Constitutional Obligation of Alberta to Publish Laws in French: R v Caron and Boutet
Margaret Unsworth, QC*
Th is paper outlines the decisions of the Courts the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11), in the cases of Gilles Caron and Pierre Boutet that the said Languages Act of Alberta, [Caron]1 as well as the basic arguments advanced to the extent that it abolishes or reduces by the parties at the Supreme Court of Canada. the linguistic rights that were in force in Th e central issue in the case is whether there is Alberta before its adoption, pursuant to a constitutional obligation on the Province of section 110 of the North-West Territories Alberta to publish its laws in French. Act, 1875, as amended, is incompatible with the Constitution of Canada and is Th is is not intended to be an exhaustive anal- inoperative. ysis of the myriad of issues that were argued by Mr. Caron and Mr. Boutet in defence of their 2. An order pursuant to subsection 24(1) traffi c tickets. Rather, the objective is to give an of the Charter that the charge against the overview of the essentials of each of the deci- accused, Gilles Caron, be struck out. sions and the basic arguments advanced. Th is paper will also not address the matter of funding 3. A declaration pursuant to section 52 at trial, an issue in this case which also went to that the Legislature of the Province of the Supreme Court of Canada.2 Alberta must adopt in French and have all Acts and Regulations of the Province of Alberta assented to beginning with Background those required by Gilles Caron for this trial: Traffi c Safety Act; Use of Highways On the 4th of December 2003, Mr. Caron received and Rules of the Road Regulations; a ticket under the Traffi c Safety Act for making Provincial Court Act; Constitutional an unsafe left turn in contravention of the Use of Notice Regulation A.R. 102/99. Highways and Rules of the Road Regulations. At trial he pled not guilty and an agreed statement 4. A declaration pursuant to section 52 that of facts was entered with the Court in which everyone has a guaranteed constitutional Mr. Caron conceded the facts of the off ence. He right to proceedings in French or English argued that his charge should be dismissed how- in both criminal and civil matters before ever because of his constitutional challenge, in all courts of the Province of Alberta, which he sought:3 including the right to fi le all documents and forms in French and to be heard 1. A declaration pursuant to section 52 if and understood by the courts without the Constitution Act, 1982 (schedule B of interpreters.
Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 45 As the trial commenced, Mr. Boutet, who Her Majesty the Queen was authorized to admit also received a ticket under the Traffi c Safety Act Rupert’s Land and the North-western Territory, for breach of the Use of Highways and Rules of the or either of them, into Confederation “on Address Road Regulations, raised the same constitutional from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada” challenge and the trial judge agreed to hear them and according to the “Terms and Conditions in together. each Case as are in the Addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fi t to approve.” Th ere were Following some preliminary appearances, two addresses relevant to section 146. the trial commenced on March 1, 2006 and took 89 days spread over several time periods, con- Th e fi rst address was presented in December cluding with fi nal argument in in June 2008. Mr. 1867 by the Parliament of Canada to Her Maj- Caron testifi ed as did three other individual cit- esty the Queen, asking her to “unite Rupert’s izens on his behalf,4 each giving evidence about Land and the North Western Territory with this their experienced diffi culties living in French Dominion” and communicated Canada’s under- in Alberta. Two defence experts were called taking (English version) “to provide that the legal and gave evidence on socio-linguistic issues of rights (droits acquis in the French version) of any French in Alberta.5 In addition, three further Corporation, Company, or individual within the defence experts were called to give evidence of same shall be respected, and placed under the the history of the French in Western Canada.6 protection of Courts of competent jurisdiction.”11
Alberta called three experts in response — On July 31, 1868, the British Parliament two who were responsive to the sociolinguistic passed the Rupert’s Land Act, 1868, which autho- 7 8 evidence, and one historian. rized the HBC to surrender, and Her Majesty to Th e trial was conducted entirely in French accept surrender of the HBC over Rupert’s Land with the use of simultaneous translation when in accordance with the s. 146 annexation process. unilingual English witnesses testifi ed. Th e trial Th e second address, in May 1869, presented transcript exceeded 9000 pages and 93 exhibits the terms of negotiations in 1868-1869 between were fi led. Th e decision of the Provincial Court 9 the HBC, Canada and the Imperial Cabinet and Judge was delivered in French, while subsequent had the express purpose of providing for the court decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench commercial terms of the surrender of Rupert’s and the Court of Appeal were released in both Land. Th e second address states that “we [the French and English. Senate and Commons of the Dominion of Can- ada in Parliament] authorize and empower the Historical Evidence Governor in Council to arrange any details that may be necessary to carry out the terms and con- In May 1670, King Charles II granted a charter ditions of the above agreement.”12 to the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay (the Hudson’s In June 1869, anticipating the transfer of Bay Company). Th e Hudson’s Bay Company was Rupert’s Land and the North-West, the Parlia- granted the sole trade and commerce of all those ment of Canada passed an Act for the Temporary territories watered by rivers fl owing into Hud- Government of Rupert’s Land and the North- son’s Bay in Canada. As a practice, French was Western Territory when United with Canada, oft en used by the Company and starting in about 1869.13 1845, the Legislative Ordinances of the Council of Assiniboia were published in French and Eng- Over the next year, meetings were held by the lish.10 inhabitants of the Red River Colony to discuss their common interests within Canada and sub- In anticipation of the transfer of lands from sequently chosen delegates met with delegates the Hudson’s Bay Company to Canada, section from Canada and Britain. Th e Anglophone and 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provided that Francophone Red River delegates brought for-
46 Volume 25, Number 2, 2016 ward Lists of Rights, each of which claimed legis- the Saskatchewan Act. One of those laws was lative and judicial bilingualism.14 On December section 110 of Th e North-West Territories Act21 6, 1869, a Royal Proclamation was issued refer- which provided, in part, that “Either the English ring to the North-Western Territories. Th e fi ft h or the French language may be used by any per- paragraph of the Proclamation, which reads: son . … in the proceedings before the courts; .… and all ordinances made under this Act shall be By Her Majesty’s authority I do therefore assure printed in both those languages.” As there had you, that on the Union with Canada all your been no repeal of this statutory guarantee, sec- civil and religious rights and privileges will be tion 110 continued in eff ect. Following Mercure, respected, your property secured to you and that your Country will be governed, as in the and in accord with the ruling of the Court, both past, under British laws and in the spirit of Alberta and Saskatchewan passed legislation to British justice. …15 repeal this statutory obligation to publish laws in French.22 On July 15, 1870, a June 23, 1870 Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory into the Union Trial Decision (July 2, 2008) (the 1870 Order)16 came into force ordering that Rupert’s Land and the North-West Territory be His Honour Provincial Court Judge L. Wenden admitted into the Dominion of Canada, upon concluded that the Proclamation of 1869, which the terms and conditions set out in the fi rst referred to the North-West Territory, applied and second Addresses of the Canadian Houses throughout both Rupert’s Land and the North- of Parliament. “Th is Order stipulated, amongst Western Territory, and that it provided a prom- other things, that the annexation would take ise that civil rights of the inhabitants of annexed place in accordance with the conditions set out territories would be respected. He further con- in the Addresses, and that once the annexation cluded that the Proclamation’s assurance that 23 came into eff ect, Parliament would have the rights would be respected was a guarantee, and authority to legislate for the future welfare and that the reference to respecting rights and privi- good government of the annexed territories. Th is leges included respect for the existing language 24 authority was reaffi rmed in the Constitution Act, rights. 1871.” 17 Judge Wenden noted that the second address Th e same day, on July 15, 1870, federal stat- of the houses of Canada’s Parliament, which ute Manitoba Act, 1870 came into force estab- formed part of the 1870 Order, empowered the lishing the constitution for the new province of Governor General to take whatever steps were Manitoba. Amongst many things, the Manitoba necessary to ensure that the transfer of the terri- 25 Act, 1870 recognized, in section 23, that either tories was successful. Troubles in the Red River English or French might be used by any person could become an obstacle preventing the transfer in debates in the Provincial Legislature, as well as of land and the 1869 Proclamation (authorized in the courts, and that all acts of the Legislature by condition 15 of the second address) was nec- were to be published in both languages. essary to overcome the obstacle of Métis resis- tance.26 It was necessary that the 1869 Proclama- In 1875, the Parliament of Canada passed tion be constitutional to appease the Métis. the 1875 NWT Act,18 creating the Legislative Assembly of the NWT. In 1905, the provinces of In short, Judge Wenden concluded that by Alberta and Saskatchewan were created out of virtue of condition 15 of the second address the NWT.19 incorporated into the 1870 Order the Governor General in Council was empowered to take all Th e Mercure decision of the Supreme Court necessary measures to implement the trans- of Canada in 198820 determined that when Sas- fer agreement, and that the promise of respect katchewan (and Alberta) were formed, pre- for the civil rights of the Métis contained in existing laws continued unless inconsistent with the Proclamation became more than a political
Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 47 promise; it became a constitutional promise that clause 15 in the 1870 Order, and concluded that included the protection of linguistic rights.27 Th is the Proclamation was not incorporated into the constitutional promise thus fi nds itself as part of 1870 Order.31 Canada’s Constitution. Justice Eidsvik went on to conclude that the Judge Wenden ruled that Section 3 of the 1870 Order did not constitutionally entrench a Languages Act violated the language rights of right to local legislation in both French and Eng- both Mr. Caron and Mr. Boutet as both are Fran- lish. Th e English versions of the addresses were cophone and have French as their primary lan- the ones that acquired force of law as part of the guage. He found that the relevant provisions of 1870 Order.32 Th e expression “legal rights” in the Use of Highways and Rules of the Road Reg- the 1870 Order did not include language rights, ulations were inoperative in relation to both and which were always treated separately.33 Further- acquitted them of the charges. more, the Canadian Parliament had no constitu- tional obligation when it created Alberta in 1905 to impose a constitutional obligation on Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to enact legislation in both English and French.34 (December 12, 2009) Th e Summary Conviction Appeal was heard by Court of Appeal Madam Justice K. Eidsvik who fi rst heard, and (February 21, 2014) allowed, intervention by the Association cana- dienne-française de l’Alberta (“ACFA”) and the An appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard April Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise Inc. 22-23, 2013. Th e Court unanimously dismissed (“ACF”). Th e appeal was heard over 7 days in the appeal but in two distinct sets of reasons. January 2009. Ultimately, Justice Eidsvik over- turned the lower Court decision and determined Madam Justice Rowbotham, with Justice that Alberta has no constitutional obligation to O’Brien concurring, essentially rejected the publish laws in French. Mr. Caron and Mr. Bou- appellants’ arguments that the Proclamation of tet were found guilty and ordered to reappear for 1869 issued in Red River by Canada’s Governor sentencing. General, or the Queen’s 1870 Order annexing Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory Justice Eidsvik found that although there was to Canada entrenched French language rights in a statutory right in Rupert’s Land and the North- Alberta. Western Territories to have local ordinances pub- lished in English and French, there were no obli- Th e majority of the Court accepted the fi nd- gations beyond the ordinances.28 She determined ings of the lower courts that there was a statutory that Mercure did not decide the issue before the right to have local ordinances published in both Court and went on to consider whether the 1869 English and French in the District of Assini- Proclamation or the 1870 Order and the annexed boia but not a constitutional right. In agreement addresses entrenched the right to bilingual leg- with the reasons of the summary conviction islation. She concluded that the 1869 Proclama- appeal Judge and the reasons of Slatter J.A., the tion did not entrench rights on its own because notion that the Proclamation of 1869 entrenched (1) it was not passed into law by the British Par- French language rights in Alberta was rejected. liament, and (2) it did not refl ect an exercise of Justice Rowbotham viewed the Proclamation, as the Queen’s prerogative constituent power.29 In did the summary conviction appeal Judge, as “a her view, the Proclamation was simply a politi- political document which served to diff use the cal promise with no legal consequences, and she confl ict in face of the annexation.”35 In relation to consequently found it unnecessary to interpret the Queen’s 1870 Order annexing Rupert’s Land the expression “civil and religious rights and and the North-Western Territory to Canada, the privileges.”30 She rejected the trial judge’s con- reference to legal rights or droits acquis in the clusion that the Proclamation was authorized by 1870 Order applied to both Rupert’s Land and
48 Volume 25, Number 2, 2016 the North-Western Territory, but the absence of specifi c jurisdictions within Canada. Th e explicit language in the 1870 Order entrenching rights at issue in this case were neither language rights was an insurmountable barrier Aboriginal nor Métis rights. to their continued existence as a constitutional right.36 Justice Slatter then considered and dismissed various arguments advanced by the appellants: Rowbotham J.A. disposed of the argument of the ACFA that Alberta is bound by a fi duciary Evidence of the use of French in Rupert’s Land does not establish that use was obligation to Alberta’s French speaking popu- 43 lation by noting that the test applies to private mandatory and entrenched; law interests and not rights like language rights. Th e Addresses of 1867 and of 1869 do Th ere can be no fi duciary obligation to create a not entrench French language rights;44 law that gives the particular benefi t sought.37 She declined to decide the issue of the applicability of Th ere was no indication that the rights the Mercure decision.38 in the list of rights prepared by the inhabitants of the Red River Colony were Justice F. Slatter, in separate concurring rea- to be entrenched in the Constitution sons, concluded that the Mercure decision is and made unalterable by the local binding and determinative of the issues.39 He was legislature;45 of the view that the appellants did not show that there was “a signifi cant change in the evidence” Th e Proclamation of 1869 was, in part, from that considered in Mercure,40 or that the a warning without legal eff ect, and its case addressed a new legal issue.41 Consequently, proclamation marked the beginning of there is no constitutional requirement in Alberta negotiations not the end.46 Whatever it to enact laws in both English and French, and the may have said about language rights could Languages Act is valid. “not prevail in the face of subsequent enactments” of the Parliaments of Notwithstanding his dismissal of the appeal either the United Kingdom or Canada.47 based on Mercure, Justice Slatter determined that He makes the further point that the the history of the case necessitated discussion of Proclamation’s reference to rights being several principles and topics. Th is discussion is, “respected” could not mean that they strictly speaking, obiter, but many of his com- could never be changed;48 ments were the subject of further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. As background to his Even if there was an obligation to enact discussion, he noted:42 ordinances in French before annexation, the obligation did not extend beyond the (1) Th e concept of Parliamentary supremacy; Red River Colony;49 (2) Th e inability of colonial settlers to Th e 1870 Order did not entrench impose a list of rights on Parliament; French language rights,50 and the common administration of Manitoba (3) Th e absence of a constitutional and the Northwest Territories following document that expressly entrenches annexation did not result in the French language rights; entrenchment of French in the Northwest Territories.51 (4) Th e ineff ectiveness of the fi duciary argument to advance the claim to French language rights; and
(5) Th e fact that Aboriginal rights are transnational while language rights are constitutionally protected only in
Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 49 Supreme Court of Canada (3) Th e purpose of the Proclamation of 1869 was to calm the Métis resistance and (November 20, 2015) guarantee the civil and religious rights Th e appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada claimed by the Métis. Th e Proclamation was argued on February 13, 2015. In addition to was a response to the claims of the the main parties and the two intervenors in the Métis expressed in the Provisional Courts below (the ACFA and the ACF), the fol- government’s fi rst list of rights and was lowing intervened in the appeal: issued under the authority of a May 28 resolution, reaffi rmed by the second Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ address. It has constitutional status. Association, Conseil scolaire Centre- Nord No. 2 and Denis Lefebvre (4) Th e context of negotiations and promises made by representatives of the Crown Th e Offi cial Languages Commissioner and the governments helps inform the of Canada/ Commissaire aux langues interpretation of the 1870 Order and its offi cielles du Canada constitutional protection of legislative Fédération des associations de juristes bilingualism in the annexed territories. d’expression française de common law inc. (5) Métis resistance obliged Canada and the Queen to negotiate the addition of Attorney General of Canada new conditions for annexation required by the Francophone metis majority Attorney General of Saskatchewan in the Red River Colony. Th e Métis Most, if not all, of the arguments advanced provisional government negotiated for in the Courts below were made by the Appel- the inhabitants of both Rupert’s Land lants and supporting intervenors at the Supreme and the Northwest Territories (not just Court. At the risk of minimizing the positions the Red River Colony) and constitutional taken with the Court by the Appellants, the fol- promises were made in relation to all lowing basic arguments were presented:52 Métis living in the area. Legislative bilingualism was a consistent element in (1) English and French were offi cial all three List of Rights and this historical languages within the institutions of the compromise was entrenched in the 1870 Hudson’s Bay Company in Rupert’s Land Order. and Francophone rights within those institutions extended beyond the District (6) Th e fact that the Proclamation is not of Assiniboia. Th ese were “acquired listed in the schedule to the Constitution rights” and therefore are captured by Act, 1982, as part of the Constitution the fi rst address (1867). Th e fi rst address is not an obstacle to its inclusion refers to legal rights in the English as a constitutional instrument. A version but can be interpreted to include purposive interpretation requires that language rights as acquired rights, the the Proclamation and the 1870 Order phrase used in the French version. be interpreted in a generous manner. Th e Supreme Court has on numerous (2) Th e second address (1869) provided the occasions recognized the existence of Governor in Council with the power to constitutional rights in the absence of take the necessary steps to implement express constitutional provisions. the annexation of Rupert’s Land and this empowered the Governor to take the (7) Th e evidence shows that neither the necessary steps to respond to the Métis Crown nor the government of Canada claims, including the claim of acquired was opposed to protecting language language rights. rights for all the annexed territory.
50 Volume 25, Number 2, 2016 Parliamentarians knew that section 133 advanced by Alberta. Th e majority decision rec- of the Constitution Act, 1867, would ognized that although constitutional documents apply to all the annexed territory that should be interpreted in a large and liberal man- was not made into a province. Section 23 ner and that language rights must be interpreted of the Manitoba Act was required to do purposively and remedially, these principles do in Manitoba what section 133 would do not undermine the primacy of the written text of for the rest of the annexed territories. It the Constitution.54 was therefore unnecessary to include an express provision for language rights for Th e majority determined that the position the annexed territories, and it is therefore of the appellants is “inconsistent with the text, false to say that language rights were not context, and purpose of the documents on which guaranteed for the rest of the annexed they rely and must be rejected “for the following 55 territories. It is presumed that the Crown reasons”: and government of Canada negotiated 1. Never in Canada’s constitutional history in good faith and would not break their have the words “legal rights” been taken promises. to confer linguistic rights; (8) Applicable interpretive and unwritten 2. Legislative bilingualism is expressly constitutional principles (protection of provided for in the Manitoba Act, 1870, minorities and the fl ourishing of language but it is not mentioned in either the rights) mean that the government of 1867 Address or the 1870 Order. “It is Canada was obliged to respect the inconceivable that such an important historical compromise negotiated. Th e right, if it were granted, would not have Court of Appeal erred in looking for been granted in explicit language”; an express provision that entrenched language rights in the province. 3. Neither Canada nor the representatives of the territories ever considered that the (9) Th e Mercure case is not binding because promise to respect “legal rights” in the no historical expert evidence was 1867 Address referred to linguistic rights; presented in that case. Rather, the Court and took judicial notice of historical facts based on three superfi cial historical 4. Federal legislation plus debates on texts. Th e Caron case provides a complete formation of the new North-West evidentiary foundation to establish a Territories in 1875 & 1877 and the direct and precise link. In addition, formation of Alberta and Saskatchewan the legal issues raised in this matter in 1905 show that no one involved are diff erent from those considered in thought that there had been any Mercure. guarantee of legislative bilingualism in 1870. On November 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in this case. Th e Th e three dissenting Justices (Abella, Wag- Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the deci- ner, and Côté, JJ) essentially agreed with the sion of the Alberta Court of Appeal that there is Appellants that an agreement between the Cana- no constitutional obligation on Alberta to pub- dian government and the inhabitants of Rupert’s lish laws in French.53 Land and the North-Western Territories to pro- tect legislative bilingualism was constitutionally Th e Court was split in its reasons 6:3 with entrenched by virtue of the 1867 Address.56 Justices Cromwell and Karakatsanis writ- ing for the majority. Th e Majority of the Court rejected each of the arguments advanced by the Appellants and accepted, in total, the position
Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 51 Conclusion Endnotes Contrary to our expectation that the Court * Director, Constitutional Law, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta. might comment on factors broader than the pre- Acknowledgement is gratefully given to Randy cise issue before them, they did not. Steele (Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta) for his extensive work in preparation of this paper. Th e Given the nature and the wide range of opinions expressed in this paper are solely those legal arguments advanced in this matter and of the author and, other than the legal positions the appellants’ insistence on the importance taken, do not refl ect those of the Government of of the historical context for the establishment Alberta. of the constitutional rights at issue in this case, 1 All Caron references are to the following decisions: one might have expected the court to provide Provincial Court (PC): R c Caron, 2008 ABPC additional guidance about relevant interpretive 232 [Caron PC]. principles and their application to the interpreta- Queen’s Bench (QB): R v Caron, 2009 ABQB tion of Canada’s Constitution. In this regard, the 745 [Caron QB]. Court might have commented on matters such Court of Appeal (CA): R v Caron, 2010 ABCA as Parliamentary supremacy, the proper manner 343, [Caron CA]. and place for the application of unwritten con- 2 R v Caron, 2011 SCC 5, [2011] 1 SCR 78. stitutional principles, and the natural limits of 3 Translated by counsel for Alberta. For the original those principles, particularly as informed by evi- French version, see Caron PC, supra note 1 at dence of a historical context. para 4. 4 Mr. Perreaux, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Piquette. In addition, the assertion that the Proclama- 5 “Professor Denis testifi ed on the social role of the tion of 1869 provided for a binding constitutional law and legislative and judicial institutions with right might have invited the Court to provide regards to Francophone minorities in Canada. some clarifi cation on the comprehensiveness and … Professor Landry testifi ed as an expert in characteristics of the list of instruments in the ethnolinguistic vitality and cultural and linguistic schedule of included constitutional instruments socialization.” [Caron QB, supra note 1 at paras 16- under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 17]. 6 “Professor Aunger testifi ed on language governance Finally, the spectre of stare decisis hung over in Canada and western Canada, on language law, this matter in light of the diff erent sets of reasons and on offi cial languages policy and its impact on provided by Alberta’s Court of Appeal regard- the vitality of minorities. He addressed, amongst ing the implications of the Mercure decision. It other things, the issue of language rights in the was expected that the Court would once again Northwest and Alberta. He also described the address the nature and scope of stare decisis in attempts to take away those rights. Professor constitutional matters and provide further guid- Aunger also gave rebuttal testimony regarding ance to lower Courts to help avoid the expense the events surrounding the Royal Proclamation and potential confusion resulting from unnec- of 1869 and those leading to the creation of the North-West Territories and the Province of essarily re-litigating matters, particularly those Manitoba. Professor Huel, a historian, testifi ed on matters that have already been resolved by the the history of western Canada, the history of the Supreme Court of Canada. Métis, Louis Riel and French-Canadian history. Professor Champagne, also a historian, testifi ed Th e Court clearly is reluctant to infer consti- on a number of subjects, including the history tutional obligations which are not expressly set of French Canadians in western Canada, the fur out in constitutional documents and historical trade and the language of work in the Hudson’s record. Any signifi cant discussion of other mat- Bay Company.” [Caron QB, supra note 1 at paras ters such as unwritten principles, the scope of the 14-15]. schedule of included constitutional instruments 7 Professor Fishman, a sociolinguist and Professor under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Stebbins, a sociologist. and stare decisis is noticeably absent. 8 Professor Munro (University of Alberta).
52 Volume 25, Number 2, 2016 9 Th ere is no offi cial translation of the Provincial 21 RSC 1886, c 50. Court decision — any errors in translation in 22 Languages Act, RSA 2000, c L-6, s 7; Th e Language preparation of this paper belong solely to the Act, SS 1988-89, c L-6.1, s 13. author. 23 Caron PC, supra note 1 at para 445. 10 Caron QB, supra note 1 at paras 46-50. 24 Ibid at para 454. 11 Schedule A to the Rupert’s Land and North- 25 Ibid at paras 526, 548, 551. western Territory Order, Item 3 of Schedule to 26 Ibid at paras 530, 551, 553. the Constitution Act, 1982 (the 1870 Order), 27 Ibid at para 561. online:
Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 53 54 Volume 25, Number 2, 2016