Top court to review ruling that said N.B. lieutenant-governor need not be bilingual
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
We need your support!
Local journalism needs your support!
As we navigate through unprecedented times, our journalists are working harder than ever to bring you the latest local updates to keep you safe and informed.
Now, more than ever, we need your support.
Starting at $15.99 plus taxes every four weeks you can access your Brandon Sun online and full access to all content as it appears on our website.
Subscribe Nowor call circulation directly at (204) 727-0527.
Your pledge helps to ensure we provide the news that matters most to your community!
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Brandon Sun access to your Free Press subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $20.00 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.00 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/02/2025 (282 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada will review a lower court ruling that said New Brunswick’s lieutenant-governor doesn’t need to be bilingual.
In 2019, the federal government appointed Brenda Murphy, who was not fully proficient in French, as the province’s vice-regal representative.
The Acadian Society of New Brunswick challenged the appointment, arguing it violated the right to have dealings with the government in either official language.
A New Brunswick judge ruled in 2022 that the Constitution requires New Brunswick’s lieutenant-governor to be bilingual and capable of executing all required tasks in both English and French.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned that decision, saying that while it’s desirable for the province’s lieutenant-governor to be bilingual, the Constitution doesn’t require it.
As usual, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for agreeing to hear the case.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 27, 2025.