New SCC Justices!

[viper37]

It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.

it is a weak choice because of that.  French citizens now face discrimination in Supreme Court as they can't get a full panel to understand their case.

[Neil]

It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.

it is a weak choice because of that.  French citizens now face discrimination in Supreme Court as they can't get a full panel to understand their case.

Maybe they should try speaking English.  You know, the language of civilization, art, culture and law?

[Barrister]

It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.

it is a weak choice because of that.  French citizens now face discrimination in Supreme Court as they can't get a full panel to understand their case.

You continue to show your ignorance of the Supreme Court.

First, Quebec has a long-standing tradition of having three justices out of nine (which, by the way, is well above Quebec's proportion of the population).

Those Quebec Justices invariably take the lead on French language cases, and will write the decision.

Finally, there is simultaneous translation of oral arguments in any event.

[viper37]

Those Quebec Justices invariably take the lead on French language cases, and will write the decision.

If it's criminal law, it's the same law everywhere and the Quebec judge will be bilingual.  So, an english Canadian could have his case heard by 9 judges out of 9.  A French Canadian is limited at 7, in the best case scenario.  I'd hate to be judged by someone who can't understand me.

It ain't about numbers.  This country is supposed to be a bilingual country.  If Canadians can't live with that fact, than they should stop pretending.

If translations were ok, there wouldn't be a need for bilingual judges in Quebec, they could only speak French and judge Quebec&Canadian citizens using the translations for every cases... Yet, I can't imagine it would ever happen.  But in Canada, it seems it's not a problem.  One was already bad enough, now 2...

When will we have a full SC in English only, just like in the goold ol' times, the times this government is dreaming about?

Finally, there is simultaneous translation of oral arguments in any event.

wich is unfortunately insufficient, has it has been demonstrated in the past.  Stopping a lawyer during his plea because the translator can't catch up is bad form.  The alternative is not understanding the case...  Neither of wich is good.

[Barrister]

Those Quebec Justices invariably take the lead on French language cases, and will write the decision.

If it's criminal law, it's the same law everywhere and the Quebec judge will be bilingual.  So, an english Canadian could have his case heard by 9 judges out of 9.  A French Canadian is limited at 7, in the best case scenario.  I'd hate to be judged by someone who can't understand me.

It ain't about numbers.  This country is supposed to be a bilingual country.  If Canadians can't live with that fact, than they should stop pretending.

If translations were ok, there wouldn't be a need for bilingual judges in Quebec, they could only speak French and judge Quebec&Canadian citizens using the translations for every cases... Yet, I can't imagine it would ever happen.  But in Canada, it seems it's not a problem.  One was already bad enough, now 2...

When will we have a full SC in English only, just like in the goold ol' times, the times this government is dreaming about?

Finally, there is simultaneous translation of oral arguments in any event.

wich is unfortunately insufficient, has it has been demonstrated in the past.  Stopping a lawyer during his plea because the translator can't catch up is bad form.  The alternative is not understanding the case...  Neither of wich is good.

First of all - I seriously doubt that each and every Quebec judge is bilingual.  There's no need.  As long as you have French speaking judges for French trials, and English speaking judges for English trials, then you're fine.

Second - there's a world of difference between a trial judge and an appeals judge.  A trial judge has to be able to listen to witnesses.  An appeals judge does not.  An appeals judge doesn't have to assess credibility of a witness.

Third - you can read Harper's dreams?

Fourth - Why would a Quebec case be limited to seven judges?  Moldaver will sit in on cases coming out of Quebec.  He just likely won't take the lead on them.  I don't know the precise details on how it works, but I understand that individual justices will be tasked with taking charge of individual cases.  They aren't all equally involved in every case.

Fifth - a panel of seven has virtually no difference from a panel of nine in terms of precedential value.  The only slight difference is if a panel of seven were to split 4-3, since there's the theoretical risk that a full panel of nine would have gone 5-4.  As a result when the court does have to sit with less than nine they try very hard to have a solid majority in place.

Viper... this is very difficult to argue with you, since you get so many basic facts wrong.  I suppose there is an argument to be made that all SCC justices should know French.  The Quebec Bar Association has made that point of view quite clear.  It's just that you aren't making an argument that makes much sense.

[viper37]

First of all - I seriously doubt that each and every Quebec judge is bilingual.  There's no need.  As long as you have French speaking judges for French trials, and English speaking judges for English trials, then you're fine.

outside of municipal courts, there's no way someone will make it to judge without being bilingual.

Second - there's a world of difference between a trial judge and an appeals judge.  A trial judge has to be able to listen to witnesses.  An appeals judge does not.  An appeals judge doesn't have to assess credibility of a witness.

they have to listen to the lawyers though.

Third - you can read Harper's dreams?

Nope, but I'm starting to have a good guess by now, given the priorities of this government (wich was supposed to be the economy and the deficit reduction, not overspending, and royal fetishes, btw, but that's another subject).

Fourth - Why would a Quebec case be limited to seven judges?  Moldaver will sit in on cases coming out of Quebec.  He just likely won't take the lead on them.  I don't know the precise details on how it works, but I understand that individual justices will be tasked with taking charge of individual cases.  They aren't all equally involved in every case.

I'd feel uneasy having a judge who does not understand my lawyers and will rely solely on court translations hearing my appeal case.

Viper... this is very difficult to argue with you, since you get so many basic facts wrong.  I suppose there is an argument to be made that all SCC justices should know French.  The Quebec Bar Association has made that point of view quite clear.  It's just that you aren't making an argument that makes much sense.

I'm making the same argument, you know. Bilingual country, bilingual judges.  I'm not asking for all city judges near Red Deer to be bilingual, just for the Supreme Court.  I believe it's essential.  You never know if the judge will miss something in translation.