In an article published by journalist Lise Denis in the June 7, 2024 edition of Dutywe can read that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr.e Richard Wagner, sees “a very positive interest in artificial intelligence in terms of the translation of decisions […] to facilitate access to justice.
In his judgment rendered in 2018 in the Mazraani v. Industrial Alliance, Insurance and Financial Services Inc., the Supreme Court specifies in paragraph 36:
“ [36] […] Furthermore, we consider it risky for a judge to offer to translate testimony to enable a party to understand it. Judges often do not have the expertise required to correctly translate testimony, and their intervention risks causing problems on appeal if the translation turns out to be incorrect. Such substitution of roles is not recommended. »
In 1934, the Government of Canada created an institution called the Translation Bureau, which this year celebrates its 90th anniversary.e anniversary and whose expertise consists of translating the most specialized texts as well as developing and using tools intended to facilitate the work of its translators and optimize translation costs. I cannot recommend highly enough the use of the Bureau’s experts for the translation of Supreme Court judgments.
In the article of Dutywe can also read that “the highest court in the country says it does not have the money or the resources to translate the approximately 6,000 unilingual judgments published before 1970, even if the Commissioner of Official Languages determined that they were “a violation of the Official Languages Act.”
However, in its Beaulac decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in paragraph 39 “that a simple administrative inconvenience is not a relevant factor […] additional financial costs […] should not be taken into consideration because the existence of language rights requires that the government meet the provisions of the Act by maintaining an adequate institutional infrastructure and providing services in both official languages equally. And, in paragraph 24, that “this principle of real equality has a meaning. It means in particular that linguistic rights of an institutional nature require government measures for their implementation and, consequently, create obligations for the State.
There is no doubt that a reasonable timetable and cost can be established in conjunction with the Office for the translation of these unilingual judgments.