The response from the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who described as “peculiar” the judgment of magistrate Dennis Galiatsatos rejecting one of the sections of his “law 96” on the official and common language of Quebec, hit the mark . The word could not be more accurate, to describe a decision of absolutism which solemnly contrasts with the role of the judge. However, there is reason to wonder, two weeks before the entry into force of the famous article of law which is inappropriately contested here, whether the minister has failed to land this provision of his major reform within the legal community. of the French language.
From the start, Judge Galiatsatos’ ill-advised initiative seemed guided by bias, namely the categorical rejection of a legislative language policy dictated to the judiciary. It was the magistrate himself who took the liberty of suggesting to the accused and her lawyer to be concerned about the upcoming obligation to see a decision written in English be translated, before it could be rendered “immediately and without delay” in French. The defense did not want this debate, any more than the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the Attorney General of Quebec or the Attorney General of Canada. The family of the victim, a cyclist fatally struck three years ago, would probably have done without it too.
No matter, Judge Galiatsatos led the hoped-for crusade, exposing his reluctance from his own bench, from which he subsequently ruled in his favor obviously.
The magistrate argues that this article of Law 96 “frustrates the federal objective of guaranteeing fair treatment in criminal proceedings” between English-speaking defendants, who will have to wait for the translation of a decision, and French-speaking defendants. He mentions the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court, whose predetermined deadlines do not apply to deliberations. He argues the preponderance of criminal law falling under federal jurisdiction, while conveniently ignoring the preponderance of the Superior Court, which has the jurisdiction to invalidate a law, rather than him. The article hated by the judge was therefore declared inoperative only in the case over which he is presiding at the Court of Quebec. However, nothing would prevent other magistrates from following suit. The Quebec government immediately appealed.
This argument of unfair delay was used during the parliamentary study of Bill 96 by the Barreau du Québec, the Quebec division of the Canadian Bar Association, as well as the Society of Litigators. All recognized the laudable objective of the law, but argued that requiring the immediate translation of decisions into French would pose the risk of penalizing certain English-speaking parties. The government of François Legault has not wavered. Judge Galiatsatos visibly felt invested in taking up the pilgrim’s staff, despite the fact that the courts of New Brunswick and the Supreme Court — which is certainly not in the habit of departing from respect for the orders of law — publish already and smoothly their decisions in both languages. No matter, the verdict was fixed in advance, the magistrate having in this case proclaimed himself judge and party.
The affidavits submitted as part of this strange self-referential challenge, however, seem to confirm that in addition to the promises to this effect from the Quebec government, there is currently no guarantee that legal translation services will be able to respond to the volume of decisions now requiring their assistance. services.
The Quebec Legal Information Society reports that apart from “exceptional circumstances for very long judgments”, these translations are generally provided within a matter of days or weeks. And not months, as Judge Galiatsatos suggested.
However, the government is still only at the stage of talks to find additional resources, through possible new hires or technological tools such as artificial intelligence, the Attorney General of Quebec would have mentioned, according to the magistrate.
The Supreme Court, which has still not complied with orders to translate all its decisions rendered before the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1970, had rejected this use of software, deploring the “technical limits of automatic translation “. This IT avenue would indeed require a meticulous revision in order to avoid the translation discrepancies often observed at the federal level over the years.
The primary test of the effectiveness of a law is the ability to enforce it. It is not enough to have legislated the primacy of the official and common language of Quebec in the legal order, it is still necessary to ensure its application in its entirety. In the case of the necessary translation of judicial decisions, Minister Jolin-Barrette now has less than ten days to do so.