On the framework front, it has been a slow start to the SCC’s 2025 term.
The Court has decided six cases with reasons longer than ten paragraphs (an arbitrary, but necessary, threshold to exclude cursory judgments). The framework rate has ranged from zero FW/100¶ (Piekut v. Canada (National Revenue), 2025 SCC 13) to 6.9 FW/100¶ (Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15). That peak is well below the heights reached last term.
So far, the Court has managed a much tighter grouping than it did last term.
| 2024 Term | 2025 Term (to 05/17/25) | |
| Mean FW/¶100 | 5.2 | 3.2 |
| Median FW/¶100 | 1.4 | 2.9 |
| Standard Deviation | 9.5 | 2.4 |
If it holds, this trend may reveal more about last term, but we will have to wait for more results to avoid drawing premature conclusions.
Until we have more reliable numbers, we can instead attend to the language – actually, in light of Piekut, the languages – used by the Court to develop our ideas about frameworks in Canadian law. More specifically, the bilingual nature of the Canadian Constitution and Canadian federal law reinforces the notion that, in Canada, law is a framework that demands courts and citizens alike determine its meaning.
Piekut concerns the interpretation of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. As Jamal J. explains for the six-justice majority, when interpreting federal legislation:
a court must consider both official language versions of the provision. This is because the English and French language versions of federal legislation are equally authoritative (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 133; Charter, s. 18(1)…). Courts have a duty to read both official language versions of federal legislation to determine whether they have the same meaning and, if they do not, to determine which version should prevail. (¶51, emphasis added)
Conveniently, the majority judgment in Telus Communications raised the same issue much more briefly, by contemplating the definition of “ligne” in Le Petit Robert while seeking the proper interpretation of “transmission line” in ss. 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act (¶44).
Conveniently, the majority judgment in Telus Communications raised the same issue much more briefly, by contemplating the definition of “ligne” in Le Petit Robert while seeking the proper interpretation of “transmission line” in ss. 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act (¶44).
Unlike in the United States of America, there is no single authoritative textual version of our Constitution or our federal legislation. Our official bilingualism acts like a non-tariff barrier that prevents the importation of simplistic American textualism.
Instead, Canadian courts and citizens must grapple with two official versions of the same law. The existence of two equally authoritative versions of a law foregrounds the interpretive act and the role of the interpreter.
As the Court has explained, “There is, therefore, a specific procedure to be followed when interpreting bilingual statutes. The first step is to determine whether there is discordance. If the two versions are irreconcilable, we must rely on other principles: see Côté, supra, at p. 327. A purposive and contextual approach is favoured” (R. v. Daoust, 2004 SCC 6, ¶27; see also R v. Mac, 2002 SCC 24, ¶5: “Where the words of one version may raise an ambiguity, courts should first look to the other official language version to determine whether its meaning is plain and unequivocal.”).
For purposes of this post, the details of that “specific procedure” are less important than the fact of its existence. It confirms that, in Canada, there is nowhere to hide the interpretive act: the intervention by – and contribution of – the citizen and the judge to the making of the law. We do not have the luxury of pretending that we are simply implementing someone else’s will. Our Constitution and our law demand more than obedience: they require our collaboration. Even when our judges seek to discern legislative intent (Piekut, ¶53), it is always apparent that the judges are doing it. They cannot disguise their role or evade responsibility for their actions. The bilingual nature of Canadian law provides a framework for citizens and judges to maintain the legitimacy of our legal order.
Main St., Vancouver, BC
Leave a Reply