In light of Justice Corriveau`s decision, the two provisions implementing the obligation to provide a certified French translation of court proceedings into English will not come into force as planned on September 1, 2022. They will not enter into force, if at all, until a final verdict on their validity has been rendered in the coming months. In the meantime, legal entities and companies are not required to provide French translations when filing court documents. On December 15, 2021, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld an administrative decision stating that in the United States, “Gruyère” is an umbrella term for a type of cheese and is therefore not eligible for legal protection from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Gruyère is a geographical region of Switzerland and France where cheese has been grown for centuries. Despite this story, the Court concluded that, through a process sometimes referred to as generic or “generic,” the link between the term “Gruyère” and its Swiss and French roots has been lifted over time. In other words, the court`s decision confirmed that the cheese can be called “Gruyère” by U.S. retailers, even though it originates from outside the European region of Gruyère.
The applicants filed an application for judicial review to invalidate this new requirement, which is contained in two provisions of Bill 96. They also requested a stay of the entry into force of the contested provisions until the Court had finally ruled on their constitutional challenge, a discharge granted by the decision, so that legal persons would not have to comply with the new requirements on 1 September as originally planned. In granting the stay, Corriveau J. noted that the constitutional argument based on section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the argument that the provisions would impose additional barriers to access to justice were serious. It also noted that there was a serious risk that some legal entities (such as small and medium-sized enterprises) would not be able to assert their rights before the courts in a timely manner due to a lack of time or resources to pay translation costs. The Court highlighted this risk in the context of an urgent procedure, for which Bill 96 does not provide for any precautions. The regulations could have a particular impact on kahnawàke`s English-speaking community and on patients at risk from urgent care-related requests for authorization. There is also a serious risk that certain legal persons will be forced to assert their rights in a language other than the official language that they and their lawyers know best and that they identify as their own. On August 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of Quebec suspended two provisions of Bill 96 on the use of French in court documents until the Court finally ruled on a constitutional challenge to the provisions. Those provisions would have led undertakings which choose to file pleadings in English having effect from 1st. September, at the company`s expense, would have been obliged to attach a French translation certificate. The decision in Mitchell v.
The Attorney General of Quebec[1] highlights the possible negative effects that these new obligations could have on the access of legal persons to justice and gives hope that they can finally be declared invalid by the Court. In our view, the constitutional argument put forward by the applicants is relevant because section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is not subject to the derogation clause used by the Government of Quebec to protect Bill 96 from potential legal challenges. Nor does it apply to language rights guaranteed by sections 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [5] For this reason, the Attorney General of Quebec cannot invoke the defiance clause to oppose this argument in the same way as would be the case for challenges alleging an infringement of the rights guaranteed by section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [6] A challenger can create a challenge by specifying a game application to play, the scoreboard to be used in the challenge, the type of challenge, the duration of the challenge, and additional challenge criteria. An important amendment to the Charter, introduced by Bill 96, is the requirement that any proceedings in English emanating from a legal entity (e.g., a corporation) must be accompanied by a certified French translation before they can be filed in the courts of Quebec. The translation must be provided by a certified translator at the expense of the legal entity.