Galiatsos can’t be stopped
Judge Dennis Galiatsatos says that the provision of Bill 96, the CAQ’s reform of our language laws, mandating that, when court judgements are given in English, “une version française d’un jugement rendu par écrit en anglais doit être jointe immédiatement et sans délai” risks causing discriminatory delays to the anglo community. He intends to study whether the provision is constitutional.
Quebec tried to stop Galiatsatos from holding this line against the law, but it didn’t succeed.
Nicholas 18:46 on 2024-05-17 Permalink
It’s funny, this law can only apply to provincially-controlled courts (the Court of Quebec and tribunals), not federally-controlled ones (Superior Court, and appeals and federal courts). The judge investigating the constitutionality is a provincial judge (Court of Quebec), and Quebec went to the federally-controlled Superior Court to strike it down.
Kate 18:49 on 2024-05-17 Permalink
It must be relaxing in some ways to live in a country where there’s a single layer of government above the municipality, so not the endless griping we get here between Canada and Quebec.
Ian 20:38 on 2024-05-17 Permalink
Most countries founded on a unification project have similar issues depending on the rigidity of their colonialism.
Nicholas 10:29 on 2024-05-18 Permalink
Wikipedia helpfully reminds me that 166 of 193 countries are unitary states. In general there may be administrative divisions between the national government and the municipality, but these aren’t usually elected but bureaucracy appointed by the nationals government. Scholars do tend to think of it as superior to a federation, but it’s not like the choice is made at random: countries with ethnic or linguistic divisions were more likely to form into federations.
H. John 22:22 on 2024-05-18 Permalink
@Nicholas and Kate, I think you have a slightly off-kilter understanding of Canadian courts.
The Superior Court (under various names in each province) has an inherent supervisory jurisdiction. Inherent meaning it was not created by statue, it is a basic part of our common law. The battle for the definition of the courts’ rights of supervision was waged mainly by Chief Justice Holt of the Court of King’s Bench (1642 – 1710). Called before the bar of the House of Lords for a decision that he had written, which the House believed effected their privilege, the Chief Justice refused to answer questions. He stated that decisions of the court could be reviewed only if one of the parties appealed. The House was an appeal body and had no right of direct supervision over the Court of King’s Bench.
In 1763 Canada received the law of Great Britain.
Governor Murray established courts.
In 1774 the Quebec Act re-established French law in civil matters and confirmed English law in criminal matters. But the courts are not divided by types of law.
https://courduquebec.ca/en/about-the-court/history#:~:text=For%20instance%2C%20the%20Magistrate's%20Court,Social%20Welfare%20Court%20in%201950.
The Court of Quebec as it was to become has jurisdiction over any offence under federal or provincial law, whether penal, criminal, or regulatory in nature. The only exception is in trials before a court composed of a jury and a judge of a Superior Court.
To make it a little bit more difficult the Constitution Act, 1867 provides for the establishment and operation of Canada’s judiciary, including its courts of law. It gives the federal government exclusive lawmaking power over criminal law and criminal procedure; but not over the establishment of criminal courts.
Quebec’s own Code of Civil Procedure explains why Quebec went to the Superior Court in this case:
JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT
33. The Superior Court is the court of original general jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction in first instance to hear and determine any application not formally and exclusively assigned by law to another court or to an adjudicative body.
It has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine class actions and applications for an injunction.
34. The Superior Court is vested with a general power of judicial review over all courts in Québec other than the Court of Appeal, over public bodies, over legal persons established in the public interest or for a private interest, and over partnerships and associations and other groups not endowed with juridical personality.
This power cannot be exercised in cases excluded by law or declared by law to be under the exclusive purview of those courts, persons, bodies or groups, except where there is lack or excess of jurisdiction.
A matter is brought before the Court by means of an application for judicial review.
Kate 09:37 on 2024-05-19 Permalink
H. John, I’m not surprised I didn’t quite grasp the structure of court jurisdiction. Thank you.
Kate 17:25 on 2024-05-19 Permalink
One question, H. John. Writing this Sunday, reading about the result in the Jannai Dopwell‑Bailey murder trial today. Do criminal courts not take weekends off?
H. John 12:58 on 2024-05-20 Permalink
@Kate I think your question is don’t juries take the weekend off. And the answer in criminal trials is no.
Once the jury is sequestered jurors must stay in the jury room until they reach a verdict. If the jury does not reach a verdict by the end of the day, the jury heads to overnight accommodation at a hotel where they will remain sequestered from outside contact.
The jurors return each day to continue deliberations in the jury room.
If questions arise during the deliberations, jurors are asked to put them in writing, and provide them to the court officer in a sealed envelope, who will provide it to the judge. The jury will be redirected to the courtroom and the judge will answer the jury’s questions.
I think you can understand how a juror would feel if she/he were forced to stay and work but the judges were only available on workdays to deal with questions that come up during deliberation.
Kate 13:45 on 2024-05-20 Permalink
Oh good point. I imagine by that stage the jury wants to move things along so they can get back to their lives.
Thank you.
James 21:05 on 2024-05-20 Permalink
Having served on a jury (English language trial in Montreal) I can confirm everything that H. John said. It was a 5 week trial (but we were not present every day of the trial – I don’t know why).
I spent 3 days in a jury room and 2 nights in a hotel (with no TV or phones in the rooms – I guess now you aren’t allowed cell phones either).
Very educational for an ordinary citizen about the legal system – not at all like crime/lawyer dramas on TV.
At a certain point, yes you do want to move things along but you also want to make sure you come to the “right” answer.