The Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau, appealed to the Superior Court to quash the appointment of three judges by the Council of Ministers because the requirement of bilingualism that the magistrate imposes on almost all of the judges. judges appointed to this body were not retained by the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette.
The Court of Quebec has made fluency in English a requirement for almost all vacant judge positions, following a practice that has been in effect for the past ten years. Simon Jolin-Barrette believes that this general requirement is exaggerated and should be marked out. According to the minister, valid candidates who speak only French have been rejected.
At the beginning of 2021, the minister raised the anger of Lucie Rondeau: the notice concerning a call for candidates for a post of judge in the district of Longueuil did not require fluency in English. Then, in early October, notices for eight judge positions were published, three of which did not contain bilingualism requirements.
Under the procedure for appointing judges to the Court of Quebec, the selection secretary, who reports to the deputy minister, “after having taken into consideration the needs expressed by the chief judge”, opens, at the request of the Minister, a competition and publishes a notice for each position to be filled. A selection committee evaluates the candidates according to a list of competence and aptitude criteria which do not include any language requirements. But notices may include additional requirements. The committee provides the secretary with a report containing three names of candidates for each position. This report is submitted to the Minister, who makes his choices and makes his recommendation to the Council of Ministers.
In her petition, Lucie Rondeau, invoking judicial independence, maintains that the needs expressed by the Chief Justice must be fully respected. We are in a cause that touches the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, two of the three pillars of this trinity, the third being the legislative. Ultimately, however, it is up to the executive power – the Council of Ministers – to appoint the judges of the Court of Quebec. We will see what the Superior Court will say about it.
The Minister asks the Chief Justice to demonstrate that the requirement of bilingualism is essential to the accomplishment of the task. In Bill 96 reinforcing Bill 101 sponsored by Simon Jolin-Barrette as Minister responsible for the French language, both the private sector and the public administration must justify the requirement of bilingualism upon hiring.
Lucie Rondeau presents arguments similar to those advanced by companies for recruiting only bilingual employees: if all the judges speak English, the Court is much easier to manage.
In Canada, it is a constitutional right for a criminal accused to stand trial in English or in French. In Quebec, this right also extends to civil cases. Since Simon Jolin-Barrette has been Minister of Justice, all judges appointed to the Criminal Chamber had to be fluent in English. Two of the three judges whose appointment is contested sit in the Civil Chamber, and the other in the Youth Chamber. It cannot be assumed, moreover, that these magistrates do not speak English.
In her crusade, Lucie Rondeau opposes the will of an elected government to apply its language policy. It accuses the executive power of interfering in the judicial power, while the selection of judges is the clear prerogative of the Council of Ministers. Rather, it is the chief justice who undermines the separation of the judicial and executive powers.
His outing in the media against Bill 92 on the establishment of a specialized court in matters of domestic and sexual violence is similar. This bill was developed with the participation of a committee of experts co-chaired by the former Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec Elizabeth Corte. Certain objections from Judge Rondeau held up well – minor amendments were made to the bill thanks to the insistence of three members of the opposition parties – but the fierceness of the likely magistrate against the work as a whole did not fit well with the reserve that its function commands. His threat to challenge the law in court only gives ammunition to lawyers of possible sexual predators. The Chief Justice continues a bad fight against the executive and legislative powers. And we do not know where it will lead her.