Present: Lamer C.J. and Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Constitutional law ‑‑ Language rights ‑‑ Alberta courts ‑‑ Federal offence ‑‑ Whether accused has a right to use the French language in proceedings before the Alberta courts ‑‑ The North‑West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, s. 110.
Criminal law ‑‑ Procedure ‑‑ Language rights ‑‑ Alberta courts ‑‑ Possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking ‑‑ Whether accused has a right to use the French language in proceedings before the Alberta courts ‑‑ The North‑West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, s. 110.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Mercure, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
North‑West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, s. 110 [rep. & sub. 1891, c. 22, s. 18].
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (1987), 55 Alta. L.R. (2d) 1, 81 A.R. 12, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 97, 46 D.L.R. (4th) 47, 38 C.C.C. (3d) 333, allowing respondents' appeal and dismissing the accused's appeal from an order of the Court of Queen's Bench (1985), 40 Alta. L.R. (2d) 38, 63 A.R. 258, [1985] 6 W.W.R. 594, 22 D.L.R. (4th) 67, 22 C.C.C. (3d) 27, respecting the accused's rights under s. 110 of The North‑West Territories Act. Appeal dismissed.
Mary T. Moreau, for the appellant.
D. Martin Low, Q.C., and Isabelle Plante, for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada.
Peter T. Costigan and Larry A. Reynolds, for the respondent the Attorney General for Alberta.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ Since the Attorney General of Canada shares the appellant's view and the Attorney General for Alberta does not dispute it, we are of the view that the constitutional question should be answered as follows:
Question:Is s. 110 of The North‑West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, as amended by S.C. 1891, c. 22, s. 18, in force in Alberta in relation to proceedings commenced under federal legislation which are criminal in nature or which involve penal consequences?
Answer:Yes.
The real issue that arises in this appeal is stated by the appellant in his factum as follows: does [translation] "s. 110, in the context of a criminal proceeding, require that the court, either the judge or the judge and jury, understand the accused in his official language without the assistance of an interpreter or of simultaneous translation and require that the judge and the Crown attorney address the court in the accused's official language at all stages in a criminal prosecution"?
We are all of the view that R. v. Mercure, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234, a recent decision of our Court, disposes of this question.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Rand Moreau, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General for Alberta: Peter T. Costigan, Edmonton.
Email this Content