One of the loudest criticisms of the Federal Attorney General's submission in English Montreal School Board, et al v. Quebec Attorney General is that it relies on "novel" interpretations of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter) and the Canadian Constitution (The Constitution).
I am going to explain why I think that line of reasoning is incorrect, and why the more "linear" interpretations that the critics are advocating for are in fact the "novel" interpretations which should be examined with suspicion.
