Legal case file
State of the case and legal fees
Language rights matter. Here is what CSF fought for and won — and why the ongoing expensive court path might not deliver much.
SOFI payments to Juristes Power Law (year by year)
- 2019–20$2.3M
- 2020–21$1.6M
- 2021–22$459k
- 2022–23$2.1M
- 2023–24$6.3M
- 2024–25$8.9M
Exact amounts from CSF’s public SOFIs. CSF’s financial-reports page only publishes SOFIs from 2019–20 onward. Audited financial statements for 2010–2019 are online, but they do not break out payments to the law firm. CBC reported nearly $17M already spent on the case by the 2016 trial verdict.
Overall cost (public benchmarks)
Estimate (not a single SOFI line): nearly $17M already spent by the 2016 verdict (CBC) + recent SOFI payments to Juristes Power and CSF’s Wave B figure ($17.98M). The “>$35M” lifetime figure combines those public benchmarks; sources may slightly overlap. All-parties estimate: CSF counsel/defence costs + ~$9.35M on the VSB side (Radio-Canada) + Province defence — order of magnitude >$40–45M, not a consolidated audit.
What CSF has been fighting for
Since June 2010, CSF (with the Fédération des parents francophones and rights-holder parents) has litigated against the Province under Charter section 23: underfunding and inadequate French-language facilities in B.C. Wave A sought systemic funding reforms, facilities in about 17 communities, damages — and a court-ordered capital program on the order of ~$300M+.
Major results and highlights
CSF’s language rights are real — and courts have recognized them. “Partial success” and “major win” do not mean the court ordered every school CSF asked for, or opened the provincial capital budget without limit.
Wave A — rights and funding
The first mega-case: get section 23 breaches recognized and win remedies — including a large capital program.
- Claim filed
- 3 June 2010
- Trial (BCSC)
- ~238 sitting days → judgment 26 Sep 2016
- Court of Appeal (BCCA)
- 25 July 2018
- Supreme Court of Canada
- 12 June 2020 (2020 SCC 13)
Summary of proceedings
From 3 June 2010, CSF (with the Fédération des parents francophones and rights-holder parents) sued the Province over underfunding and inadequate facilities under section 23. The Russell trial ran about 238 sitting days; judgment 2016 BCSC 1764 is dated 26 September 2016.
On appeal (25 July 2018), the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs’ main capital mega-build theory. On 12 June 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (2020 SCC 13) broadened declarations and restored certain damages — a real legal win, but a technical one.
CSF had mainly been fighting for a court-ordered capital build package on the order of ~$300M — a scale compared to the Province’s entire annual education capital budget. That theory failed. Winning on the law is not the same as getting the capital chequebook: schools still go through the provincial budget process.
Achieved
- Section 23 breaches recognized in several communities (Russell judgment, 2016).
- Important declarations and damages confirmed or restored at the SCC (2020), including about $6M in transport damages and about $1.1M (AFG Rural Factor).
- Doctrinal landmark for French-language education in B.C.: the rights exist and the Province has concrete obligations.
Not achieved
- No court-ordered ~$300M capital build program — the main maximalist ask.
- No order of the form “build all of these schools now, at that price.”
- No unlimited capital chequebook: school buildings still depend on provincial capital plans, priorities, and envelopes.
Wave B — enforcement
Force implementation after 2020: sites, land tools, Province / VSB cooperation — then appeal.
- Enforcement action filed
- December 2020
- Trial (BCSC, Justice Gomery)
- August 2024 → April 2025 (~117 days)
- Judgment
- 23 May 2025 (2025 BCSC 962; published ~27 May)
Summary of proceedings
In December 2020, CSF sued the Province and the Vancouver School Board (VSB) because several promised schools were still not delivered: sites, land tools, cooperation, budget disclosure.
Trial before Justice Gomery started in August 2024 and ran into April 2025 — about 117 sitting days (planned ~60). Judgment 2025 BCSC 962 is dated 23 May 2025. CSF reported about $17.98M in Wave B costs (Mar 2021–Jun 2025); VSB about $9.35M defending. The costs ruling also found CSF prolonged the trial and cut part of the recoverable costs.
Achieved
- Order requiring the Province to legislate (six-month timeline in the judgment) to give CSF expropriation powers — the only provincial board that lacked them.
- Concrete next steps ordered on certain Vancouver sites (negotiation and/or transfer, depending on the site).
- Findings of provincial delay and budget non-disclosure.
- VSB duty to balance section 23 when dealing with surplus school sites.
Not achieved
- No ongoing court supervision — the court refused to stay seized of the file.
- No freehold ordered everywhere as asked — e.g. a 99-year lease was held sufficient for Queen Elizabeth Annex.
- No immediate transfer order for A.R. Lord (too early).
- Delay not pinned on the Province alone — shared among Province, CSF, and VSB.
The appeal and current status
- CSF appeal filed
- June 2025 (publicly reported 26 June 2025)
- VSB cross-appeal
- 8 July 2025 (including Laurier)
- Province appeal
- Summer 2025 (including expropriation powers)
- Costs ruling
- October 2025 (65% VSB; trial prolonged)
- Court of Appeal hearing
- Dates not yet set (available public reporting)
Before appealing, CSF consulted six institutional partners: SEPF, CUPE 4227, the Regroupement des directions d’écoles francophones, FPFCB, the Conseil jeunesse francophone de la C.-B., and FFCB.
According to Véronique Fleury (CUPE 4227, Francopresse), five of the six said no to an appeal; CSF confirmed the appeal anyway in late June 2025.
Afterwards, FPFCB and FFCB spokespersons said publicly (Radio-Canada) that an appeal was necessary; SEPF and CUPE 4227 remained opposed.
Appeal Summary
After Justice Gomery’s judgment, CSF appealed; VSB filed a cross-appeal; the Province also challenged aspects of the ruling. Court of Appeal hearing dates had not yet been set in available public reporting.
In October 2025, Justice Gomery ruled on costs: VSB must pay 65% of CSF’s costs for the VSB portion, but CSF was deprived of part of its recoverable costs because the trial was prolonged. That amount may still change depending on the appeal.
Goals of the appeal
- Expand enforcement remedies beyond the trial judgment — not re-litigate whether section 23 rights exist after 2020.
- Seek urgency findings and stronger orders on property transfers (Vancouver and Whistler, depending on the sites in dispute).
- Challenge limits in the May 2025 judgment — including the refusal of ongoing court supervision, the finding that a 99-year lease was enough for Queen Elizabeth Annex, and the lack of an immediate A.R. Lord transfer order.
- Preserve and strengthen remedies already won (expropriation, negotiation / site obligations, VSB balancing duty) against the Province’s and VSB’s appeals.
We are not lawyers, but here is what we think about the chances of the appeal’s success…
- The May 2025 judgment was already a partial win: sharply expanding remedies on appeal is an uphill climb.
- Appeal courts rarely rebuild discretionary remedies or fact findings — especially shared blame for delay and the refusal of ongoing court supervision.
- The Province and VSB also appealed: CSF can lose ground on remedies already won, not only gain more.
- Narrow wins remain possible; a maximal rematch (freehold everywhere, ongoing supervision, immediate transfers) seems unlikely.
The bigger picture — court wins vs capital budgets
Zoom out: even when a board wins in court, that mainly clarifies legal obligations. Funding new schools remains a competitive provincial process. Budget 2024: about $1.046B in K-12 capital for 2024/25, and about $3.752B over three years (expansion/replacement, seismic mitigation, rehabilitation). Those envelopes serve the whole province — high-growth districts, seismic-risk schools, aging buildings.
A court-ordered ~$300M build package would have been a large claim against that annual framework. Even with favourable declarations and expropriation powers, CSF still needs its projects prioritized in the provincial capital plan — alongside dozens of other school requests.
In short: the courtroom and the Treasury are not the same thing. A judgment can open doors; construction dollars still go through Victoria’s budget priorities.