A battle over freedom of expression involving Canada’s two dueling official languages is being pitched in a small township in Ontario. In this case, English and French complainants are on the same side, fighting a local bylaw that compels all businesses to erect signs containing both languages.

The Russell Township consists of four towns with a total population of about 14,000 near the capital city of Ottawa. The majority of the population, about 59 percent, are Anglophones, in other words they speak English at home; a large minority of about 39 percent are Francophones who speak French at home.

However, the language distribution is not consistent, so some pockets of the municipality are primarily English while others are essentially French. Storeowners from both language groups are angry about a township bylaw that requires all business signage to be in both official languages, regardless of the services provided.

On Feb. 2, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard the case of Galganov/Brisson v. Russell Township over the 2008 bylaw, but no date has been set for the court to hand down its sure-to-be controversial judgment.

Howard Galganov, an Anglophone, argues that the bylaw is yet another example of the creeping imposition of bilingualism on the predominantly English-speaking population of Canada. 

Jean-Serge Brisson, a Francophone, says enforcing bilingual commercial signage dictates how a business can market its services and sets up the expectation that service will be available in both English and French, which may not be the case.

They also argue that it’s not the government’s place to tell businesses what language should be on their signs and that doing so infringes on their right to freedom of expression. 

The language rights activists are appealing an August 2010 ruling by the Superior Court of Ontario that Russell Township has the right to enforce bilingual signs.

In her ruling, Justice Monique Métivier dismissed Galganov’s application since he—unlike Brisson—is not a resident of the township. She also concluded the bylaw doesn’t infringe on Brisson’s right to freedom of expression.

The judge agreed with Russell Township that the bylaw was necessary to protect the survival of the French language in the community, while at the same time promoting the equality of French and English.

Kim McConnell, president of Canadians for Language Fairness, said the case “has very wide implications” because allowing the bylaw would set a precedent that could affect future judgments on other language laws.

“That’s what we hope the judges understand,” McConnell says, adding that the case needs to go all the way to the Supreme Court. 

“What we’re hoping is that at least one of [the judges] will say ‘Yes, this has wider implications and should go to the Supreme Court.’ That’s what we want.”

After the 2010 ruling, Galganov wrote in an editorial on his website about the ramifications of losing the appeal.

“This court challenge against a law that blatantly violates every person’s freedom of expression is no small deal. If we lose, it will mean that every bureaucrat in Canada, including … mayors in small towns, will have the right to suspend civil rights and liberties.”

The Ontario municipalities of Casselman, La Nation, and Clarence-Rockland have adopted similar bylaws, while Moncton in the province of New Brunswick has a bylaw requiring signs to be in both languages and that the French wording must be ahead of or above the English.