A Quebec court judge has raised concerns about the potential for unreasonable delays in criminal trials due to recent changes made to Quebec’s French language charter, specifically regarding the translation of English court judgements into French. Judge Dennis Galiatsatos warns that this new requirement could result in unfair delays in the judicial process and has questioned the constitutionality of this mandate. He highlights that this could impact upcoming trials, such as the case of Christine Pryde, where translating the judgement could lead to extended waiting periods for all parties involved.
Galiatsatos notes that Pryde’s defence is not challenging the constitutionality of the language law but may use it as a basis for seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable court delays. The Crown Prosecutor has taken a neutral stance on the issue and suggests that the judge should render his decision orally first to prevent any unnecessary delays. However, some legal experts, such as Université Laval Constitutional Law Professor Patrick Taillon, criticize Galiatsatos’ approach, stating that the concerns about delays are unfounded based on a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that these types of delays do not apply in certain situations.
The office of French Language Minister Jean-François Roberge asserts that the application of the Jordan ruling, which sets guidelines for court delays, does not apply to the deliberation of a judge and that efforts have been made to establish an efficient translation system following the adoption of Bill 96. However, criminal defence lawyers like Eric Sutton express concerns about potential discrimination against English-speaking accused individuals, as they may not receive court judgements in a timely manner compared to French-speaking individuals. Sutton also believes that there may still be grounds for arguing unreasonable court delays, despite the 2020 ruling, especially if judgements cannot be delivered promptly due to translation requirements.
Galiatsatos has requested official positions from the Attorneys General of both Quebec and Canada on the matter by May 14th. So far, the Quebec Attorney General argues that the judge should not be raising constitutional questions without the support of the crown or prosecutor. The Attorney General of Canada also dismisses the judge’s concerns, stating that the issue is a “non-existent problem” that has been imagined. Despite this, the debate over the impact of the translation requirement on court proceedings continues, with different stakeholders offering varying perspectives on the potential implications of Bill 96.
The language law in question utilizes the notwithstanding clause to shield it from the application of the Canadian Charter, further complicating the constitutional considerations raised by Judge Galiatsatos. Some legal experts argue that the concerns about delays are exaggerated, while others point to potential discriminatory effects on English-speaking individuals awaiting court judgements. The debate surrounding the translation requirement and its impact on criminal trials underscores the complex interactions between language rights, legal procedures, and constitutional principles in Quebec’s legal system, highlighting the need for careful consideration and balanced solutions to ensure fair and efficient administration of justice. Ultimately, the outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the future interpretation and application of language laws in Quebec’s legal system.
