Official Languages Penalty Ranges Updated

Summary#

This is an erratum published on March 21, 2026 that updates the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the Official Languages Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (originally published March 7, 2026). It corrects the wording in the section about how penalty amounts are chosen and replaces the table that shows the ranges of monetary penalties.

What it does#

• Replaces the text under the “Range of penalties” heading to change how penalties for different types of violations are described. Notably, it removes the phrase that had excluded health-and-safety breaches from a more lenient approach for contracted services.
• Adjusts the wording and statutory/regulatory cross-references used to define the three categories of violations (Type A, Type B, Type C).
• Replaces Table 3, “Range of penalties,” with these amounts:
  • Type A: Up to $25,000
  • Type B: Up to $50,000
  • Type C: $5,000–$50,000
• Notes that the HTML version of the Canada Gazette has already been changed to match these updates.

Who's affected#

• Organizations and businesses that must follow the Official Languages Act, especially those that provide services under contract to federal bodies or the travelling public.
• The office of the Commissioner responsible for imposing administrative monetary penalties.
• Members of the public and passengers who may be affected indirectly, since some changes concern violations tied to health, safety, and passenger rights.
• The change is a correction to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (an explanatory document). It is unclear from the erratum whether the change alters the legal text or how penalties will actually be applied in practice.

Why it matters#

• The updated table gives clearer published ranges for fines ($25,000, $50,000, $5,000–$50,000), so regulated parties can better see the potential financial exposure.
• The removed exception about health-and-safety breaches changes the wording that described leniency for contracted services. That could affect how readers interpret whether leniency applies in health-and-safety cases, though the erratum itself is to the explanatory statement and does not by itself state a legal change.
• Anyone involved in delivering services under the Official Languages Act should note the corrected wording and the published penalty ranges, and may want to follow up if they need certainty about legal effects.