A Quebec judge didn’t break any ethical rules when he decided he could issue a ruling exclusively in English, the province’s judicial council has found.
The council 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, which requires English verdicts be accompanied by a French translation “immediately and without delay,” could not apply to criminal trials in the province.
“An examination of the entire factual and procedural context does not support the contentions of the complainants that the judge was in a conflict of interest, in reality or appearance, nor that he breached his duties of integrity and impartiality, nor that he failed to respect his oath of office in the performance of his duties,” the council wrote in its decision last week, which found no violations of the judicial code of ethics.
While the decision does not name the judge, the circumstances match those of a May ruling by Quebec Court Judge Dennis Galiatsatos.
The judge was scheduled to hear the case of a woman accused of 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 go into effect a few days before the trial was supposed to start — would lead to a delay of weeks or even months as a translation of his ruling was prepared. He worried that further delay could violate the accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time.
That led the judge to proactively hear arguments from both sides — as well as from representatives of the attorneys general for Quebec and Canada — about the constitutionality of the translation requirement, before issuing a ruling declaring it inoperable two weeks before the trial was set to begin.
His written ruling in the case — in which he convicted Christine Pryde on all three charges — was then delivered in English, though 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’s rulings.
One argued the judge had violated his duty to stay out of political debates by deciding on the constitutionality of a legislative requirement even though none of the parties in the case had asked him to. That complainant argued the judge was not impartial and objective and had a conflict of interest.
The other argued the judge didn’t have the power to decide that section of the law was unconstitutional — or to issue his verdict exclusively 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.
The judicial council completely rejected the complaints, though it stressed multiple times in its ruling that it is not an appeal court and cannot rule on whether a judge applied the law correctly, but simply whether they followed the ethical rules and acted in good faith.
Judges have vast discretionary powers to manage cases and can raise questions of law of their own volition, the council found. It added that judges aren’t simple arbitrators and should intervene to prevent the infringement of an accused’s constitutional rights.
The judge wrote detailed explanations in his rulings, the council found, and heard arguments before making his decision.
“The judge adopted a proactive approach to avoid delays he thought were unnecessary,” the council found. “The judge was clearly convinced that the circumstances made it appropriate in this case.”
The council found that the judge acted within the limits of his powers and that there was no sign he was biased or had a conflict of interest.
The provincial government is attempting to appeal Galiatsatos’s ruling on the translation requirement.