Three Quebec Lawyers, Peter Blaikie, Roland Durand and Yoine Goldstein first challenged the constitutionality of the Charter of the French Language under section 133.
In 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Chapter III of the Charter of the French Language unconstitutional, citing it contrary to section 133 of the British North America Act of 1867.
Canadian citizens from outside Quebec are forced to send their children to French primary and secondary schools, in direct violation of S26.
Judged retroactively unconstitutional, the section had to be modified so that it no longer clashes with the Canadian charter's definition of a linguistic minority.
It maintains that the court upheld S.73 yet provided for flexibility in matters dealing with English-speaking Canadians and immigrants from other countries.
[5] The amendment was passed to thwart entry to English schools by pupils who had gone to at least one year of an unsubsidized private institution.
[10] A representative of the Quebec Association of Independent Schools proclaimed its goal to strike the delay,[clarification needed] and Brent Tyler, the advocate for the 26 families in the case, said he would pull together an appeal.
[11] About half of all enrollment decline in the English Montreal School Board since 2002 has resulted from Bill 104, a low fertility rate and urban sprawl being other reasons, said a spokesman in 2007.
[12] Jean Dorion, president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, said that Appeals Court judges are appointed by the national government and said that they should not have the power to overrule Quebec's language laws.
[12] Other commentators remonstrated that Justice Hilton had previously served as legal counsel for Alliance Quebec, an anglophone rights group.
1988, c. 54 (also known as Bill 178), the National Assembly (under a Quebec Liberal government) made use of the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution and amended the Charter by allowing English provided that the letters are no larger than half the size of the French.
They alleged to be victims of violations of articles 2, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the federal government of Canada and by the Province of Quebec, due to the act's prohibitions on the use English in advertising or in the name of their firms.
1993, c. 40 (also known as Bill 86), the National Assembly (under a Quebec Liberal government) amended the Charter of the French Language to make it comply with the Supreme Court rulings.
It also introduced the current regulations on the "marked predominance" of French on outdoor commercial signs in conformity with the Supreme Court suggestion.
As suggested by the Supreme Court ruling, the current law specifies that commercial outdoor signs can be multilingual so long as French is markedly predominant.
Today, many businesses choose to put up French-only signs, and at times, even change their registered trademarks to adapt to the Quebec market.