In past twenty years, both Canada and United States have witnessed significant degree of conflict over language issues. Since passage of of Rights and Freedoms, there has been growing debate about consequent politicization of courts and their role in democratic politics. This issue is joined in Canada because English and French are only two languages, although others are spoken by linguistic minorities and native peoples. In United States, English was not codified as language until recently when, at last count, twenty-seven states have enacted laws proclaiming English their official language. U.S. Supreme Court probably is most activist high court tribunal on earth, with Canada's fast becoming runner-up.(1) Barely decade after Charter's passage, Mandel characterized its impact as legalization of in Canada,(2) and Peter Russell, another scholar, believes that the importance of review in Canada at present time equals if it does not exceed its importance in United States.(3) Morton and Knopff go even further, calling it Charter Revolution because Canadian politics has been replaced by regime of constitutional supremacy verging on supremacy. On rights issues, judges have abandoned deference and self-restraint that characterized their pre-Charter jurisprudence and become more active players in political process.(4) Indeed Alan Cairns anticipated far reaching political consequences from that designates group entitlements for certain minorities. The is more than an instrument that hands out abstract rights equally to all Canadians and is indifferent to their various statuses defined by gender, ethnicity, official language status, and presence or absence of disabilities. In fact it specifically mobilizes Canadians in terms of these categories. It encourages Canadians to think of themselves for constitutional purposes as women, as official-language minorities, as disabled, or as ethnocultural Canadians.(5) To this extent Les Pal agrees: The advent of in 1982 therefore did not so much create new groups as new opportunities, though some organizations were spawned specifically to pursue new litigation strategies related to Charter's equality provisions.(6) It was not long before Supreme Court broadcast its intentions in no uncertain terms. In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Sapinker (1984), Supreme Court declared that its jurisprudence would be large and liberal in scope, welcome signal to advocacy groups who were organizing litigation campaign. Thus, distinction between activism or restraint is largely framed in terms of relationship between judiciary and popularly elected branches. By activism Kenneth Holland means a court's attitude toward traditional policy-making institutions and its willingness to enforce claims against them.(7) legal scholars Rainer Knopff and F.L. Morton agree, explaining that judicial activism refers to disposition to interpret rights broadly and to enforce them vigorously against other branches of government...judicial self-restraint, by contrast, connotes predisposition to find room within constitution for policies of democratically accountable decision makers.(8) contemporary political problem is that law and constitutionalism erect firm guideposts on language policy to guide judicial, executive, and legislative decision-makers, but language remains an unsettled area of constitutional and statutory law in United States. In this divergent legal milieu, we examine whether their respective high courts have adopted stance of activism or restraint with regard to language policy. Overview of National Language Policy Section 133 of 1867 British North America Act, founding constitutional document, permitted use of either French or English in national Parliament, Quebec legislature, and their respective courts, and required laws and records to be maintained in both languages. …