bilingualism Archives - LawNow Magazine

Bench Press – Vol 40-3 Autism, Homeopathy and Custody

January 5, 2016 By Teresa Mitchell

Two small boys with severe and profound autism spectrum disorder were at the centre of a custody dispute between their parents. The children have seen a myriad of medical and health care professionals. The father began giving the boys a series of homeopathic treatments after consulting with homeopathic practitioners. In addition, he took the children to a podiatrist, osteopath, and wanted to pursue speech therapy and listening therapy. The mother testified that these treatments seemed to be making the boys worse, and testified that she believed he was seeking a cure for autism rather than finding a method to manage it. The judge commented: “The father’s behaviour and attitude are unfortunate as it is clear that he loves the children and the children love him….Although it is understandable that the father wishes to investigate services and possible therapies for the children, such services need to be discussed and co-ordinated with the children’s teacher, medical doctors and other professionals involved in the children’s lives and of course discussed with the mother. The father…has not done so and has no insight that he should do so”. Justice Zisman ordered sole custody for the mother, with access for the father, but under strict conditions. Among other restrictions, she ordered that he not give the children any homeopathic remedies without the mother’s prior written consent, or take the children for any treatment, therapy, appointment or consultation with any person providing any type of medical, homeopathy, naturopathy, osteopathy, podiatry, occupational therapy, speech therapy or any other type of therapy with out the prior written consent of the mother.

Ciutcu v Dragan, 2015 ONCJ 659 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2015/2015oncj659/2015oncj659.html

Well-drafted Waivers

Robbie Levita suffered a severe break to his leg while playing hockey in an adult recreational, non-contact league. He sued the league and the player who hit him during the game. The judge found both the defendant player and the league not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Interestingly, he ruled that even if the league had been found negligent for not providing a safe environment for play, its waiver was a complete defence to claims against it. He found that the waiver was unambiguous about risk and specifically listed the risks and dangers it covered, such as collision with the boards, being struck by sticks or pucks, or physical contact with other participants, resulting in injuries. Justice Firestone also concluded: “The plaintiff’s argument that the waiver was not explained to him is not sufficient to dispose of the waiver’s effect. The plaintiff understands the legal significance of signing a waiver document. If he was unclear about the waiver’s meaning or felt he did not have sufficient time to read the waiver, it was, with respect, open to him to take the necessary steps to satisfy himself that he understood the contents of the document before he signed it. Based on the factual background in this case he cannot retrospectively void the waiver’s effect by arguing he voluntarily signed something he did not read.”

Levita v Alan Crew et al, 2015 ONSC 5316 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2025onsc5316/2015

A Traffic Ticket Odyssey

After ten years, four levels of court, and numerous interveners, including the Alberta Catholic School Trustees Association and the Commissioner of Official Languages in Canada, two Alberta men have lost their battle to fight their traffic tickets because the Alberta Traffic Safety Act and Regulations were not published in both English and French. They claimed that there was a constitutional obligation on the part of Alberta to enact, print and publish its laws in official languages. This launched a sweeping review of Western Canadian history going back to 1870 when huge swaths of land owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company became part of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the men’s argument in a six to three split decision. The majority ruled that the 1870 Rupert’s Land and North-West Territory Order (the 1870 Order), which covered the territory that eventually became Alberta, did not expressly provide for legislative bilingualism, unlike the 1870 Manitoba Act, creating that province, which expressly did. The Court rather tartly commented: “The Canadian Parliament knew how to entrench language rights and did so in the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Manitoba Act, 1870 in very similar and very clear terms. The total absence of similar wording in the contemporaneous 1867 Address or 1870 Order counts heavily against [the appellants]…” As a result, the Court ruled that Alberta is not constitutionally obligated to enact, print and publish its laws and regulations in both French and English.

Three Supreme Court judges dissented, including two from Quebec. They wrote: “…this historical context shows that by the time the 1870 Order annexed the territories to Canada, the Canadian government had come to accept that legislative bilingualism was among the rights of the territories’ inhabitants.”

Caron v. Alberta, 2015 SCC 56 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc56/2015scc56.html

Names in Japan

In December, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that spouses must use the same surname. Five plaintiffs had challenged the law, claiming that it was unconstitutional and violated their human rights. However, the Court said: “It is only reasonable for family members to have the same name.” Presiding Judge Itsuro Terada stated that changing one’s name after marriage did not harm “individual dignity and equality between men and women” and noted that maiden names can still be used informally. The law in Japan does not say which surname a married couple must use, so it is possible that families could choose to use the wife’s name. However, apparently 96% of Japanese families adopt the husband’s surname.

Five Judges, including all three female judges on the 15-judge bench, dissented.

Citation not available.

Quebec’s Need for Cultural and Linguistic Protection, the Notwithstanding Clause, and the Demise of the Meech Lake Accord

March 6, 2014 By Rob Normey

For careful observers of Canadian culture and politics, there was an obvious irony attached to the House of Commons motion that was approved in November of 2006, recognizing Quebec’s special place in Confederation. The motion garnered 265 yeas and a mere 16 nays and stated:

“Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Quebecoises et les Quebecois forment une nation au sein d’un Canada uni.”

“That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada.”

Many of us will recall the highly polarized debate surrounding the 1987 Meech Lake Accord, signed by Prime Minister Mulroney and all of Canada’s premiers. It generated a great deal of confident talk about how the province of Quebec, whose government had not signed on to the Constitution Act, 1982, had now been brought into the constitutional fold with “honour and enthusiasm.” Seasoned Canada watchers would have known at that point to cue the scary movie music, and indeed a veritable firestorm occurred over the next few years, leaving the Prime Minister, Premier Bourassa and a great many other political figures to contemplate the ashes and rubble of Meech Lake with despair. This agreement recognizing that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada and that our Constitution should be interpreted with that in mind, attracted vehement denunciation and scathing criticism from a number of quarters.The three years between the signing of the Meech Lake Accord and its demise were a momentous time for Canada, arguably involving the development of fault lines that split Canada and led to a gradual reconfiguration of our land. A painful odyssey took place over the next three years until the time limits expired with two provinces having failed to enact the required resolutions and constitutional shouting matches becoming the favorite blood sport in Canada.

The House of Commons Resolution of 2006 represents a shift in the willingness of political representatives from English-speaking Canada, or Canada Beyond Quebec, to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec as a predominantly French-speaking province, with its own unique culture, within our nation-state. This inevitably leads one to ask whether or not the furore over the Meech Lake Accord might have been a lot of sound and fury signifying, perhaps, a failure of imagination and tolerance.

The three years between the signing of the Meech Lake Accord and its demise were a momentous time for Canada, arguably involving the development of fault lines that split Canada and led to a gradual reconfiguration of our land. To better understand its significance in our historical development, we need to focus on the heated topic of language and cultural protection policy engaged in by the Quebec government and how these were perceived by citizens and the courts. In particular, I would maintain that the Ford and Devine decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 and the reaction to them by Premier Bourassa and the National Assembly of Quebec continue to reverberate to this day.

The government of Quebec spends more on various cultural initiatives by a considerable margin than does any other province. At the heart of its culture is undeniably the French language itself.

As someone who has been fortunate enough to visit Quebec a number of times, I can say with conviction that I consider the province to be an indispensable part of my Canada. I mean not just the idea of Quebec but its lived reality, with all its messy contradictions. Along with our Aboriginal culture, Quebecois culture may well be what best defines the unique quality of Canada as a nation. Visits to Montreal, Quebec City and the Gatineau are a large part of what makes me enthusiastic to live and act as a Canadian. Engaging with the reality of what makes Quebec unique means coming to some level of acceptance of the need for a language and culture policy that protects French usage and its creative expression in artistic endeavours that place Quebec in a leading position in the world.

One of Canada’s greatest movies, Mon Oncle Antoine (1971), directed by Claude Jutra, contains an unforgettable scene early in its depiction of the tough and impoverished lives of the inhabitants of a Duplessis-era asbestos mining town. The Anglophone mine owner, displaying a grim and angry demeanour, tosses Christmas stockings at the drab homes of his employees, failing to conceal the contempt he feels for these vulnerable French-Canadians. Anyone doubting the need for the Quiet Revolution that began in the 1960s to end the economic domination of the majority francophone population needs to view and reflect on Jutra’s unsparing masterpiece. One way successive Quebec governments have chosen to do this is to enact language laws designed to ensure the predominant role of the French language in workplaces and public institutions.

As a general comment on Quebec’s language laws – the sign laws, the laws mandating that French be the basic language in many workplaces, etc., I would emphasize that they operate in tandem with laws designed to protect Quebecoise culture. Language is more than a mere means of communication; it is part and parcel of the identity and culture of the people speaking it. It is a means by which individuals understand themselves and the world around them. Therefore, they can be best understood within the framework of the need in vulnerable societies to protect and promote language and culture. If we stop to consider the culture of Canada Beyond Quebec for a moment, and the huge difficulty we have in creating a space for our own made-in-Canada culture to survive and flourish, then consider the need for Quebec to protect both its majority language and its culture, we might perceive genuine connections between our parallel albeit different situations. Culture, in fact, includes all the ways members of a society live together, to cite UNESCO, including the arts, but also knowledge, belief, law, morals and customs. Culture must surely be agreed to be a public good and only through wise cultural policies in our highly globalized world can we preserve or invigorate our cultural identity.

While Canada Beyond Quebec has a similarly vulnerable culture to that of Quebec’s, we have chosen a dramatically different path with our cultural policy. English-speaking Canada could accordingly be seen to be rather poorly placed to understand the approach taken by Quebec policy makers to matters of language and culture. The government of Quebec spends more on various cultural initiatives by a considerable margin than does any other province. At the heart of its culture is undeniably the French language itself.

One way successive Quebec governments have chosen to do this is to enact language laws designed to ensure the predominant role of the French language in workplaces and public institutions.

The connection between language and culture has been identified by the Supreme Court of Canada on several occasions as it interprets the Constitution. For instance, in the 1990 decision of Mahe, Justice Dickson described the importance of the need to protect and promote both official languages in the context of a case examining s. 23 of the Charter of Rights. He states at p. 362:

My reference to cultures is significant: it is based on the fact that any broad guarantee of language rights, especially in the context of education, cannot be separated from a concern for the culture associated with the language. Language is more than a mere means of communication; it is part and parcel of the identity and culture of the people speaking it. It is a means by which individuals understand themselves and the world around them.

Let’s look at the Supreme Court’s review of the Quebec language policy in the area of business sign laws, in the 1988 case of Ford v. Quebec, and how this played a dynamic role in the unfolding drama that was the Meech Lake affair, leading to the use of the notwithstanding clause by Premier Bourassa of Quebec. The curtain comes up on a stage with 11 men announcing to the Canadian populace that they have been meeting for days at a hitherto unknown Meech Lake cottage, which had been converted into a government conference centre in the Gatineau Hills. The Accord had been prepared for in a series of meetings between governments as the federal government of Brian Mulroney endeavoured to address major Quebec demands for an amendment to the Canadian Constitution in order that it might provide its assent and acceptance of the Constitution Act, 1982, which came into force without the province’s agreement. The Accord can be briefly summarized as possessing five main modifications to our Constitution, as follows:

An interpretive clause for the Constitution, involving recognition of Quebec as a distinct society;
A veto power for future amendments for all provinces;
The granting of greater powers to the provinces in the field of immigration;
An opt out clause relating to any future federal programs that would extend into provincial areas, allowing any province to opt out and yet retaining the right to reasonable financial compensation; and
Involvement of all of the provinces in the future appointment of Supreme Court justices and of Senators.

Seasoned Canada watchers would have known at that point to cue the scary movie music, and indeed a veritable firestorm occurred over the next few years, leaving the Prime Minister, Premier Bourassa and a great many other political figures to contemplate the ashes and rubble of Meech Lake with despair.

This major constitutional breakthrough was touted as a vital means of addressing legitimate concerns of the province of Quebec and was described by the Prime Minister as the necessary “Quebec round” in our constitutional odyssey. I want to focus on the most prominent aspect of the Accord – the “distinct society” clause. This would be a means of recognizing in our most fundamental law that Quebec existed in our country as a distinctive part of it with unique needs in such matters as language and culture and that courts would need to take the existence of this “distinct society” into account when analyzing provisions under constitutional challenge.

The distinct society clause (and indeed the whole of the agreement) was, however, attacked by former Prime Minister Trudeau in a truly savage critique that extended to attacks on the persons and the motivations of the various political actors. In short he saw the distinct society clause and the rest as amounting to a “total bungle” that would render the Canadian state “totally impotent,” leading us all to be “governed by eunuchs.” Many others weighed in, emboldened no doubt by the firm convictions of the chief orchestrator of our new Constitution and its Charter of Rights and his undoubted knowledge of constitutional politics and law.

With the Meech Lake Accord needing to be ratified in every legislature in the country within three years and with two governments being defeated and replaced by a new leadership, yet another ticking time bomb exploded in December, 1988. This was the Supreme Court’s two rulings on the aforesaid sign laws earlier enacted by the Quebec National Assembly to protect the French language and ensure its primacy.

In Ford v. Quebec, Chief Justice Dickson and a unanimous court ruled that the sign laws contravened s 2(b) of the Charter of Rights, as well as s. 3 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified as a “reasonable limit” under s. 1 of the Charter and could not likewise be justified as an acceptable restriction on freedom of expression under the Quebec Charter.

In the midst of the growing maelstrom, Premier Bourassa and his advisers huddled together and developed a new sign law that took into account many of the significant aspects of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court had examined and relied on studies about the need to provide protection for the French language given the North American context in which the Quebecois operated, saying that the laws at issue met a substantial and pressing need. The aim of the language policy was stated to be a legitimate one. However, the Court said that the requirement that commercial signs must be exclusively French was unnecessary and overly broad, given the need to respect freedom of expression by various participants in the Quebec economy. The Court stated that an alternative which would be acceptable would be to require that French be given a position of dominance and have greater visibility than that accorded other languages.

The new legislative package was drawn with rights under the Canadian and Quebec Charters, as considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, in mind. Premier Bourassa made a controversial decision to invoke the notwithstanding clause to ensure that the new legislation could not be reviewed and possibly struck down, in whole or in part, by the Court. Most observers saw that this draconian decision would be fatal to the prospects for convincing wavering or recalcitrant premiers from moving forward to ratify the Accord in their legislatures. Indeed, in two provinces – Manitoba and Newfoundland, the time limits for ratification came and went without the necessary ratification. Meech was dead in the water.

While the use of the notwithstanding clause is something that I and many other students of the Constitution are opposed to, with the belief that, at most, it should only be used in extraordinary circumstances where a compelling case can be made that some emergency requires its temporary usage, I also recognize that Bourassa was under great pressure to use all means at his disposal to protect his language package. A highly controversial decision was made by Premier Bourassa to invoke the notwithstanding clause to ensure that the new legislation could not be reviewed and possibly struck down, in whole or in part, by the Court.On balance we can look back at Bourassa’s decision to invoke s. 33 – the notwithstanding clause – as constituting a serious blunder on both legal and political grounds. The moderating of the legislation so that English and other minority languages could be displayed, with French being placed in a dominant position, could have been justified under s. 1 of the Charter had a new challenge proceeded. Hence, use of the notwithstanding clause was unnecessary. Further, if indeed the “Quebec round” of constitutional amendments was vital to Quebec as well as to Canada as a whole, weathering the storm of criticism by certain French-language zealots would have been a wiser course than angering and rendering suspicious wide swaths of the citizenry in Canada Beyond Quebec.

Perhaps future governments, sensing a citizenry wishing to create a more unified country than what we are experiencing in the current era, will dust off elements of the Meech Lake Accord and examine whether the distinct society clause, together with other vital imperatives, might not warrant careful consideration. In the meantime, Quebec will assiduously continue with its unique language and culture policies.

The Intersection of Law, Language and Culture

March 6, 2014 By Carole Aippersbach

Introduction

When we think of the intersection of law and language, most of us reflect on the linguistic sides of the issue, such as: questions about why law-makers use certain words as opposed to others, queries about ‘legalese’, and problems of misunderstanding, interpretation and translation. Rarely do we spend much time considering the possibility that the language we speak might itself form the basis for the granting – or denial – of certain legal rights and responsibilities.

However, in Canada, this question of ‘language rights’ is a very important part of the legal landscape. Whether we are born in Canada or move here later in life, we learn that this is a bilingual country. We also learn that minority official language speakers (the French language minority outside of Québec, and the English language minority inside Québec [1]) have language “rights” and that these rights are sometimes protected by Canada’s constitutional framework (including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). But what exactly are these rights? Why do we have them, and when can we use them? And are these rights always constitutionally protected?

The Larger Framework

The structure of our bilingualism, and more specifically of our constitutionally-protected minority language rights, stems from our history. Canadian law recognizes that both the English and the French communities, and therefore, languages, played an important role in the founding of the federation now known as Canada. It recognizes that language is a fundamental aspect of individual identity and an expression of community and culture. Canada’s bilingual character is also a fundamental aspect of Canadian national identity. It is a reference for national pride and patriotism. Like the flag and the national anthem, our bilingual composition portrays the national personality. Minority language protections ensure that all of these aspects of Canadian identity will be preserved.

It is these governmental commitments to the importance and equality of the English and French languages that have led to the bilingualism we know and enjoy today. Unlike some other countries, Canadian bilingualism is not one wherein most people in the country speak both languages fluently. Like the flag and the national anthem, our bilingual composition portrays the national personality Instead, Canadian bilingualism reflects the reality that there are a large number of people who speak one language, and a large number of people who speak another (in Québec alone, there are almost 8 million French-speakers). This bilingualism is then echoed in the language-related rules and programs that are in place. The result: Canada has two official languages and numerous legal protections for minority official language rights (the French language minority outside of Québec, and the English language minority inside Québec).

The rules around our constitutionally-protected minority language rights, including who gets to decide what, are complicated, and equally steeped in history. To understand the greater picture, we must step back for a moment.

The basic rules that dictate which level of government can make laws in a particular sector are set out in sections 91 (federal) and 92 (provincial) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (“CA 1867”, formerly known as the British North America Act or “BNA Act”). Under the CA 1867, the word “language” itself does not appear in any of the lists in either s.91 or s.92. Instead, the authority to make laws about language is tied to each particular non-language subject matter. As a result, there is no single and complete power to make laws that are only about language, and powers over language are divided between federal and the provincial/territorial governments. Alongside the Charter and other constitutional protections, the federal government has passed additional laws about language rights. One example is the Official Languages Act. Again, however, this kind of legislation applies only to the federal government. Furthermore, the federal government has transferred some of its powers to the territorial governments in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

The result is a set of federal language laws, and a set of language laws (or no language law) for each province/ territory.

It is important to understand what kind of language rights there are. In a nutshell, language rights appear in various kinds of law, and the kind of rights or protections that they give depends on the nature of the law.

Overarching Legislation / the Constitutional Framework

The most permanent commitment to bilingualism comes from the language rights that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), section 133 of CA 1867 and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870. These rights guarantee, under certain conditions, the use, protection and development of minority languages in certain sectors: education, governmental communications and services, legislation and publications, and judicial rights. These rights are essentially permanent; as they are difficult to alter (there is high standard for changes to the Charter and to other constitutional documents). However, although they affect people across Canada, and except in matters of minority language education rights, these rights are limited to the federal government, and the governments of Québec, Manitoba, and New Brunswick (the only officially bilingual province).

Federal Laws

Alongside the Charter and other constitutional protections, the federal government has passed additional laws about language rights. One example is the Official Languages Act. Again, however, this kind of legislation applies only to the federal government. Another example is section 530 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which outlines the minority official language rights of an accused in criminal proceedings before a court. These laws can be seen as one way the federal parliament puts constitutional minority language rights into action.

Provincial Laws

Due to its bilingual status, the government of New Brunswick has also passed additional language laws that work alongside the Charter. The laws of other provinces/territories contain some language rights, but they are generally less extensive. The exact nature of these “rights” varies. Some provinces/territories have created laws that grant rights and protections. For example, in Manitoba and Ontario, a person can complain to a court if those laws are not respected. Other provinces, however, have not created such language laws. Instead, they have merely directed some government departments and service providers to communicate and offer services in the minority official language. In such instances, official minority language communication and services provided by provincial or private organizations are a matter of policy, not of right.

The Constitutionally-Protected Rights

As noted, the clearest and most permanent language rights are those enshrined in the documents of Canada’s constitutional framework. These rights can be divided into the following four general categories.

1. Minority Official Language Education Rights

Under section 23 of the Charter, Canadian citizens who are in an official language minority in their province/territory have the right for their children to be educated in the minority language. However, the Charter adds some criteria. For example, in all provinces/territories except Québec, the eligibility criteria are: that the first language of the parent is French and that he or she still understands French, or that the parent had his/her primary education in Canada in French. In addition, once one child is enrolled in French school, all the other children in that family may access French-language education. However, there can still be variations from place to place, in exactly how this right is fulfilled. Sometimes, a sufficient number of minority language children may result in a French-language school being built in a particular area. Other times it may only result in French- language instruction within a larger English-language school, or in a right for the children to be transported by bus to a French-language school in another area.

2. Government Services and Communications

Section 20 of the Charter states that, under certain conditions, any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate in either official language with an office or institution of the federal government. It also states that any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate in either official language with an office or institution of the government of New Brunswick (there are no conditions for this right). It is important to note, however, the limitations contained within the exact wording of these rights.

Minority language speakers do not have a constitutional right to any and all governmental services and communications in their language: only the federal government and the government of New Brunswick. Minority official languages services and communications may still be available to them (for example, because a provincial/territorial law or policy allows for it), but it is not a matter of “right” protected by the Constitution.

There are conditions. For example, in English-speaking provinces/territories, French services must be made available: where there is “significant demand”, or where the “nature of the office” makes it “reasonable” to offer the service in French. If neither of these conditions is met, even federal government services may not be available in French. Both of these conditions are matters that are continually under evolution and reassessment.

3. Legislation and other Governmental Publications

All federal laws (and regulations) exist in both languages. So, too, do the laws of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Furthermore, for some of these jurisdictions, even the journals, order papers, notice and minutes, and Hansard records are kept in both official languages.

Again, however, this is not necessarily true of all other provinces and territories. Some jurisdictions have chosen – either as a matter of provincial/territorial law or a matter of policy – to publish some or all of their laws in both languages (such as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia). All federal laws (and regulations) exist in both languages. So, too, do the laws of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Furthermore, for some of these jurisdictions, even the journals, order papers, notice and minutes, and Hansard records are kept in both official languages. In others, for example, British Columbia, laws are only available in English.

The publication of court decisions also follows a similar pattern. The federal courts and the Supreme Court of Canada publish all decisions in both official languages. On the other hand, not all criminal trials result in decisions being issued in both languages. In fact, most don’t. It depends on the language of the proceedings and/or the importance of, or general public interest about, the issue (sometimes, such as when the trial was in French, the decision may be published only in French). Similarly, decisions resulting from non-criminal provincial/territorial proceedings may or may not be available in both official languages, depending on the language laws of the province/territory.

4. Judicial Rights

Judicial language rights pertain to the possibility for an individual to use either French or English in the judicial system, especially court processes. Section 133 of the CA 1867 guarantees these language rights in any court established by Parliament (the federal government) and the courts of Québec. Section 23 of the Manitoba Act 1870 and section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees similar language rights in Manitoba and New Brunswick. Rarely do we spend much time considering the possibility that the language we speak might itself form the basis for the granting – or denial – of certain legal rights and responsibilities. The courts of the other provinces/territories are not bound by any such constitutional provision, except where the Criminal Code, which is federal legislation, says differently.

Criminal law is in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Therefore, there is the possibility of having a criminal trial (including the preliminary inquiry) in French. French-speaking judges are available. You can choose to have your criminal trial in French, no matter what your mother tongue, and even if you understand English. In addition, every accused must be informed of the possibility of having his/her trial in French. If a French trial is chosen, the Crown prosecutor assigned to the case must speak French, the accused has the possibility of obtaining a translation of the information and indictment (the documents that list the charges against the accused person) upon request, and a jury, if there is one, can be formed of French-speakers. Lastly, the decision may be granted in French even if not all of the proceedings were conducted in French (however, a substantial amount must have been in French).

Conclusion

Constitutionally-protected minority official-language rights are multi-tiered and quite complex. And they are still developing: throughout the country there are cases before the courts asking for further clarification of these rights. As with all aspects of our constitutional framework, these rights are living, breathing entities. Despite their complexity, however, it is important that citizens understand these rights, especially if they are trying to assert them. More detailed information about these rights is available at: Canadian Legal FAQs – Constitutional Language Rights

Notes:

1. This article pertains to constitutionally-protected French language minority rights outside of Québec. The issue of English language minority rights inside Québec will not be addressed in any detail.