Xhelilaj v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2471-96
Dubé J.
6/6/97
4 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD decision applicants not Convention refugees-Hearing twice adjourned because of difficulties interpreters having expressing themselves precisely-After hearing, tape audited by two different interpreters-Both concluding everything in hearing translated-Applicants, counsel complaining throughout hearing about quality of interpretation-At least first two interpreters not speaking same dialect as applicants-Presiding Board member describing hearing as "bit of nightmare"-Charter of Rights, s. 14 stipulating party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak language having right to assistance of interpreter-In R. v. Tran, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951, Chief Justice holding elevation of right to interpreter assistance to level of constitutional norm significant step requiring, at minimum, reconsideration of principles governing interpreters developed under common law, statutes and, where necessary adaptation to new Charter era-Quality of interpretation must meet five criteria: continuity, precision, impartiality, competency, contempora-neousness-Breaks in interpretation and/or summaries of proceedings usually viewed unfavourably: obligation to call upon different interpreter each day of hearing clearly offending principle of continuity-As to competency, standard of protection guaranteed by Charter demanding high enough quality of interpretation to ensure justice done, seen to be done-Interpretation of testimony should be as good as (no better and no worse than) testimony applicant would give if spoke language of Court: "Court Interpreters in Canadian Criminal Law" (1992), 34 Crim. L.Q. 218-Natural justice demanding entitlement, through interpreter, to tell story of fear in own language as well might have done had he been able to communicate in English: Tung v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 124 N.R. 388 (F.C.A.)-Transcript of evidence at hearing, fact three different interpreters used, and ultimate obligation felt by Board to carry out two audits clearly indicating quality of translation not meeting standards outlined in Tran-Matter referred back to Board for new hearing with assistance of qualified interpreter-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 14.