After considering a response to your comment, I feel that using the term “fraud” was too strong on my part.

Nonetheless, bridging schools undermine the objective and purpose of the Charter of the French Language and the English instruction exceptions that under s.73. The idea of getting around a technicality by enrolling into a private school for a mere weeks is contrary to the approach of the Genuine Educational Pathway of a child that is central to the Canadian Charter approach. As such, the phenomenon of bridging schools is also against the spirit of s.23 of the Canadian Charter.

The SCC had recognized the problem of bridging schools as early as Solski where the unanimous court noted that:

It cannot be enough, in light of the objectives of s. 23, for a child to be registered for a few weeks or a few months in a given program to conclude that he or she qualifies for admission, with his or her siblings, in the minority language programs of Quebec.

(at para.39)

The same is noted by Justice LeBel in the decision under consideration here:

Some of the evidence on the use of bridging schools raises doubts regarding the genuineness of many educational pathways, and regarding the objectives underlying the establishment of certain institutions. In their advertising, some institutions suggested that after a brief period there, their students would be eligible for admission to publicly funded English‑language schools (A.R., at pp. 1200‑1202). An approach to reviewing files closer to the one established in Solski would make it possible to conduct a concrete review of each student’s case and of the institutions in question. This review would relate to the duration of the relevant pathway, the nature and history of the institution and the type of instruction given there. For example, it might be thought that an educational pathway of six months or one year spent at the start of elementary school in an institution established to serve as a bridge to the public education system would not be consistent with the purposes of s. 23(2) of the Canadian Charter and the interpretation given to that provision in Solski. Moreover, as I mentioned above, this Court expressed reservations in Solski about attempts to create language rights for expanded categories of rights holders by means of short periods of attendance at minority language schools (Solski, at para. 39).

(Nguyen (2009), per LeBel J at para. 44 [emphasis added])

With respect, your analogy with law schools is not a sound one. There are many private schools in Quebec that are accredited by the Province and provide instruction in English and serve as bona fide Educational Pathways for Anglophone minorities in Quebec. I would suggest that those accredited institutions are a closer analogy to law schools. The unaccredited “bridging schools” that promise to get a child into Government-subsidized English programs within a few weeks of instruction do not compare.

What exactly is nearing fraud in publicly providing a service to allow someone to meet a statutory requirement? (For example, certianly you wouldn’t say that law schools are “nearing fraud” for assisting students to become qualified to practice law?)