Translation of Supreme Court decisions: Collective rights Quebec stays the course

Droits collectives Québec (DCQ) does not intend to abandon its fight against the Supreme Court, which sought to evade the Official Languages ​​Act by announcing last Friday that it was withdrawing from its website the approximately 6,000 unilingual judgments rendered before 1969 rather than translating them.

Our intention is to continue the procedures which, in our eyes, are still relevant as we speak, despite this somewhat desperate gesture taken by the Supreme Courtconfirmed the general director of DCQÉtienne-Alexis Boucher, in interview with The Canadian Press, Monday.

There is something very unacceptable about taking this action without notifying the Federal Court itself, without even talking to us, the plaintiff.for his part deplored the president of DCQDaniel Turp.

A certain arrogance

This reaction from the Supreme Court demonstrates a certain arrogance on its part, as if it had not learned. Twice the Commissioner of Official Languages ​​has blamed her, we take her to the Federal Court and suddenly she gives this very unsatisfactory response to our requestshe continued.

DCQ indeed triggered, on 1^is last November, proceedings in Federal Court against the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court aimed at forcing it to translate all decisions rendered by the highest court before the entry into force of the Official Languages ​​Act in 1969. Decisions prior to this date were rendered only in the language in which they were argued: most in English.

In addition to the obligation to translate these decisions, DCQ also asks the Federal Court to force the Office of the Registrar to present an official apology and to pay one million dollars in damages to organizations promoting and defending French.

The organization also asked the court to declare that the Office of the Registrar is in contravention of the Act, but following the withdrawal, we will now seek confirmation that there was an infringement before the withdrawal.

Blamed twice

The pursuit of DCQ was based on two reports from the Commissioner of Official Languages ​​who concluded that even if the Act was not retroactive and did not require the highest court to translate its decisions before 1969, putting them online in a language alone constituted an offense in itself.

By removing these decisions from its website, the Supreme Court is thus avoiding the obligation imposed by law, but it also finds itself contradicting itself.

The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages ​​states that the Supreme Court explained that removing decisions available only in one language would mean that there would no longer be a violation of the Official Languages ​​Act in the investigation. However, the institution does not wish to move forward with this option, because it is contrary to the efforts being made by the CSC to improve access to justice and allow the Canadian population to have access to all their decisions.

A gesture cynical and contemptuous

Étienne-Alexis Boucher did not fail to raise the contradiction. We can question this gesture which is, in some ways, very cynical and contemptuous of the entire Canadian population. The Supreme Court goes against the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages ​​and the spirit of the law, which is not to hide the case law on the Constitution of Canada, but to translate it so that it can be available in both official languages ​​of the country.

Furthermore, the argument of the Office of the Registrar to the effect that these old decisions are still accessible on websites that do not come under its control, in this case the legal database CanLII, irritates Daniel Turp to the fullest. high point. Our concern for CanLII is that it is first and foremost a private company. So the Supreme Court now relies on a private company to disseminate its judgmentshe curses.

Judge and party

Droits collectives Québec also does not accept the announcement from the Office of the Registrar that it will begin translating certain judgments from 2025 that it considers important from a jurisprudential and historical perspective.

The Supreme Court is judge and party on this question, argues Daniel Turp. It is she herself who will choose, according to her own criteria, which judgments have historical or jurisprudential value. It should be a third party or she should call on renowned constitutional experts. Will she do it or will she want to have a monopoly on this decision?asks Daniel Turp.

The two men also say they are extremely surprised by the Office of the Registrar’s assertion that these possible translations will not be official because the judges who made them are deceased and will not have approved them.

We have checked with the Order of Approved Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters of Quebec and never, in the process of translating current judgments, is the author of these judgments consulted to approve the final version.

The Supreme Court’s argument that these are not official versions does not hold waterslices Étienne-Alexis Boucher.

Despite everything, DCQ believes that the decision of the highest court to withdraw all its unilingual decisions demonstrates the merits of its approach, but in the worst possible waywrites the organization in its reaction press release published Monday morning.

Remember that the pursuit of DCQ in Federal Court does not target the Supreme Court directly, since it is protected against such recourses by virtue of the principle of the independence of the courts. The organization instead chose to target the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, an institution that reports to the federal public service.