R. v. Caron (G.), 2010 ABCA 343

• Judge: Watson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: August 30, 2010
• Citations: 2010 ABCA 343;(2010), 493 A.R. 200 (CA)

R. v. Caron (G.) (2010), 493 A.R. 200 (CA);

      502 W.A.C. 200

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. NO.079

Sa Majesté la Reine/Her Majesty the Queen (intimé/respondent) v. Gilles Caron (requérant/applicant)

(appelant/appellant)

Sa Majesté la Reine/Her Majesty the Queen (intimé/respondent) v. Pierre Boutet (requérant/applicant)

(appelant/appellant)

(1003-0016-A; 1003-0017-A; 2010 ABCA 343)

Indexed As: R. v. Caron (G.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Watson, J.A.

November 15, 2010.

Summary:

The accused's mother tongue was French. He was charged with an offence under the Traffic Safety Act (Alta.) and its Use of Highways and Rules of Road Regulations. This legislation was enacted, printed and published in English only by virtue of s. 3 of the Languages Act (Alta.). In his defence, the accused argued that his constitutional language rights were violated because the relevant legislation was not published in French. The accused filed a Notice of a Constitutional Question and sought the following remedies: (1) a declaration under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, that the Languages Act, in as much as it abolished or diminished language rights previously existing under s. 110 of the Northwest Territories Act, was incompatible with the Constitution of Canada and was inoperative; (2) an order under s. 24(1) of the Charter setting aside the charge against the accused; (3) a declaration under s. 52 of the Constitution Act that the Alberta Legislature was obliged to enact all its Acts and Regulations in French, beginning with the Traffic Safety Act, the Use of Highways and Rules of Road Regulations, the Provincial Court Act and Constitutional Notice Regulation; and (4) a declaration under s. 52 of the Constitution Act that all persons had a constitutionally guaranteed right to proceedings in French or English in criminal and civil matters before all Alberta courts, including the right to file all forms and documents in French and to be heard and understood in French by the courts, without an interpreter.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported 450 A.R. 204, held that the accused's constitutional language rights were violated and found him not guilty of the offence under the Traffic Safety Act. The court indicated that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought. The Crown appealed against the acquittal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 476 A.R. 198, allowed the appeal. There was no obligation, constitutionally or otherwise presently, to publish the Traffic Safety Act, or its regulations, or issue traffic tickets in French in Alberta. The accused's language rights were not violated. The court set aside the acquittal and found the accused guilty as charged. The court invited the parties back to deal with sanction. The accused applied for leave to appeal. The Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta requested intervener status on both the application and the appeal proper.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., allowed the application in part. The court certified the two following questions for consideration by a full panel: (a) must the laws of Alberta be printed and published in French and English; and (b) is the Languages Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-6, ultra vires or without effect in as much as it repeals a constitutional obligation by Alberta to print and publish its laws and regulations in French and in English? The court ruled that there was no need to recognize the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta as intervener on the application where the court actually heard it anyway. As for the appeal proper, the court referred the intervention question to another judge or a panel of the court. Finally, the court suspended the "obligation" of the accused to attend the sanction hearing.

Trials - Topic 1191

Summary convictions - Appeals - Leave to appeal - General - The trial judge acquitted the accused of Alberta traffic offences - The summary conviction appeal judge overturned the acquittals and entered convictions - Both proceedings were conducted in French, with bilingual lawyers and bilingual judges - The accused applied for leave to appeal - They proposed for certification the question as to whether any person had a constitutionally guaranteed right in Alberta to choose French or English as the language of written and oral civil and criminal proceedings taking place before Alberta courts - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., refused to certify this question - The court ruled that it could not, and nor should it, certify a question of law concerning the language of trial where no conclusion of fact and law respecting this question was reached below - In addition, the court should not address the question as a matter of first instance - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Trials - Topic 1191

Summary convictions - Appeals - Leave to appeal - General - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., held that the fact that it actually heard a potential intervener at an application for leave to appeal, brought under s. 19.1 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act (Alta.), should not be considered as a precedent for granting intervener status - A judge should ordinarily think long and hard before allowing an intervention at such a stage of the proceedings - A motion for leave or certified question turned on whether an appeal was arguable, not whether it was persuasive - Intervener contributions on the merits were not likely to be very helpful on that aspect - See paragraphs 26 to 28.

Trials - Topic 1191

Summary convictions - Appeals - Leave to appeal - General - [See first Trials - Topic 1212 ].

Trials - Topic 1212

Summary convictions - Appeals - Leave to appeal - Certification - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., held that s. 19 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act (Alta.), respecting leave to appeal, required a steep test involving not merely a sufficiently arguable question of law but a question of law of sufficient importance to justify an appeal - According to the practice established for at least three quarters of a century, such a question of law had to be certified by the judge who granted leave to appeal - The language of the section suggested that a question should have specificity, precision and really arise from the record and not just from the ingenuity of counsel - See paragraphs 1 and 2.

Trials - Topic 1212

Summary convictions - Appeals - Leave to appeal - Certification - Wenden, P.C.J., acquitted the accused of traffic offences - Eidsvik, J., overturned the decision and entered convictions - Both instances raised the question of whether Alberta had the constitutional obligation to print and publish all of its laws in French and in English - The accused applied for leave to appeal against Eidsvik, J.'s, decision - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., in allowing the application in part, indicated that the court could only certify questions of law relating to any decisions of law actually made by Eidsvik, J. - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Tollefson (W.B.) (2010), 490 A.R. 103; 497 W.A.C. 103; 2010 ABCA 268, refd to. [para. 2].

Mercure v. Saskatchewan, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234; 83 N.R. 81; 65 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Mercure - see Mercure v. Saskatchewan.

Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority et al. v. Euchner (2008), 446 A.R. 221; 442 W.A.C. 221; 304 D.L.R.(4th) 149; 2008 NWTCA 13, refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Provincial Offences Procedure Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-34, sect. 19 [para. 1]; sect. 19.1 [para. 27].

Counsel:

T. Haykowsky, for the respondent;

R. Baudais, for the applicant, Gilles Caron;

A.W. Damer, for the applicant, Pierre Boutet;

M.A. Power and F. Larocque, for the proposed Intervener, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta.

This application was heard on May 27 and

August 30, 2010, by Watson, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for decision on November 15, 2010.