Trudeau’s Ghost Wins Again
We had all hoped otherwise but no, the Township of Russell vs Galganov and Brisson decision is a blatant political affront to all that our former justice system’s freedoms and liberties ever represented. Judges are supposed to be blind to all but the evidence presented to them. Colour, religion, race, ethnicity, sex nationality or language of those seeking justice is not supposed to matter.
These two guys and a gal that call themselves Superior Court “Judges” had their judicial blindfolds tilted over one eye only. Is this just my personal opinion? No, their conclusions alone describe their prejudiced souls. The [ ] numbers are their judicial arguments in their own words, and their final decisions. (I have only included the pertinent numbered paragraphs. They decided early that Mr. Galganov had no case because he had no business entity in the Township. My comments are in italics except for my closing summary. Unnumbered paragraphs not italicized are the judges continued comments)
The Judge’s Rationale
 The evidence before the court, concerning the social well-being of the municipality. Discussed under the authority to enact the Bi-law, establishes the importance of the purpose the By-law addresses - the preservation and enhancement of the equality of the status of the French language in the Township, a municipality which has chosen to designate itself as bilingual under “the French Language Services Act” and to offer its services to residents in both languages. (The Mayor is a French Canadien as are three of the four councilors, hardly a fair representation of the population on French language issues. Their MP and MPP are both French Canadien)
The objective of the By-law, the promotion of the equality of status of both French and English, the official languages of Canada, is a pressing and substantial one. (A joke when the rest of Canada contains less than 4% French speakers and Quebec containing 95% of Canadien French speakers has chased some 600,000 English speakers from their province by their draconian language laws and the continual harassing of English-speakers by their language police and other angry Patriots de Quebec).
 The application judge (the lower court trial judge in Ottawa) had before her evidence that French was, in 2006, the first language learned of 45.5 per cent of the Township’s population, English was the first language learned of 50.3 per cent of that population and 4.2 per cent of the population had another first learned language. Although the total number of Francophones in the Township increased, the evidence of Dr. Castonguay, an expert who is a retired University of Ottawa mathematics professor and has published extensively on linguistic assimilation, is that the proportion of French speakers is decreasing because of linguistic assimilation. Overall, Dr. Breton, a sociologist, whose focus is on linguistic and cultural minorities, and Dr. Choquette, an expert on the history of Franco-Ontarians, say that the French population in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada is decreasing. In order to preserve the French language, a linguistic environment is necessary. The material that the application judge did accept indicated a rational connection between protecting the equal status of the French language and assuring that the reality of Quebec society is communicated through the “visage linguistique” as discussed by the Supreme Court in Ford.
We have already determined [in Ford, at p. 780] that the requirement of joint use of French is rationally connected to the legislature’s pressing and substantial concern to ensure that the “visage linguistique” of Quebec reflects the predominance of the French language. (Note here are three French Canadien biased “experts” quoting Quebec’s horrific language manipulatons as applicable to towns in predominently (95.5 %) English-speaking Ontario).
 Similarly, the joint use of French and English is rationally connected to the Township’s concern of ensuring that its bilingual nature is reflected on exterior commercial signs. (Again, Quebec language court decisions are quoted to be the rationale for Ontario and by implication all of Canada. Don’t these judges realize that even the United Nations has condemmed the Quebec language laws).
 I also note that deference to the government’s choice is also owed at the rational connection stage: see Lavoie v. Canada, 2002 SCC 23,  1 S.C.R. 769, at para. 59. Given the evidence of the symbolic importance of affirming the equal status of the two official languages, there is a rational connection between the By-law and the furtherance of the equal status of French and English as well as the preservation of French more generally.
 The process undertaken by the Township prior to the enactment of the By-law involved consultation with the public and consideration of other alternatives. (What segement of the public?, we all know how such suveys have been manipulated in the past). It resulted in a By-law that applied only to new, exterior and commercial signs. In Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., etc. the court observed: (Here they go again quoting Quebec decisions - These are Ontario Supreme Court Appellant judges, blandly importing Quebec’s cultural cleansing language laws and decisions into their considerations. Note; there are NO contrary “experts” with English names representing Mr. Brisson’s case or all Engilsh speakers in general
First, in dealing with social issues like this one, where interests and rights conflict, elected officials must be accorded a measure of latitude. The Court will not interfere simply because it can think of a better, less intrusive way to manage the problem. What is required is that the City establish that it has tailored the limit to the exigencies of the problem in a reasonable way. (So long as reasonable means that French Canadiens get their way)
 In tailoring the By-law as it did, the Township has established that it dealt with the problem in a way that minimally impairs freedom of expression. (the French dominated Council “minimally” impairs freedom of expression - these judges have to be kidding; Brisson’s freedom of choice is gone and a $5000.00 fine applies plus any future signage will be monitored by the township’s language sign police).
 One must also recall the specific facts of this case. The argument that, Brisson’s freedom of expression is more than minimally impaired by requiring the description of his services on his new French only sign to also be in English, loses much of its force having regard to the following facts: the name of Brisson’s business, “Independent Radiator Services”, is unilingually English, and is entitled to remain so; for most of the 34 years Brisson has been in business the content of his sign has been in English only; and he continues to hand out business cards and invoices in English. Thus, in the past, Brisson has chosen to express himself only in English; he now chooses to express himself only in French on his exterior sign while continuing to employ English in other aspects of his business. To require him to employ English on his sign in addition to French is a minimal impairment of his right to freedom of expression.
 Having passed the minimum impairment stage, the final question asks whether the infringing effects of the By-law outweigh the importance of the objective sought. Brisson has not advanced any arguments on this aspect of the Oakes test. In light of the importance of the protection and promotion of the equal status of the French language, I would hold that the benefits of the By-law are proportional to any deleterious effect on freedom of expression or inconvenience suffered. (So sayith the social Activist Charter judges as they prune and pare Tudeau’s ghostly “living tree.”
 For these reasons, although the By-law is a breach of Brisson’s rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter, it is a breach that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter.(In these pro-French biased judges opinion, certainly not on the one-sided evidence presented).
The Judges Conclusions
 I would dismiss the appeal with respect to both Galganov and Brisson.
 The Township is entitled to its costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis from Galganov and Brisson jointly and severally. I would fix those costs at $60,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes. Released: June 15, 2012,
“Karen M. Weiler J.A.”
“I agree Robert Sharpe J.A.”
“I agree R.A. Blair J.A.”
I am pleased they all agree. It indicates that forced French is the mandate of all three Ontario Judges who refuse to acknowledge the extreme damage being done to all English-Speakers across Canada of whom 97% cannot and never will speak French fluently enought to pass the Government French staffed Board of Bilingual efficacy in order to be employed in their own country’s civil services.
The effect of their decision as another social activist judicial precedent will lead to increasing civil unrest and ultimately to the breakup of Canada. That they may even encourage a civil war does not enter their one-eyed prejudicial brains.
It is time we cleaned out our entire judicial system of Charter motivated social activist judges. P.E. Trudeau’s corrupting ghost sits on every judge’s shoulder.
Once again I advocate that we institute a High Court of Parliament to eliminate those judges (from the lowest order of judge to the eminent judges of the Supreme Court of Canada that think they have the right to make social justice decisions that must belong to Parliament. Their business must be governed by the facts and evidence of each case and above all solely by the ancient custom of precedent (English Common Law).
Please review my High Court article on my blog.
The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.
This website has been visited 258735 times.