Quebec Superior Court Judge Chantal Corriveau ruled that sections of Bill 96 requiring companies to pay a certified translator to produce French versions of legal documents could prevent some English-speaking organizations from accessing justice through the courts. In a written decision released Friday, Corriveau said the rule could cause delays and costs that could particularly hurt small and medium-sized businesses. “In this case, in the court’s opinion, the evidence demonstrates a serious risk that, in these cases, some legal entities will not be able to assert their rights before the courts in a timely manner or will be forced to do so in a language other than official language which they and their lawyers best possess and which they identify as their own,” he wrote. The judge ordered the two articles suspended until the case is heard on the merits, likely in November. Protesters march in downtown Montreal in a demonstration against Bill 96 in Montreal, Saturday, May 14, 2022. (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press) A group of lawyers challenging parts of the law argued that the translation requirement violates sections of the Constitution Act of 1867 that guarantee access to the courts in both official languages. According to court documents, the group claims that there are a limited number of certified legal translators, especially in certain areas, and that their services cost between $0.20 and $0.40 per word. Members of the Kahnawake Mohawk Council also filed statements noting that they were one of several groups that would be adversely affected by the law. Lawyers representing Quebec’s attorney general rejected the idea that there aren’t enough translators or that the requirement creates barriers to access to justice.
Balancing language protection and access to justice
A spokesman for Quebec French Language Minister Simon Jolin-Barrete said Friday in a statement that his office is analyzing the decision. “Let us not forget that the provisions in this case aim to promote better access to justice in the official and common language, French,” the statement said. “The government is firmly committed to defending this fundamental right. We will not be commenting further at this time.” Corriveau agreed that lawyers raised valid questions about obstruction of justice, especially in urgent cases that “may require swift intervention before the courts to avoid irreparable harm.” Félix-Antoine Doyon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients believe in the need to protect the French language, but believe the government went “too far” with some provisions of Bill 96. “We have to protect French, but we also have to protect access to justice, and we have to remember that in a civilized society the justice system exists for people, but also for legal entities,” he said in a phone interview. He said he expects to be ready to discuss the case on the merits in November. The lawyers are one of several groups legally challenging House Bill 96, which aims to boost the use of French through updated language regulations affecting businesses, colleges, immigration and the courts. The law, which was passed earlier this year, also preemptively invokes the Canadian Constitution clause to protect it from Charter challenges. Doyon noted that his challenge is only to a very small part of the overall law and cautioned against drawing broader conclusions about what the ruling could mean for other challenges.
