Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Constitutional right to use English or French in federal courts

Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the provisions of the Constitution of Canada that addresses rights relating to Canada's two official languages, English and French. Like section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 19 allows anyone to speak English or French in federal courts. However, only section 133 extends these rights to Quebec courts, while section 19 extends these rights to courts in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province under section 16 of the Charter.

In Société des Acadiens, Justice Beetz ruled that section 19 of the Charter and section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 established a right to speak in either English or French. However, neither section went so far as to guarantee a person speaking in either English or French would be understood by the judge or judges. Under these sections it would be possible for a judge who understood only one of the two languages to preside over a case in which someone chose to speak the other language. Beetz did not want such a situation, however, and felt that the right to be understood was protected by basic principles of fundamental justice found in sections 7 and 14 of the Charter. Since this is a right established under fundamental justice and not the official language provisions, it was a right belonging to anyone regardless of whether they speak English, French or a non official language. This interpretation was influenced by past interpretations of section 133, including the interpretation of similar language rights in the Parliament of Canada found in section 133 and section 17 of the Charter. This interpretation of section 19 has been disputed. In the same case, Chief Justice Brian Dickson and Justice Bertha Wilson both found that a right to be understood by a judge regardless of whether one chooses to speak English or French could be found in the penumbra of section 19. However, the restrictive interpretation of language rights in Société des Acadiens was largely overturned in R. v. Beaulac.