Arrested at the Toronto airport with nearly 4 kg of heroin, a Frenchman will not have to stand trial because his language rights were violated, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled. A “rare” verdict, according to an expert, which should sound the alarm about the lack of staff and bilingual judges.
In a decision published in March, and first reported by the media ONFR, Judge Cynthia Petersen ordered a stay of proceedings against Maxime Langlet, who faces up to 14 years in prison. On May 23, 2022, the French citizen was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police upon his arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport, because nearly 4 kg of heroin were found in his luggage. He is then charged with importing heroin, conspiring to import heroin into Canada, and having heroin in his possession for the purpose of trafficking.
At the Brampton courthouse, a suburb of Toronto, Mr. Langlet asks that the proceedings take place in French, as permitted by the Criminal Code. He also chooses to be tried with a preliminary investigation. This usually “brief” process, indicates Judge Petersen, will extend over 10 days due to the “need to use interpretation services”. But the Court, “despite its efforts, is not able to offer dates for holding a hearing in French”. Availability was finally found in January and February 2024, approximately 20 months after the charges were filed.
Fearing that it would not be possible to guarantee a trial within the reasonable period of 30 months provided for in the Jordan decision, the Crown suggested to the defense, among other solutions, that the case be referred to the Ottawa court, “which could possibly – be better able to accommodate a file in French”. A few days later, the prosecutor initiated a request for direct indictment, without a preliminary investigation. A jury trial, in French, is then scheduled for April 2024, before the end of the 30 months. But it is at this moment that Mr. Langlet requests a stay of the proceedings.
Act within “the limits” of the system
The defendant does not refuse to go to court. He defends that “if he were an English speaker, he would have benefited from a preliminary investigation”. This mechanism is not a constitutional right, but it allows the accused to better prepare for the trial. An advantage of which he should not be deprived because of his linguistic choice, affirms the judge.
The prosecutor “did what he could within the limits of a system which lacks resources to process files in French”, recognizes Me Petersen. “Many factors […] contribute to systemic delays,” she says, citing in particular insufficient staffing and lack of courtrooms.
But in this specific case, the delays stem from “a deficient institutional infrastructure for processing cases in French,” violating “systemically” the linguistic rights of the accused. “Members of the French-speaking minority, who constitute a significant segment of the public, would be dismayed, even overwhelmed [par ce résultat]. »
“There is no remedy other than a stay of proceedings which would be likely to correct the infringement of the applicant’s linguistic rights,” the judge then ruled. The Crown has not yet indicated whether it will appeal this decision.
A warning
According to the lawyer on file, Me Alina Sklar, this is a “significant victory for the defense and for the rights of francophones in Ontario”, believing that it “establishes an important precedent”.
Like any stay of proceedings — the “most draconian remedy that a Court can order” — this type of decision is “extraordinary,” says François Larocque, professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. Except that this time, it results from “a systemic defect, the inability of the system itself to function in a bilingual manner”. “It’s very rare,” said Mr. Larocque.
“In terms of linguistic rights, […] the Court sends very clear messages to governments that there are institutional flaws that must be repaired,” adds the holder of the Research Chair on the Canadian Francophonie in linguistic rights and issues. “It signals a glaring problem when Ontario’s busiest courthouse doesn’t have the resources it needs. […] If I am the Attorney General of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, I have lessons to learn from this ruling. »
The decision “at a minimum, should call on the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario, Carl Bouchard, to investigate and make recommendations,” says lawyer specializing in language rights, Mark Power. “The problem is systemic. So the solution must be too. What will they do, and when? “, he adds, calling out at the same time the Attorney General of Ontario and the province’s Ministry of Francophone Affairs.
Contacted by The duty, the Attorney General of Ontario and the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner respectively refused to comment, because “this matter is in the appeal period”, and because he had not “looked into” the case. “All we can say is to reiterate that access to justice in French is a priority for the commissioner and our team,” added the Office. The Ministry of Francophone Affairs did not respond.
This report is supported by the Local Journalism Initiative, funded by the Government of Canada.