Content of the article

A Quebec judge did not violate any ethical rules when he ruled he could issue a judgment exclusively in English, the province’s judicial council has found.

The board found that the judge acted according to his interpretation of the law and that there was no evidence of impropriety when he declared a section of Quebec’s language law requiring English verdicts to be accompanied by a French translation “immediately and without delay,” may not apply to provincial criminal trials.

Content of the article

“An examination of the entire factual and procedural context does not support plaintiffs’ contentions that the judge engaged in an actual or apparent conflict of interest, breached his duties of integrity and impartiality, or failed to respected his oath of office in the performance of his duties,” the board wrote in last week’s decision, which found no violations of the code of judicial ethics.

Although the decision does not name the judge, the circumstances match those of a The May ruling by Quebec Court Judge Dennis Galiatsatos.

The judge was scheduled to hear the case of a woman charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving and criminal negligence causing the death of a cyclist. The accused, an Anglophone, had requested a trial in English.

Galiatsatos feared the translation requirement – which was scheduled to take effect days before the trial was due to begin – would lead to a delay of weeks or even months in preparing a translation of his ruling. He worried that further delay could infringe on the right of the accused to be tried within a reasonable time.

Content of the article

Content of the article

This prompted the judge to proactively hear arguments from both sides – as well as from representatives of the attorneys general of Quebec and Canada – on the constitutionality of the translation requirement before issuing a ruling declaring it inoperable for two weeks before the trial begins. .

His written decision in the case — in which he convicted Christine Pryde of all three charges — was then broadcast in English, although the judge said a translation would be ordered.

The judicial council, known as the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec, received two complaints about Galiatsatos’ rulings.

One argued that the judge breached his duty to stay out of political debate by ruling on the constitutionality of a legislative requirement even though neither party in the case had asked him to do so. The plaintiff claimed that the judge was not impartial and objective and had a conflict of interest.

The other argued that the judge lacked the power to rule that the section of the law was unconstitutional — or to issue his verdict solely in English, without an accompanying French translation — and that he placed himself in a conflict of interest and a situation in which he was biased, or at least appeared to be.

Content of the article

The Judicial Council completely rejected the complaints, although it emphasized several times in its judgment that it is not an appellate court and cannot rule on whether a judge correctly applied the law, but simply on whether he followed ethical rules and acted with good faith.

Judges have broad discretionary powers to manage cases and can raise legal issues on their own accord, the board found. He added that judges are not mere arbitrators and should intervene to prevent the violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.

The judge wrote detailed explanations in his rulings, found counsel and heard arguments before making his decision.

“The judge took a proactive approach to avoid what he believed to be unnecessary delays,” the board found. “The judge was clearly convinced that the circumstances made it appropriate in this case.”

The board found that the judge acted within his powers and that there was no indication that he was biased or had a conflict of interest.