Michel Thibodeau, a long-time language rights activist, recently lost a legal battle to receive compensation from the Canadian government for unilingual English construction signs on Parliament Hill. His pursuit of justice highlights ongoing struggles over language rights in Canada, where the Official Languages Act mandates services in both French and English. Thibodeau’s challenge against Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) and the signs in question on the massive restoration project in the Parliamentary precinct is just the latest chapter in his two-decade-long crusade for bilingualism.
The Case: A Fight for Language Equality
The issue at hand began when Thibodeau discovered that several construction signs on Parliament Hill were exclusively in English, violating Canada’s language rights protections. These signs primarily addressed health, safety, and security concerns, such as warnings about automatic doors, overhead work, and other hazards. According to Thibodeau, these unilingual English signs caused him significant frustration, stress, and diminished his enjoyment of life, as he strongly believes that bilingual signage is essential for equitable access to information.
In 2019, Thibodeau filed 13 complaints with the official language commissioner, pointing out that some signs included critical safety instructions like “Caution automatic door, activate switch to operate” and “Danger due to work overhead” in English only. Although the federal government had agreements with contractors to ensure bilingual signage, it was argued that due to the size of the work site, it was difficult to monitor all signage consistently.
Following his complaints, the language commissioner concluded that Thibodeau’s claims were justified, confirming that the government had indeed violated its obligations under the Official Languages Act. This finding led Thibodeau to file a lawsuit in Federal Court, seeking both a financial compensation of $1,500 for each of the 13 offending signs and a formal apology from PSPC. Thibodeau’s request for redress was not only a legal pursuit but also an act of advocacy for the importance of language rights across Canada.
The Court’s Decision: No Financial Compensation
Despite the language commissioner’s report supporting Thibodeau’s position, Federal Court Judge Peter Pamel dismissed his request for compensation. Thibodeau’s discovery of the unilingual signs, according to the judge, occurred under circumstances that disqualified him from receiving any remedies. While the specifics of how Thibodeau found the signs are under a court-ordered confidentiality order, the ruling was clear: Judge Pamel chose not to award Thibodeau any financial or formal redress.
“I exercise my discretion to not award him any of the remedies that he seeks,” Pamel said, explaining that the circumstances of Thibodeau’s discovery made any compensation “inappropriate or unjust.” This decision has raised questions about the conditions under which language rights activists can pursue legal action and whether those who are passionate about such causes can truly be compensated for violations of their rights.
A History of Language Rights Activism
This is not Thibodeau’s first experience with challenging language violations. He has long been recognized as a tireless advocate for bilingualism, particularly in situations where federal services or institutions fail to uphold their obligations under the Official Languages Act. His activism began in 2000, after an encounter with Air Ontario when he attempted to order a 7Up in French during a flight from Montreal to Ottawa. Following a confrontation with the flight crew, Thibodeau was escorted off the plane by police, an incident that ignited his passion for defending language rights in Canada.
Since then, Thibodeau has been involved in numerous high-profile legal challenges, most notably against airport authorities. In 2021, he won cases against Canadian airports, arguing that their failure to offer bilingual signage violated his language rights. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Thibodeau, awarding him $5,000 in damages for St. John’s International Airport’s unilingual English presence on social media and press releases. Similarly, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority was ordered to pay him $3,500 for its English-only signage at an ATM and children’s fun zone.
Thibodeau’s efforts have not gone unnoticed. In fact, Judge Pamel praised Thibodeau’s activism in a previous ruling, likening his work to that of a whistleblower. “I hope that one day we will no longer need the Michel Thibodeaus of this world, but, until then, passionate advocates for language rights have a place in our society,” Pamel said. Thibodeau’s pursuit of language rights is driven by a simple principle: he just wants federal institutions to comply with the law.
The Broader Context: Language Rights in Canada
Thibodeau’s fight is part of a larger struggle over language rights in Canada, a country officially bilingual at the federal level. The Official Languages Act was established to ensure that federal government services are available in both English and French. Despite this, cases like Thibodeau’s highlight ongoing challenges in ensuring that both languages are treated equally, especially in public signage, communications, and services.
While the government’s commitments to bilingualism are enshrined in law, enforcement remains a challenge, particularly when it comes to monitoring compliance in large, complex projects like the restoration of Parliament Hill. Despite the federal government’s agreements with contractors, the scale of such projects often makes it difficult to ensure that all signs are provided in both languages.
However, as Thibodeau’s legal actions demonstrate, the demand for bilingualism in all aspects of Canadian life remains strong. For many Canadians, language rights are not just about communication but are deeply tied to issues of identity, culture, and equality. Thibodeau’s continued activism serves as a reminder that language rights must be defended and that the government must be held accountable for any violations of the law.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Struggle for Language Equality
Although Thibodeau’s recent loss in court may be a setback, it has brought important attention to the issue of language rights in Canada. The unilingual English signs on Parliament Hill were not just an oversight—they were a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Canadians. Thibodeau’s pursuit of justice, while unsuccessful in this instance, continues to underscore the importance of language rights in Canadian society.
As Thibodeau’s case demonstrates, the protection of language rights requires constant vigilance. Whether in the halls of government, the corridors of airports, or on construction sites, it is essential that both English and French speakers are given equal access to information. Thibodeau’s work may not be over yet, but his commitment to ensuring that all Canadians are treated equally under the law is clear—and it is something that will continue to resonate throughout the country for years to come.
