Air Canada's Rousseau affair shows the high cost of a seemingly 'soft' skill

My initial temptation was to dismiss the latest controversy surrounding Michael Rousseau as political theatre — another Quebec language storm that will pass as quickly as it formed. How could an employer that knowingly hired a unilingual CEO take issue when it becomes an embarrassment?

That would be a mistake. Beneath the noise lies a serious employment law question which Canadian employers ignore at their peril: when does language proficiency stop being a preference and become a legal obligation?

The facts? Following a fatal crash at New York's LaGuardia airport, Air Canada released a video statement from its CEO, Michael Rousseau, offering condolences. Apart from a token "bonjour" and "merci," the message was entirely in English. One of the deceased pilots was francophone. The flight originated in Montreal. The intended audience included grieving families in Quebec.

The backlash was immediate. Prime Minister Mark Carney weighed in. François Legault and the Quebec legislature expressed their outrage in the form of a unanimous vote demanding Rousseau's resignation. Influential institutions such as La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec — one of Air Canada's largest shareholders — demanded accountability.

At first glance, this appears to be a communications failure — and it certainly was that. But it raises a deeper issue: what are an employer's obligations when language is central to its public identity, and what duties does a senior executive owe?

Canadian employment law has long held that job requirements must be bona fide, derived in good faith. Employers cannot impose arbitrary qualifications unrelated to the role. But the inverse is equally true: where a requirement is intrinsic to the position, the employer is entitled, indeed expected, to enforce it.

For a Montreal-based airline marketing itself as a national carrier, bilingualism is not performative or cosmetic. It is, as the outrage has made clear, a core competency. It goes to brand, regulatory environment and corporate legitimacy in a bilingual country.

That does not mean that every employee must be bilingual. But it is difficult to argue that the chief executive officer of such an organization can be functionally unilingual without creating foreseeable risk; reputational, operational and legal.

This is not Rousseau's first encounter with the issue. In 2021, shortly after assuming his role, he acknowledged that he was not comfortable speaking French, despite living many years in Montreal. He promised improvement.

That commitment matters. In employment law, representations made by an employee, particularly a senior one, can crystallize into expectations, even legal obligations.

Employers sometimes include "best efforts" and developmental commitments in executive contracts: to achieve financial targets and potentially to integrate into corporate culture. Language acquisition, in the right context, can fall within that.

If so, the failure to make meaningful progress is not merely a public relations misstep. It may constitute a failure to meet a fundamental aspect of the role. But could this justify termination, as I suspect occurred? That depends.

Courts will examine whether bilingualism was an explicit or implicit requirement of the position, whether the employer communicated that expectation clearly and whether the executive was provided a reasonable opportunity and the support to meet it. They will also consider whether the deficiency caused actual harm — not just embarrassment, but a measurable impact on the business.

In Quebec, the analysis is further complicated by the province's French language Charter, which imposes obligations on businesses to operate in French. While that Charter does not dictate the language abilities of a CEO, it strengthens the legal argument that leadership must reflect and uphold the company's linguistic commitments.

There is also a governance dimension. Boards of directors are not permitted to be passive observers. If a known and recurring risk, such as the CEO's inability to communicate in a core language of the business, results in predictable crises, questions will be asked about oversight. In extreme cases, that can translate into fiduciary concerns.

For employers, the lesson is straightforward.

If a skill is essential, define it. If it is defined, enforce it. And if you are prepared to overlook it, do not be surprised when the cost of that decision eventually arrives — often at the worst possible moment.

For executives, the message is even more clear. The more senior the role, the fewer deficiencies can be excused as ancillary. What might be tolerable in middle management becomes untenable in executive leadership.

This was not, in the end, a tempest in a teapot but a case study on how a seemingly "soft" requirement — language — can harden into a legal and governance issue overnight.

And in employment law, those are precisely the issues that matter most.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario and Alberta, and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.