Very rare fact: Quebec filed a legal request to prevent judge Dennis Galiatsatos from rendering a judgment.
This magistrate of the criminal chamber of the Court of Quebec had given himself the task of deciding the constitutional validity of an article of the Charter of the French Language (CLF) which will require immediate translation in less than a month. judgments rendered in English — even if no one had asked him.
This obligation of immediate translation into French was added to the CLF in 2022 when Bill 96 was adopted. The judge cannot render his judgment in English if the French version is not ready, and the English-speaking defendants therefore wait longer before knowing their fate, wrote the magistrate in his judgment dated 1er may.
“He considers himself invested with a role that is not his,” protests Quebec in its request for judicial review.
Normally, it is the parties to a dispute or a defendant who can raise constitutional questions and claim the invalidity of a law.
However, Judge Galiatsatos gave himself this task, by a decision rendered on 1er May, by erroneously relying “on its role as guardian of the Constitution”: this is devolved to the judges of the Superior Court and not to those of the Court of Quebec, argues the Attorney General of Quebec in his request for justice. He has no jurisdiction to act in this way, he adds.
Furthermore, his “preconceived reasoning” on the constitutional conformity of article 10 of the CLF “and the way in which he forces a debate on these questions raises a reasonable apprehension of bias”, which constitutes a significant breach of the principles of the judicial system, continues the Attorney General in his procedure.
All this debate is taking place in the criminal case of Christine Pryde, accused of dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing the death of a cyclist in 2021. She requested that her trial be held in English — which is her right —, but does not want to attack the validity of article 10. The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) did not want this either.
Regardless, Judge Galiatsatos decided to move forward.
He cannot, according to Quebec: “It is well established that a judge cannot raise ex officio a constitutional question calling into question the validity of a legislative provision. »
Quebec therefore asks the Superior Court to exercise its power of “control and surveillance” in order to overturn its decision of 1er May and order Judge Galiatsatos “not to engage in debate on the constitutional issues he has identified” regarding the validity of Article 10.