This finding led to an important debate regarding the scope of section 24(1) of the Charter, which provides for remedies for those whose rights are infringed, and the applicability of the common law doctrine of functus officio.

After 1982, however, section 23 was added to the Constitution of Canada, thus creating a right for Francophone and Acadian Nova Scotians to schooling in their own language, provided that they were of a sufficient number.

This affirmation was, however, followed by delay, and in 1998, with no schools having been built, the minority language community turned to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to move the government to meet its obligation.

Section 23, they wrote, has a "remedial nature... designed to correct past injustices not only by halting the progressive erosion of minority official language cultures across Canada, but also by actively promoting their flourishing."

Motor Vehicle Act (1985), and Vriend v. Alberta (1998) to point out that the courts have approached the Charter with a "generous and expansive interpretation and not a narrow, technical, or legalistic one."

The circumstances, which included the threat that the French language would eventually disappear, were judged to require a remedy that would ensure the right would be met in a reasonable amount of time.

The section 24(1) phrase limiting remedies, requiring that they be "appropriate and just in the circumstances", was defined partly as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what was appropriate and just, although judges should be aware of doctrines such as functus officio.

In their view, Justice LeBlanc seeing reports amounted to overseeing the construction, which violated functus officio and the separation of powers, which could, in turn, threaten judicial independence.

which appears to contemplate that special remedies might be available in some circumstances, but not in this case, severely undervalues the importance and the urgency of the language rights in the context facing LeBlanc J."