An Evasion of Justice

The following appeared in the Winter, 2000 issue of Cité libre:

I would like to draw your attention to a remarkable decision involving an abuse of French legal rights to evade justice, handed down June 23 by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. A Small Claims Court judgment was overturned based solely on the appellant’s claim that he was denied a bilingual trial. Yet the trial transcript shows the appellant repeatedly and explicitly consenting to the judge’s suggestion to proceed in English: “Very good, we will proceed [...] All right [...] Fair enough.” (Spoken by appellant.)

The appellant was represented in Superior Court by McCarthy Tetrault, which claims it was defending the “very important principle” of language rights. I would suggest that, on the contrary, this result is significant because a guilty defendant is successfully evading justice, after a full and fair hearing, by abusing Canada’s well-intentioned language protections. This can only reduce support for these protections.

After agreeing to proceed in English in Small Claims Court, the defendant actively defended himself throughout the trial. The resulting decision stated that his obligation to honor an outstanding computer consulting invoice for $1120 was “clear and unequivocal.” Incidentally, the defendant is fluent in English and conducts the bulk of his business in English. This story is of additional interest because the defendant-appellant happens to be a Toronto personality: Frederic Geisweiller, owner of the downtown Toronto restaurant, Le Select Bistro. I am the consultant who sued Mr. Geisweiller in Small Claims Court. I happen to be a native French speaker myself, and I fully support linguistic rights. That is why I am particularly dismayed by this cynical abuse of Canada’s linguistic protections for the purpose of evading a clear debt. This result can only harm the rights that help keep our country unified.

This story is an almost unique slant on the issue of bilingualism: an example of pro-unity legislation distorting justice administration and clearly leading to what practically anyone can recognize as an evasion of justice by a guilty person. Can you think of any other unity initiative that has directly led to an unambiguously wrong and undesirable result? Most unity stories involve a lot of “passion” but are actually bereft of intellectual meat.

Obviously $1100 is not an impressive figure, but the principle here is very clear, and quite striking. Of course, this Superior Court decision is also now a part of our case law and can affect future decisions.

Uriel Wittenberg
Toronto, ON