Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant sought leave to appeal a decision rejecting its constitutional and administrative challenge to article 139.1 of the Charter of the French Language.

• Central issue was whether the interpretation of article 139.1 by the Office québécois de la langue française constitutes a normative or administrative act.

• Article 139.1 limits who may represent a company before the Office, raising procedural fairness concerns for external representatives.

• The Court found the issue to be sufficiently important and of general interest to warrant consideration, regardless of whether it was normative or administrative.

• Superior Court had rejected both the constitutional challenge and the applicant’s proposed interpretation of the provision.

• Leave to appeal was granted and the case was set to proceed on an expedited basis.

Facts and procedural background

Gestion de projets Conceptal & Associés inc. is a management company that assists businesses with the francization process in Quebec. Since 2005, it has acted as a representative for its clients in dealings with the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF). Following the enactment of article 139.1 of the Charter of the French Language in June 2022, companies registered with the OQLF were required to be represented only by a member of their management or a representative designated by their francization committee.

In response, several client companies designated Chantal Larouche, president of Conceptal, as their representative. The OQLF, however, refused to engage with her, asserting that only internal employees with decision-making authority qualified under article 139.1. The applicants challenged the provision, claiming it infringed procedural fairness by denying companies the right to be represented by their chosen delegate. Alternatively, they argued that the OQLF’s interpretation was unreasonable and that the article should be read in a broader, more inclusive manner.

The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed both arguments in a judgment dated May 8, 2025. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and sought leave to appeal de bene esse, limiting their request to the interpretive issue regarding article 139.1.

Legal context and appeal threshold

The Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.) requires leave to appeal from judicial review decisions unless they concern the validity of normative acts such as laws or regulations. Administrative decisions, like resolutions or interpretations made by public bodies, require permission to appeal under article 30 para. 2(5) of the C.p.c.

The applicants argued that the OQLF’s interpretation of article 139.1 constituted a normative act, giving rise to an automatic right of appeal. Alternatively, they contended that the issue involved a significant question of principle and deserved appellate scrutiny. The respondents maintained it was merely an administrative matter with no general significance.

Decision and outcome

Justice Stephen W. Hamilton of the Quebec Court of Appeal acknowledged that the interpretation of article 139.1 might qualify as a normative act but found it unnecessary to resolve that point. Even if it were considered an administrative act requiring permission to appeal, the issue met the test for leave under article 30. The matter raised an important legal question of broad public interest regarding the scope of permissible representation before the OQLF.

As a result, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the appeal proceed on an expedited basis. Filing deadlines for the parties’ written arguments were set, and the matter was referred to the registry to schedule a hearing.