EDITORIAL: Our kingdom for a French dictionary?

Should courts dictate to the Crown who cannot be their representatives in this country?

Published Jun 26, 2026  •  Last updated 24 minutes ago  •  2 minute read

Lt.-Gov. Brenda Murphy delivers the Susan Holt-led Liberal government's first Speech from the Throne in the New Brunswick Legislature in Fredericton. Postmedia files

See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source

Article content

A curious Supreme Court decision on the appointment of an anglophone lieutenant-governor in New Brunswick has left observers scratching their heads. An Acadian activist group challenged the appointment of Brenda Murphy, a non-French speaker, to that province’s vice-regal role.

Article content

Article content

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, since New Brunswick is a bilingual province, the lieutenant governor must speak both French and English.

In his written decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner offered this word salad: “Where an institution is unipersonal, where some of the institution’s constitutive functions cannot be delegated and where it publicly expresses itself through the person embodying it, equality of status cannot be achieved in the institution unless that person is able to understand and speak each of the two official languages.”

This raises constitutional questions. Should courts dictate to the Crown who cannot be their representatives in this country?

Article content

The Governor General and lieutenant-governors across the country serve not at the pleasure of the chief justice, eminently sagacious though he may be. They serve at the pleasure of the monarch — King Charles III. Traditionally, the monarch appoints the person on the advice of the prime minister. So, this is precedent-setting.

Three Supreme Court judges disagreed with the ruling. Justice Malcolm Rowe wrote that while bilingualism requires the state to ensure French and English speakers have equal access to services, it doesn’t impose personal bilingualism on the state’s representatives.

“On the appellant’s reasoning, the same requirement of personal bilingualism would extend to other public officers, such as New Brunswick’s premier and cabinet ministers,” Rowe wrote. “And since a parallel Charter language scheme applies federally, the appellant’s reasoning would also apply to the prime minister of Canada and to federal cabinet ministers.”

Only politicians fluent in both languages could serve, regardless of other talents they might bring to the job.

Would Wagner extend this rule to the Crown itself, since Canada is a bilingual country? Charles speaks very good French, as did his mother and grandfather. But, suppose his heir, Prince William, couldn’t speak French to Wagner’s satisfaction? Would he be cast aside as Canada’s head of state in favour of some lesser royal whose French was better?

There’s an easy-peasy solution: Make Justice Wagner King Richard IV. Oh, and find him a horse.

Article content