Do you remember this story of conflict of interest which involved two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada?
It was the historian Frédéric Bastien, who died just a year ago, who sounded the alarm.
He had discovered that two federal judges called to rule on the constitutionality of Bill 21 had participated in a benefit event intended to finance an organization… which fought Bill 21!
That’s as if a referee in a game between the Canadiens and the Red Wings was wearing a Red Wings vest!
At some point, you have to choose: are you a judge or an activist?
Referee or player?
Are you neutral or are you taking sides?
- Listen to the Martineau – Dutrizac meeting between Benoît Dutrizac and Richard Martineau via QUB :
AN ALL-POWERFUL JUDGE?
A similar story is playing out regarding another law hated by English speakers, Bill 96.
Judge Dennis Galiatsatos, of the Court of Quebec, took advantage of the trial of a woman accused of criminal negligence having caused the death of a cyclist in 2021 to take aim at the law intended to protect French.
· Read also: Translation of judgments: a judge declares an article of the new Charter of the French language “inoperative”
More particularly, on an article of this law requiring the immediate translation of certain judgments rendered in English.
As pointed out in an article from Dutythe problem is that no one — neither the accused nor the DPCP — had asked Judge Galiatsatos to decide whether this obligation of immediate translation was valid or not: he decided to “do the job” himself.
In a 35-page judgment (!), Judge Galiatsatos declared unilaterally (without allowing the other party to be heard, which is still the bare minimum in a democracy) that the article of a law adopted by a democratically elected provincial government was ineffective and did not apply to his case.
There will be no immediate translation of my judgment, take your law, roll it up tight and put it where I think, thank you, good evening!
We had two Supreme Court judges who actively campaigned against a law that they had to judge!
And we now have a judge from the Court of Quebec who considers himself the Supreme Court and who judges the validity of a law!
Well then.
Hello neutrality!
If Mr. Galiatsatos wants to go into politics, let him leave his post, put on his skates and jump on the ice alongside Balarama Holness!
Or that he runs for the leadership of the PLQ!
Archive photo, Pierre-Paul Poulin
THE BATTLE OF QUEBEC
Before, we hid when we wanted to prevent Quebec from managing itself as it wanted.
We did this from below.
Secretly.
In catimini.
By asking the chief justice of the Supreme Court to influence an important member of the federal government, for example (as Frédéric Bastien revealed in his shocking work, The Battle of London).
Now we don’t even hide anymore.
We do this in broad daylight.
As if laws 21 and 96 were so dangerous for fundamental freedoms, so appalling, so monstrous, that even judges had the duty to drop their sacrosanct neutrality to actively throw themselves into the battle!
