Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Classification of Vitalité Health Network as an “institution” under section 22 of New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act (OLA-NB), triggering a duty to use the other party’s chosen language in civil proceedings.
• Scope of language rights in court under sections 17 and 22 OLA-NB and section 19(2) of the Charter, and how they interact when a government body is a party.
• Whether health-specific provisions (sections 27, 28, 33 and 34 OLA-NB) limit Vitalité’s obligations to health-service delivery only, or extend to court pleadings and processes.
• Attempt by Vitalité to characterize itself as a “distinct educational” or “distinct cultural” institution under section 4 OLA-NB, and thus excluded from the general regime.
• Use of corporate “natural person” language in the Regional Health Authorities Act to claim Charter “any person” language rights, and why that argument fails for a governmental health authority.
• Final ruling that Vitalité must proceed in English, the language chosen by Canadian Health Labs Inc. and Matthew Hayes, with no monetary award or specified costs in this decision.

Background and parties

Canadian Health Labs Inc. (CHL) brought three contract actions against Regional Health Authority A, operating as Vitalité Health Network, relating to health-service contracts. CHL filed in English; Vitalité responded in French. Matthew T. Hayes filed three applications under the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RTIPPA) against Vitalité, also in English, after access-to-information requests. Vitalité again indicated it would respond in French. A case management judge referred the common issue: must Vitalité, as a public health authority, use the official language chosen by CHL and Mr. Hayes in these six civil matters?

Facts relevant to the language dispute

The judgment focuses on language rights, not the merits of the contracts or RTIPPA applications. The key facts are that CHL and Hayes chose English for their court proceedings, and Vitalité insisted on French. CHL and Hayes asked the Court to require Vitalité to answer in English. Vitalité resisted, invoking its francophone character and various statutory and constitutional provisions to justify using French in court despite the plaintiffs’ and applicant’s language choice.

Legal framework and status of Vitalité

The Court applies the standard language-rights interpretive approach: rights are read broadly and purposively, but always anchored in the actual text and purpose of the legislation and the Charter. Under section 17 OLA-NB, any person may use either official language in court. Section 22 adds a specific rule: when the Crown or an “institution” is a party in civil proceedings, it must use the language chosen by the other party in pleadings and court processes. The definition of “institution” in section 1 is wide, covering bodies created by legislation to perform governmental functions and subject to ministerial or Cabinet direction. The Regional Health Authorities Act establishes regional health authorities, including Vitalité, to deliver and administer health services, a core provincial function under section 92(7) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Minister of Health exercises extensive control and direction over these authorities. The Court therefore finds Vitalité clearly falls within the OLA-NB definition of “institution” and is bound by section 22.

Health-service language provisions and distinct institutions

Vitalité argued that OLA-NB sections 33 and 34, which speak to health services and reference regional health authorities, confine its language obligations to the provision of health services under sections 27 and 28 (communications and services to the public) and exclude it from section 22. The Court rejects this, holding that sections 27 and 28 create broad rights for the public to communicate with any institution and receive services in their official language, and section 33(1) simply clarifies that, for health services, this includes regional health authorities. Section 34 allows a single internal working language while preserving the duty to serve the public in their chosen language. These provisions embed, rather than narrow, Vitalité’s obligations and must be read consistently with the OLA-NB’s primacy clause. Vitalité also claimed to be a “distinct educational” and “distinct cultural” institution under section 4 OLA-NB and thus excluded from the definition of “institution”. The Court notes that section 4 lists the school system, education authorities, community centres, universities, and community colleges, but not regional health authorities. The Authorities Act’s purpose is health-service delivery, not establishing distinct linguistic institutions. Accepting Vitalité’s theory would create internal conflict with sections 33 and 34 and is unsupported by the statutory text or language-rights case law.

Charter “any person” argument and corporate personality

Vitalité further relied on section 19(2) of the Charter, which lets “any person” use either English or French in New Brunswick courts, combined with section 17 of the Authorities Act, which gives a regional health authority the rights and powers of a natural person. It claimed that, as a “person,” it could choose French in court regardless of section 22. The Court holds that the “natural person” language in section 17 is confined to enabling the authority to carry out its statutory responsibilities; it does not turn a government body into a Charter rights-holder in the same way as an individual. Vitalité remains a state-created instrument for delivering public health services. Reading section 19(2) to override a specific statutory obligation in section 22 would ignore the structure and purpose of both the OLA-NB and the Authorities Act. The Court stresses that section 22 is a deliberate legislative choice about how the Crown and its institutions must adapt to the language chosen by members of the public in civil proceedings.

Outcome, successful party and monetary consequences

The Court concludes that Vitalité is an “institution” under the OLA-NB and is required by section 22 to use the official language chosen by CHL and Mr. Hayes in all oral and written pleadings and court processes in these six proceedings. Vitalité must therefore proceed in English in the CHL contract actions and the Hayes RTIPPA applications. On the legal issue decided, the successful parties are Canadian Health Labs Inc. and Matthew T. Hayes. This ruling is procedural and declaratory only: it does not decide the underlying contract or RTIPPA merits, and it does not set any damages, compensation, or quantified costs. The total amount of any monetary award or costs in favour of the successful parties cannot be determined from this decision.