A group of bilingual municipalities within Quebec have sought a temporary suspension against specific provisions of a law mandating the use of the French language in all municipal proceedings while proceeding with a larger challenge against Bill 96, Quebec’s controversial new language law.

Local media reports that Julius Grey, the attorney representing the municipalities, requested the suspension of four provisions within the act while a decision awaits for the remainder of the municipality’s constitutional challenges:

1. A rule requiring all municipal contracts to be drafted in French, even where all parties are Anglophone.
2. Provisions allowing the province to withhold funding for municipalities that fail to adhere to the requirements of the law.
3. Provisions permitting officers from the French language officer to perform searches and seize documents without a warrant.
4. Provisions requiring municipalities to punish employees who fail to adhere to Bill 96.

Grey has argued that “serious harm” would occur to the plaintiffs should these provisions remain in effect while awaiting the decisions of the other challenges against the law. Moreover, he argued municipalities should not have to apply laws with such a substantial effect, especially in light of the limited impact on the administration of the law such a temporary suspension would have.

In response, the attorney for the defendant, Quebec’s Attorney General, provided three counter-arguments. First, there was no evidence provided that the laws were being applied harshly against the municipalities. Second, municipal governance is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and Quebec is, therefore, within its rights to regulate municipalities. Third, none of the issues raised by the municipalities were serious enough to justify interfering with the functioning of the law.

Bill 96 was passed by the Quebec legislature to attempt to encourage French usage in private and governmental settings. Some of these measures include setting a limit on students taking post-secondary studies in English, requiring businesses with more than 25 employees to use French as a common language, and various other measures to encourage the use of French in various settings.

Bill 96, however, has become controversial for its application of the notwithstanding clause to the entire bill rather than just one section. Section 33, the notwithstanding clause, allows provinces to infringe select portions of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with only the requirement that they invoke the clause. However, there has not been such a broad application of the clause in recent history. Further, Bill 96 is widely believed to infringe upon the minority language rights of English speakers in the province,  as French and English speakers are entitled to receive education in their native language under section 23 of the charter.