to the deprivation of translation services during the interruption. The Commissioner refused the complaint on June 21, 2024, on the ground that it was inadmissible under subsection 58(1) of the Official Languages Act (OLA).

On August 20, 2024, Mr. Moreau applied under section 77 of the OLA to challenge the refusal of his complaint, seeking declaratory remedies against the House of Commons. He alleged that the interruption of translation services violated Parts I, IV, and VII of the OLA and sections 7 and 15 and subsections 16(1), 17(1), and 20(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his application, he identified the respondent as “One Parliament for Canada (As represented by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King).”

Procedural background and party motions

On October 22, 2024, the Speaker of the Senate requested that Mr. Moreau amend his notice of application to remove her as a respondent. After Mr. Moreau refused, the Speaker of the Senate brought a motion on November 8, 2024, under Rules 104 and 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, to be removed as a party and to amend the style of cause. His Majesty the King brought a similar motion on November 5, 2024. In orders issued on November 27, 2024 (Justice Lafrenière) and December 11, 2024 (Justice Gascon), the Federal Court allowed both motions, finding that neither the alleged shortcomings or facts, nor the remedies sought, concerned His Majesty the King or the Speaker of the Senate. The court also found that no Act of Parliament provides for naming His Majesty the King or the Speaker of the Senate as a respondent in this dispute.

Legal issues and analysis

The appellant argued that the Federal Court erred in law by finding that the doctrine of issue estoppel did not preclude His Majesty the King and the Speaker of the Senate from asking to be removed as parties, and by finding that “One Parliament for Canada” is not a federal institution under subsection 3(1) of the OLA. The appellant also alleged an error of fact regarding the necessity of the respondents for adjudicating the matter. The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the discretionary nature of decisions on joinder of parties under Rule 104, the requirements of Rule 303(1) for naming respondents, and the definition of “federal institution” in section 3 of the OLA. The Court found that neither His Majesty the King nor the Speaker of the Senate was involved in the application or affected by the remedies sought, and that the application related only to the interruption of translation services during a House of Commons debate. The Court also found that the doctrine of issue estoppel did not apply, as the necessary conditions were not met and there was no prior determination of the issues in question.

Outcome and costs

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the Federal Court’s decisions to remove the Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King as parties. The appellant’s requests for costs were rejected. Costs were awarded to the Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King, in the amount of $1,000 each. No damages were awarded, and the costs awarded were the only monetary amounts specified. The Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King were the successful parties in this case.