What the record must contain
Section 530 gives an accused a trial in their own official language. Paragraph 530.1(g) says what the transcript of that trial has to be. They are not the same obligation, and the second one is the one that gets missed.
The right
Section 530 of the Criminal Code is a right, not a discretion. On application by an accused whose language is one of Canada’s official languages — made no later than the appearance at which the trial date is set — the court shall order that the accused be tried before a justice, judge, or judge and jury who speak that language, or both official languages where the circumstances warrant it.
That order is the trigger. Everything below follows from it, and applies for the whole of the preliminary inquiry and the trial.
The record
Paragraph 530.1(g) is the part that decides what your transcript has to look like. It is short, and it is specific.
“the record of proceedings during the preliminary inquiry or trial shall include (i) a transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the official language in which it was said, (ii) a transcript of any interpretation into the other official language of what was said, and (iii) any documentary evidence that was tendered during those proceedings in the official language in which it was tendered”
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 530.1(g) · laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
Read it as three separate obligations. The first is a verbatim record in the original language — if a witness testified in French, the French is what goes down, not a rendering of it. The second is a transcript of the interpretation, which is a second document, not a substitute for the first. The third keeps exhibits in the language they were filed in.
Subparagraph (ii) is a transcript of the interpretation — a separate document from the original, and no answer to it.
An English-only transcript of a bilingual proceeding does not satisfy paragraph (g). Neither does a French-only one. The obligation is cumulative.
Everyone in the room
The obligation is not confined to the judge. In R. v. Munkonda, 2015 ONCA 309, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal from a bilingual preliminary inquiry, quashed the committal for trial, and awarded the accused his reasonable costs of the inquiry — a remedy the court reserves for serious institutional failures. Among the breaches identified was that the court reporter present was unilingual anglophone.
“In a trial or preliminary hearing governed by the regime set out in ss. 530 and 530.1, all court personnel in the courtroom must be bilingual.”
Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook, citing R. v. Munkonda, 2015 ONCA 309, paras. 103–107
If the person taking the record cannot work in the language the record is being made in, the record cannot comply with paragraph (g). That is the practical reason the reporter’s languages matter, and the reason we say which languages each of our practitioners actually works in.
Outside the Criminal Code
Paragraph 530.1(g) is the sharpest of the language-of-the-record rules, but it is not the only one. Three others set the floor in the forums we work in.
“either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.”
Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 133
“English and French are the official languages of the federal courts, and either of those languages may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any federal court.”
Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), s. 14
“A party to a proceeding who speaks French has the right to require that it be conducted as a bilingual proceeding.”
Courts of Justice Act (Ontario), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 126(1)
None of the three says, as paragraph (g) does, exactly what the transcript must contain. What they do is make it entirely ordinary for two languages to be spoken in the same hearing — which is what creates the transcription problem in the first place.
What we do about it
We produce the record paragraph (g) describes: each language transcribed as it was spoken, the interpretation set out as its own transcript rather than folded into the original, exhibits identified in the language they were filed in, and a signed accuracy declaration naming the practitioner who did the work.
We are transcriptionists, not officers of the court. We are not accredited Quebec official stenographers, we do not take the record live in the courtroom, and we do not certify anything about the proceeding itself — only that the transcript is a faithful and complete account of the audio we were given. Where a forum requires an officer’s certificate, you need an officer; tell us at intake and we will say so before you engage us.
If you have a proceeding running under a section 530 order, the question worth settling early is who is going to produce the paragraph (g) record and in what form. Send us the proceeding, the languages and the deadline.
Submit a proceeding →