Law360 Canada ( June 9, 2022, 6:07 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique (Association) from the dismissal of its application under s. 77(1) of the Official Languages Act (OLA) alleging a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The Association was a non-profit organization that acted as a spokesperson for the francophone community in British Colombia. The Association alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (CEIC) failed in their linguistic obligations to the francophone linguistic minority community. The Agreement that was subject to litigation dealt with employment assistance programs and services, which provided that ESDC and the CEIC would contribute financially to the costs of the Province’s programs, provided they were like benefits of employment and support measures established by the CEIC pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act (EIA). Under the Agreement and in accordance with s. 63 of the EIA that underlay it, the federal government financed the cost of benefits and measures established by the government of British Columbia, but the province now held responsibility for delivering employment assistance service programs funded by federal employment insurance funds. When British Columbia began offering employment benefits and support measures under the Agreement and with its one-stop shop model, ESDC and the CEIC would have then stopped ensuring that employment services in French in British Columbia were available and of equal quality where the demand for those services was high. The Association’s application under s. 77(1) of the OLA alleging a violation of the Charter was dismissed. The trial judge found that under the Agreement, the Province was not acting on behalf of ESDC and the CEIC as required under s. 25 of Part IV of the OLA, and that those entities took sufficient positive measures to fulfil their duties under Part VII, and specifically s. 41. The Association appealed. It maintained that based on the law and the evidence the judge was bound to conclude that the Agreement as well as the employment benefits and support measures that it authorized violated s. 20(1) of the Charter and Parts IV and VII of the OLA. The Commissioner of Official Languages (Commissioner) took issue with the portion of the decision that dealt with Part VII. He maintained that although the judge correctly stated the principles applicable to the interpretation of language rights, he did not consider Parliament’s intention to make federal institutions accountable for their obligations under Part VII on a case-by-case basis....