Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a case involving language rights in criminal proceedings. The accused, Altamond Jr. Little, elected to have his trial in French. Due to complications with counsel and available resources, an interpreter was used—but the interpretation during trial was flawed. Although Mr. Little never raised the issue at trial and his lawyer did not object, he later argued on appeal that the imperfect interpretation led to an unfair trial. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, missing an opportunity to clarify the standard for language rights in criminal trials.
Key Points Discussed
– Altamond Jr. Little elected a French-language trial under Criminal Code language rights provisions
– Trial interpretation was flawed, resulting in imperfect French translation
– No objections were raised during trial, but the issue was raised on appeal
– The Court of Appeal ruled the interpretation was “good enough” and upheld the conviction
– The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal
Why This Case Matters
Language rights are a protected part of Canada’s legal framework. The right to a trial in either English or French is not just procedural—it ensures equal participation in the justice system. This case challenges whether that right is truly upheld when interpretation is flawed but tolerated as “sufficient.”
If an English-speaking accused would have a near-perfect trial in English, a French-speaking accused should be entitled to the same standard of fairness in French. Allowing a “good enough” interpretation undermines this principle and raises the risk of unequal justice.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
The Supreme Court could have clarified important questions:
– What standard of interpretation is required for French-language trials?
– When does imperfect translation amount to an unfair trial?
– Can a failure to object during trial prevent an appeal based on language rights?
– How should courts address interpretation issues for other official and non-official languages?
Need for Clarity and Accountability
The lack of guidance leaves trial courts without a clear framework for evaluating interpretation quality. It also signals to accused persons in minority language trials that their right to a fair trial may be treated as secondary. The Supreme Court’s silence risks entrenching a lower standard of justice for non-English speakers.
Topics Covered
– Language rights under the Criminal Code
– Interpretation and trial fairness
– Equality of English and French in criminal trials
– Access to justice for official language minorities
– The Supreme Court’s role in protecting procedural fairness
