Lawyers challenge sections 9 and 208.6 of the new Charter of the French language, which require companies to file their pleadings in French or, when they file them in English, to accompany them with certified French translations .
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
This, while these articles help to strengthen the protection of the public by giving concrete expression to the right to justice in French, the official language of Quebec. In support of its claims, the Barreau alleges that requiring legal persons to have their proceedings translated into French would impose a financial and procedural burden that would compromise access to justice and violate constitutional rights. We are of the opinion that this argument deserves a reply.
First, remember that during the study of Bill 96, it was undeniably demonstrated that sociolinguistic trends in Quebec weaken the vitality of the French language in the territory, and therefore its future. Hence the need for the Quebec state to intervene energetically in many areas: language of work, signage and communications, exemplarity of the state, constitutional law, etc. As such, it is essential to see the courts contribute to the principle of exemplary behavior of the State.
In this context, contesting this new law to return to the state of the previous law is very likely to harm French: one cannot claim to want to put out a fire without giving the firefighters the means to fight it. This is all the more true since this new law proposes many compromises, for example on the question of the language of education or, in the case that interests us, the exemption of natural persons from this deposit requirement. or translation into French.
Similarly, we believed that the principle of French as the official language had consensus. However, since such a status naturally means that French must be the language of the legislator, the government and the courts, denying French the expression of this status within the justice system amounts in reality to contesting the official character of French. . It is also advocating a regression of the right to justice in French, which the new law enshrines and implements through articles 9 and 208.6.
This challenge may be waged in the name of access to justice, but in fact it risks harming that access. In a Quebec where nearly 80% of litigants are French-speaking, it is obvious that the possibility for companies to file their pleadings only in English is an obstacle to this access.
Concretely, before this law, it was not uncommon for a company suing Francophones to file its pleadings in English, making the defense of the latter more complicated. While the translation sector in Quebec claims to have the capacity to meet such a legislative requirement, it is difficult to see how access to justice for a few companies refusing to translate their pleadings into French would be further hindered today. access to justice for millions of French-speaking litigants before the adoption of Bill 96.
Similarly, since knowledge of French is an obligation for all members of the Bar, the requirement for legal persons to file or translate their pleadings into French should not be problematic. Finally, this translation obligation is not substantive and does not deprive of rights; it imposes an additional technical consideration, of magnitude and relatively modest cost in the whole of a judicial file. Haven’t our courts already ruled that simple technical questions or formalities involving reasonable costs are not infringing on constitutional rights?
Finally, let’s not forget that articles relating to the French language and the Quebec nation have been added to the Canadian Constitution which, therefore, will probably have to be interpreted in such a way as to take these articles into account. Let us also not forget that the time when the courts treated the protection of English in Quebec in the same way as they treated the protection of French in the other provinces, as if the two situations were similar, is fortunately over more over.
Interesting debates will be held soon, which will have a significant effect on the future of our official language. Civil society favorable to French will respond.