Has he got a point, is it worth the hassle?

[ruckmarch]

Alberta takes fight for costs in language case to top court

OTTAWA — Canada's top court will hear an appeal from the province of Alberta of a court order to pay costs in the case of a man who fought a $54 unilingual traffic ticket.

The ticket, issued in 2003 for making an illegal left turn, was challenged by a francophone Alberta truck driver named Gilles Caron, because it was not written in French. A provincial court supported the challenge, declaring Alberta's Languages Act unconstitutional.

No date has yet been scheduled for the appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, which will rule on whether the Alberta government must pay Caron $90,000 in legal costs.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Alberta+takes+fight+costs+language+case+court/1935978/story.html

 

[MSEng314]

He spent $90,000 fighting a $54 ticket because it wasn't in French?

What a waste, I would have just paid the ticket...

As far as I know Alberta is an 'English' province, for lack of a better term, so why would the ticket be in French?

 

[George Wallace]

Geeeeesss.........I could have traded him for one of mine that was all in French.  Wonder what he would have said then?  Then again, would Quebec French be good enough for an Alberta Francophone?  >

 

[George Wallace]

On a more serious note; how did this guy get an Alberta Licence, if the instructions on the forms were all in English?............................. and the Licence he was issued was all in English?  I am sure that these facts will be brought up in court.  If he could gain his licence by understanding English, then he has a frivolous case.

 

[MSEng314]

Maybe that is why he has spent $90,000 on legal fees, he had to get all the documents translated into French  :

 

[GAP]

Years ago Manitoba was told by the top court that where the French population is 5% or more, all documents must be bilingual. Manitoba, while it has a large concentrated Francophone population, went one better and made all documents bilingual.....as did the City of Wpg after a later court case.

I doubt, but do not know, if the area in which he got his ticket is bilingual, but in Alberta, but I highly doubt it.....

Alberta, as a province, has never declared itself bilingual, so only the federal guidelines would apply (Federal Depts/Post Office/etc.)

 

[FDO]

I wonder are tickets in Quebec in English and French? If not can you do the same thing there as this guy is doing in Alberta.

 

[GAP]

I wonder are tickets in Quebec in English and French? If not can you do the same thing there as this guy is doing in Alberta.

No....Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause in regards to bill 101

 

[Jarnhamar]

What an asshole.

What a waste of money.

 

[ruckmarch]

Ok....stating the obvious

 

[Jarnhamar]

Ok....stating the obvious

Yea I know.
Hey maybe the french man was black and the cop giving him the ticket was white and ONLY gave him the ticket because he was black.
Now THAT would be a better story eh Ruckmarch?

Alas..

 

[gaspasser]

It brings to mind the story of the american caught speeding up around Dryden.  Something like 180 in a 100 zone, he told the OPP officer that Canadian laws don't apply to him because he's an American.  Needless to say, Dryden had another resident for 7 days and he had to find his own way home. 


Is it really worth the $90,000 to fight a $54 ticket...dumass!

 

[Journeyman]

...Canadian laws don't apply to him because he's an American.

Conversely, when pulled over by a Minnesota sheriff earlier this month for riding wa-aaay in excess of the posted limit, I explained that my bike's speedometer didn't have miles per hour on it, and I didn't know how to convert from kilometers.

He radioed his office, where the staff Googled '55mph to kilometers' for my benefit, then he let me go.


Although I didn't contribute directly to the local coffers through what would have been a very hefty fine, I spent the night in town and vaguely recall contributing extensively, but indirectly, through their bar taxes. 

 

[gaspasser]

I'm sure they took that into consideration and excused your Canadian-ness...

 

[Blackadder1916]

While it may be very easy to ridicule this (and the main player) as an odd story about spending $90k to beat a $54 traffic ticket, there is more to the tale.  Some interesting discussions about the case can be found here:

The Infamous $54 Traffic Ticket

July 7, 2008

Author: Natasha Dubé

Gilles Caron, the Francophone truck driver who has [been] pleading his cause in Alberta courts since 2006, received a favourable ruling from Provincial Court Judge Leo Wenden recently. In 2003, Caron received a $54 traffic ticket for making an unsafe left turn. He proceeded to ask for a French hearing, but was denied under the Languages Act [1] that revoked these rights in Alberta.[2]Judge Wenden found the law unconstitutional, and Caron was cleared of the traffic offence. According to defence lawyer Rupert Beaudais, “the case was never about a minor traffic offence. This case was about challenging the constitutional validity of Alberta’s language laws, which abolished all French language rights.” [3]Lise Routhier Boudreau, the President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, believes that the Caron decision is a step in the right direction for minority language rights in the country, adding to the recent victories of Justin Bell in Saskatchewan and Marie-Claire Paulin of New Brunswick against the RCMP.[4] 

Edmund Aunger, a University of Alberta political science professor, was a key witness in the trial. He paid particular attention to new records showing that, in 1870, Rupert’s Land as the western region was then known, only agreed to join the confederation if protection of French language rights was guaranteed.[5]Relations between the province of Alberta and its French-speaking citizens have historically been complicated, leading former premier Don Getty to famously announce that “Albertans believed in bilingualism by choice, not by law.” [6]
. . .

Language Rights in Alberta — R. v. Caron

On December 4, 2003, Gilles Caron was charged with making an unsafe left turn. While paying the traffic ticket would have cost him well under $100, Caron sought to challenge the ticket on the basis that the legislation authorizing the traffic ticket was not enacted in both English and French, and so infringed his language rights.[1] Caron beat the charge [2] in one of the longest running cases in Alberta court history. His case has also addressed important supplemental issues such as the determination of entitlement to interim cost awards to help pay for legal expenses, an issue of importance to Caron after the federal government scrapped the Court Challenges Program that been supporting his court costs. This case brief offers a glimpse into the various court appearances by Mr. Caron, beginning with his first appearance in court in 2006, and ending in the recent Alberta appeal court decision on costs, discussed elsewhere by my colleague Alex Bailey.[3] Of particular importance in the constitutional context is the 2008 Alberta provincial court decision, which dives into the historical context surrounding Caron’s language rights claim. The result of the case could have a long lasting impact on how legislation in drafted in Alberta.
. . .

Alberta Court of Appeal Awards Costs in Caron Case

On January 30, 2009, in R. v. Caron,[1] the Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the Court of Queen’s Bench decision to award costs to Gilles Caron for the legal fees he incurred in preparing his defence to an alleged violation of section 34(2) of the Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation.[2] Caron did not dispute that he failed to make a left hand turn safely. He argued instead that the ticket was invalid because it was not in French.[3]

To help pay for his court costs, Caron applied to the Provincial Court judge for an interim cost order on the basis of the test developed in the Supreme Court case British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band.[4] On November 6, 2006, the order was granted but set aside on appeal at the Court of Queen’s Bench, where the judge held that the Provincial Court judge lacked jurisdiction to grant Okanagan costs orders.[5] Thereafter, Caron successfully applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a funding order according to Okanagan.[6] The Court of Queen’s Bench judge directed the Crown to pay for Caron’s counsel and expert witnesses on May 16, 2007. On October 19, 2007, the same judge awarded Caron costs of $91,046.29 plus GST, representing the remainder of Caron’s legal fees for the trial. On July 2, 2008, the trial judge handed down his decision on the traffic infraction, stating that Caron’s language rights had been violated. Caron was granted the relief he sought.[7]
. . .

 

[Kat Stevens]

What utter unadulterated, concentrated, high grade bullshit.  I'm pretty tired of the single edged language laws in this country.  It's obvious this cat understands English perfectly well and could read the ticket.  It's damn near impossible to operate in this province without English.  Taxpayers having to fund obstinacy is galling.

 

[the_girlfirend]

I wonder are tickets in Quebec in English and French? If not can you do the same thing there as this guy is doing in Alberta.

I know that Montréal gives bilingual tickets... It might be different in Rivière du loup though  ;D

 

[GAP]

I know that Montréal gives bilingual tickets... It might be different in Rivière du loup though  ;D

Really....I did not know that....

 

[George Wallace]

I know that Montréal gives bilingual tickets... It might be different in Rivière du loup though  ;D

Must be something new.  I am sure that mine had no English on it.  I guess after many years and many American tourists, someone clued in.  ;D

 

[ruckmarch]

The SCC is just ruling on who has to pay the legal costs, nothing else. They are not discussing the constitutionality of Alberta's Provincial Language Law that takes away french language rights in the province. So ya, don't hold your breath.