In an unusual move, Justice Dennis Galiatsatos of the Court of Quebec decided that he would rule on the constitutional validity of the article of the Charter of the French language which requires the immediate translation of judgments rendered in English — even if no one raised before him the invalidity of this provision.
This debate took place in the criminal case of Christine Pryde, accused of dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing the death of a cyclist in 2021. She chose to have a trial in English, a right conferred on her by the Canadian Constitution.
The political context behind this affair is as follows: in June 2022, the CAQ government passed Bill 96, which reformed the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as “Law 101”, named after the original legislative project. Article 10 of the charter now provides that judgments written in English must be filed simultaneously with their French version. In short, the judgment in English cannot be rendered until its translation is ready. Which could take weeks, even months, according to what Judge Galiatsatos wrote in his decision rendered Wednesday.
Note that article 10 is not yet in force: it will only be from June 1st. Note also that it does not cover all judgments, but those which end a proceeding or which are of interest to the public. Others may be translated at the request of a party.
But as Christine Pryde’s trial is due to begin on June 3, the magistrate explains that it will be in force when it is time for him to pass judgment. And according to him, the accused will be penalized by the fact that she will have to wait to learn her fate, just like the victim’s family, who is waiting to be able to turn the page.
It is the judge himself – and he does not hide it in the pages of his decision – who raised what he sees as a problem that deserves to be resolved: is article 10 constitutional or not ?
The accused has made it known that she does not want this constitutional debate; neither does the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP).
Never mind, the judge invited the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada to join the criminal dispute to debate it. They stood together and informed the judge that he could not raise this issue himself, we can read in the decision dated 1er may. Incorrect, replies the magistrate: there are cases where a judge can do it, and here is a perfect case, he says. Especially when the question is “new”, he adds.
The accused, however, took the opportunity of this debate not to question the constitutionality of article 10 of the Charter of the French language, but rather to file a motion for a stay of proceedings, raising that her right to a trial in a reasonable deadline is restricted. This is a request commonly known as the “Jordan request”, in reference to the judgment Jordan of the Supreme Court of Canada, which set a maximum number of months within which a criminal case must take place.
Mme Pryde alleges that section 10 is detrimental to English-speaking defendants, who will have to wait longer than French-speaking defendants before receiving a judgment. This also undermines the judicial independence of English-speaking magistrates, she maintains.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified in a 2020 ruling that the period of deliberations, after the trial, is not included in the calculation of judicial deadlines, indicates Laval University law professor Patrick Taillon in a message posted on the social network
At the end of his judgment, Judge Galiatsatos decides that “he will rule on the constitutionality of article 10 of the Charter of the French language”.
A challenge to the reform of the Charter of the French language — called Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French — has already been filed in court.