Alberta takes fight for costs in language case to top court

[BlawBlaw]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Alber ... story.html

Canada's top court will hear an appeal from the province of Alberta of a court order to pay costs in the case of a man who fought a $54 unilingual traffic ticket.

The ticket, issued in 2003 for making an illegal left turn, was challenged by a francophone Alberta truck driver named Gilles Caron, because it was not written in French. A provincial court supported the challenge, declaring Alberta's Languages Act unconstitutional.

No date has yet been scheduled for the appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, which will rule on whether the Alberta government must pay Caron $90,000 in legal costs.

In July 2008, a provincial court judge quashed the traffic ticket given to Caron, ruling that — because the ticket was written in English — his constitutional rights had been breached and he was not guilty of the offence.

There is a lot more to this that I found in the actual court decisions.

The trial in provincial court took 80 court days because of the constitutional issue of whether or not the ticket had to be in French as well as English. The provincial court judge found that the guy's rights were violated and found him not guilty of the traffic offence. The Alberta Crown has appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench, but the appeal has not been completed.

The original order was for about $300,000 in funding and that was knocked down to an interim costs order of about $94,000. That seems to be in addition to a $15,000 costs order against the Crown for the way the trial was conducted.

The stupid thing is that I can't read the original trial decision because it was published in French only.

[RedDog]

When the ____ is this joint going to start invoking the notwithstanding clause? As Premier I would be about three times a GD day. What a pathetic country that has the "right" to send us the bill.

[Knightman]

How about NO Official Languages Act.

It is or it will soon become an outdated dinosaur piece of legislation as our population swells with immigrants.

[Marteno]

I'm a native speaker of French myself, yet I must say that this digusts me. Right now, most of Canada's indigenous languages are on the verge of extinction, and a French-speaker wastes public money on defending one of the world's most widely spoken languages in Alberta?

How can we, Francophones, pretend to care sincerely about 'language rights' and 'language justice' while defending a special privileged status for an already privileged language on the world stage like French while ignoring the plight of Canada's indigenous languages? And what about sign languages?

Personally, I'd say scrap the Official Languages Act, and either go with no protection for no language or, if we insist on protecting any language, then only for the local indigenous language and the local sign language. French and English do not need protection, making it just a waste of money, and even unjust and insulting, to be protecting languages that need no protection while others do need genuine help.

[Marteno]

How about NO Official Languages Act.

It is or it will soon become an outdated dinosaur piece of legislation as our population swells with immigrants.

Well, about 97% of Canada's population traces its roots outside of Canada past the 400-year mark. So I think we're used to immigration. Canada would never have come to be without immigration.

[Knightman]

How about NO Official Languages Act.

It is or it will soon become an outdated dinosaur piece of legislation as our population swells with immigrants.

Well, about 97% of Canada's population traces its roots outside of Canada past the 400-year mark. So I think we're used to immigration. Canada would never have come to be without immigration.

There is no problem at all with immigration into this country, you are absolutely correct.

We, Canadians if anything are made up of a mosaic of individuals. Each has or should have the right and freedom to follow their beliefs, carry on their lifestyles, maintain their culture as much as they wish. So long as those activities do not interfere with others who do not wish to be involved.

"The Official languages Act is a law adopted by the Parliament of Canada in 1969 and substantially amended in 1988. The law gives English and French equal status in the government of Canada"

Having this law in place is or could be viewed as an affront to those immigrating to our country. As you pointed out immigrants built this country and are still building this country and that is a good thing.

There is no need for an official languages act and I hold the view that a good deal of putting this legislation in place was a political vote getting scheme given the population of Quebec and the potential votes available or possibly the old "squeeky wheel thing".

The original point of this thread was about a francophone denying his ticket because it was not written in french. he understood English well enough to realize he had got a ticket. It is nonsense and it is a simple case of taking advantage of a situation.

Rendering the Official Languages Act at this point in time null and void would be a good idea. If anything need be said ,choose a language and simply state this language is the preferred language of communication for Federal Government of Canada and leave it at that.

[Marteno]

The Official Languages Act was a vote-getter and that's all it was. It helped to win Francophone votes outside of Quebec and Labrador, Anglophone votes in Quebec, and votes among staunch federalists generally. All of it was based on expedient politics and none of it was based on sound research into language planning.

Have you read Scott Reid's Lament for a Notion? It's available in many public libraries. I don't agree with all of it, and indeed it is flawed on many fronts, but his proposals are still far superior to the Official Languages Act we have now. He proposes that we adopt a policy of regional bilingualism, whereby most local communities would be officially unilingual in either French or English (or I presume Inuktitut in parts of Nunavut), with a few exceptions among bilingual communities with a significant minority linguistic population.

Though it's far from a perfect solution, it seems like a reasonable compromise that could save much money. And it's not like regional bilingualism hasn't been tried before. It's the dominant policy in Belgium and Switzerland, and it seems to work there. Byond that, it would be the obligation of the individual citizen to learn the local language.

[Tory_canuck]

Use section 33 and make the guy pay the ticket AND court costs.

[calgary clipper]

The money is only part of the adjudication as the same judge declared as part of his written adjudication that Alberta's Language Law is invalid. Premier Ed et al still have not got the guts to use the Notwithstanding Clause to override this yet they are going to appeal the monetary award.

Let's not forget it was Harper et al that enabled the 2006 amendment to the Official Languages Act that virtually assured that something like this would happen (French is now legally "on demand" rather than "where numbers warrant") and this is bound to be held up by the SCC on appeal (if there ever is one).

The Official Languages Act will never be repealed as the Liberals fought long and hard to get this and the PCs simply let it happen as part of the capitulation (voting in favor to get it through the House of Commons in three quick readings) for what they believed would be majority power. It is as if Harper, himself, is carrying on the work of Trudeau as regards to forcing Canada into complete Official Bilingualism by selling out Alberta in particular - simply because he could (knowing that there would be little opposition from the Red Tory AB PCs leading into the 2006 election).

Provincial PCs simply let it happen by turning a blind eye at the time because they didn't want to affect the Feds because after all, it was a PC attempt at power and "they" were taking care of things on the Federal front. Right. Your children and grandchildren now have little future in careers within any federal government position or any government agency. Look at the RCMP to gain some understanding of has meant over the years and it will get worse.

It is utter nonsense that this country must be governed/legally ruled by only those who are fluently bilingual or who are Francophones with/without a whole lot of capabilities in English.

The only way out of this is to use the notwithstanding clause just as Quebec has used/still uses it to preserve their infamous Law 101 (PQ Language Law).

[Marteno]

Now this is where I could see an Alberta Party being useful. The Bloc Quebecois has been fighting a lng and hard battle for awhile already to have federal offices in Quebec subject to the rules of Bill 101. In a sense, I agree with the Bloc on this as it woudl save much money on bilingual costs in the province. An Alberta Party could form a co-alition with the Conservative Party on fiscal matters but with the Bloc Quebecois on language matters (the Bloc is in favour of regional unilingualism).

Of course the Bloc would likely be open to such a co-alition with the Alberta Party on language matters, but woudl likely side with the NDP on fiscal matters. I don't see why a party could not form co-alitions on a bill-by-bill basis though.

[calgary clipper]

The Alberta Party exists and it is legally registered to function provincially. However; those in the party (very few right now) are unwilling to take this issue on.

Not enough people are paying attention to what is/has been going down. The mindset in conservative politics these days seems to be incrementalism - first get elected and then we will tell you what we are going to do - rather than stand for something first and get elected on this basis.

[Marteno]

The Alberta Party exists and it is legally registered to function provincially. However; those in the party (very few right now) are unwilling to take this issue on.

Not enough people are paying attention to what is/has been going down. The mindset in conservative politics these days seems to be incrementalism - first get elected and then we will tell you what we are going to do - rather than stand for something first and get elected on this basis.

Thanks, I was not aware that such a party existed already.

That aside, I think one problem with the right is its inability to market its ideas to the left. To take an example, the left is often concerned with the downtrodden, be it economic, cultural, or otherwise. That being the case, the left would natrually be concerned about the state of Canada's First Nations languages or sign languages. If a right-wing party could be smart enough to package its opposition to the Official Languages Act properly, it might win some moderate left-wing votes. It could argue for instance that all the resources going to official bilingualism also further threatens First Nations languages and sign languages. For example, a candidate for a job in the Federal civil service in Alberta who knows English and American Sign Language, for example, would be overlooked in favour of one who knows English and French, even though the deaf are in far more need of help than French-speakers in Alberta.

The same could apply to Cree or Blackfoot. A candidate who knows English and Cree would be discriminated against in favour of one who knows English and French.

If we should adopt what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing, essentially regional bilingualism, then an Albertan who knows English and American Sign Language, or English and Cree, etc. would all have the same chance of getting the job as one who knows English and French.

The same, by the way, would apply in Quebec. Someoneliving in Roberval (a totally French-speaking community except for the Innu-Aimun living in the adjacent community of Mashteuiatsh) who knows French and Innu-Aimun would have the same chance of getting a federal public-servant job as one who knew French and English, and maybe even a greater chance owing to the local demographics, with Innu-Aimun being more useful there than English. Likewise with one who knews French and Quebec Sign Language.

Such a marketing approach might be able to attract voters from both the right (owing to the money saved through the repeal of the Official Languages Act) and the left (owing to the removal of barriers to users of sign languages and speakers of local indigenous languages to finding employment in the local federal public service).

Some on the left might object that that's not enough and that we should provide more incentives to learn those languages. If that happens, then at least we could kill two birds with one stone. Instead of giving money to the local indigneous communities (beyond treaty obligations of course) and give Francophones hiring priority in the public service, we could instead simply give speakers of indigenous languages hiring priority in the local federal public service, along with users of sign languages. This would come out to the same as Official Bilingualism except that at least it would kill two birds with one stone, thus reducing the need for funding for those languages, and no more funding for French in Alberta even at the federal level. Still better than nothing, and more rational in that at least it's preserving local languages and culture rather than Quebec language and culture.

Some on the extreme left might insist on increasing funding for indigenous and sign languages and French. Well, I don['t see any room for compromise with them seeing that what we have now would be preferable to that! Obviously any compromise must take us at least in teh right direction, however small the steps might be.

Another marketting plan would be to show that the Alberta Party can agree with the Bloc Quebecois on the idea of regional bilingualism, thus eliminating accusations of bigotry, racism, linguicism, ethnicism, or other forms of prejudice from the left. In fact, it could even show that it is more capable of working side-by-side with a party of different majority ethnicity and language than even the NDP (which opposes the Bloc on this front). Of course I would not advise that the party launch attack adds against the NDp, but I think most intelligent persons would see the irony of the left accusing the right of ethnic prejudice while the Alberta Party would prove more compatible with French-Canadian aspirations in Quebec than even the NDp.

[calgary clipper]

Not long ago, while adjudicating the appeal of a $54 traffic ticket that was not in French nor was the initial trial in French, the judge struck down the AB Language Law as well as finding in favor of the appellant. Subsequently, a federal court judge assessed the AB Government $90K, yes K, to cover the costs of the appeal (all that bilingual power that had to be brought to AB).

A short time ago, I left a request for information at the constituency office of Alison Redford, Q.C, AB Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Question to the Minister was: Is the Government of AB appealing the striking down of the AB Language Law?

The response was pleasantly quick and a four liner:

"Thank you for your inquiry about the recent decision on the requirement of Alberta to publish laws in French as well as English. That decision was appealed and we are currently waiting for a decision from the Court of Queen's Bench. The costs ruling was also appealed and is scheduled to be argued in the Supreme Court of Canada on April 13, 2010."

Not quite my question but close enough. I wasn't aware that the adjudication was "to publish laws in French as well as in English" Yes, this is laws - plural. Can you imagine if all the provincial statutes, municipal laws, etc, etc. are deemed by the Court of Queen's Bench to be translated into French.

The percentage of Francophones in AB is somewhere about 3 to 4% and for this, AB may be forced to be translate our laws. What absolute nonsense. Wouldn't the translation industry in QC love to see this happen. Can you imagine the number of other ethnic groups that have a whole lot more representation in AB would try to piggy back on this one?

It is time for Ab to dust off the notwithstanding clause. How else can this possibly be stopped.

The argument in front of the Supreme Court re the costs (assessed by one judge) would not seem to bode well for AB. To leave the decision re the Language Law with the Court of Queen's Bench (in front of ? judge(s)) is not likely to get the job done. If somehow this also ends up in the SCC, a prediction would not be difficult.

Anyone who does not believe that there is a very serious move afoot to force AB into becoming an Officially Bilingual province is either in denial or is not paying much attention. Since the 2006 amendment to the Official Languages Act (done with ALL PARTY consent) the handwriting is on the wall. The financial cost of this would be more than astronomical - and to what end?

[virgey]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Alberta+takes+fight+costs+language+case+court/1935978/story.html

Canada's top court will hear an appeal from the province of Alberta of a court order to pay costs in the case of a man who fought a $54 unilingual traffic ticket.

The ticket, issued in 2003 for making an illegal left turn, was challenged by a francophone Alberta truck driver named Gilles Caron, because it was not written in French. A provincial court supported the challenge, declaring Alberta's Languages Act unconstitutional.

No date has yet been scheduled for the appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, which will rule on whether the Alberta government must pay Caron $90,000 in legal costs.

In July 2008, a provincial court judge quashed the traffic ticket given to Caron, ruling that — because the ticket was written in English — his constitutional rights had been breached and he was not guilty of the offence.

There is a lot more to this that I found in the actual court decisions.

The trial in provincial court took 80 court days because of the constitutional issue of whether or not the ticket had to be in French as well as English. The provincial court judge found that the guy's rights were violated and found him not guilty of the traffic offence. The Alberta Crown has appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench, but the appeal has not been completed.

The original order was for about $300,000 in funding and that was knocked down to an interim costs order of about $94,000. That seems to be in addition to a $15,000 costs order against the Crown for the way the trial was conducted.

The stupid thing is that I can't read the original trial decision because it was published in French only.

Why wouldn't it also be against everyone else's rights who do NOT speak French, since the order was not also written in English.