As far as I know, the Office de la langue française’s main work is establishing standards for the French language used in Quebec. They publish many useful documents in this respect.
They also have the responsibility of ensuring that the Charter of the French language is being respected, which is clearly what you are more familiar with. But it doesn’t mean that it’s their main work. (Plus, I’ll add that referring to this as “controlling the use of English” is quite misleading.)
The educated writer follows common practice in language to a degree that is nearly indistinguishable from conformity to rule. Some writing passes beyond common practice because it explores uncommon thought. Often this is falsely attributed to ignorance or wantonness by pedantic adherence to some perceived authority. It is also wise to remember that very little that is said in any context passes into the realm of truly uncommon thought.
Tris
“Language is not an abstract construction of the learned, or of dictionary makers, but is something arising out of the work, needs, ties, joys, affections, tastes, of long generations of humanity, and has its bases broad and low, close to the ground.” ~ Noah Webster
Bad style equals bad writing.
Bad grammer equals sloppy writing.
I can read bad writing (though I prefer not to). I cannot read sloppy writing.
My comment was more a reference to the “one step further” of Quebec compared to France, although the “controlling the use of English” is the most visible and controversial aspect of their work (at least in the Anglophone community). I am aware of the other work they do, and have and use a couple of their language standards publications (although this too might be seen as a “language/grammar police” function 
).
And what does bad spelling equal? 