A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada not to translate its pre-1970 rulings into both official languages (English and French) has sparked a heated debate about bilingualism and the preservation of legal heritage. Some legal scholars and language rights advocates argue that the court is neglecting its responsibilities under the country’s Official Languages Act (OLA), while the court cites resource constraints and the perceived lack of relevance of these older rulings.
Since OLA’s enactment in 1969, the Supreme Court has published all rulings in both languages. However, decisions made before 1970 — numbering over 6,000, according to the Canadian Bar Association’s National magazine — remain predominantly in English.
This disparity led lawyer Marie-Andrée Denis-Boileau to file a complaint with Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge. In 2021, Théberge recommended that the Court translate these older rulings within 18 months, stating that their unilingual publication violated OLA’s requirements. In the spring of 2024, another complaint was filed by legal defense group Droits collectifs Québec. However, the court announced in a June 2024 press conference that it would not follow the recommendation.
The Court’s Reasoning
Chief Justice Richard Wagner cited three primary reasons for the court’s decision: the historical rulings have minimal legal value today, the translations would lack official status, and the project’s cost would be prohibitively high.
According to an article in the National Post, Wagner emphasized that most of the decisions are considered part of Canada’s “legal cultural heritage,” with little influence on contemporary legal cases. “No one today is going to refer to a precedent from 1892 to justify their case,” Wagner argued, pointing to the rapid evolution of the law since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. “The legal interest in these historical decisions is very minimal,” he added.
Wagner also noted that, because the original authors of the decisions are no longer alive, the translations could not be verified or approved by them, diminishing their legal standing. Finally, Wagner highlighted the substantial cost of translating these rulings — estimated to be between $10 million and $20 million — and the time it would take to complete the project, which could be up to a decade.
Pushback From Experts and Advocates
Wagner’s stance has been met with strong opposition from those who argue that many pre-1970 rulings remain legally significant. Under Canada’s common law system, judicial decisions hold precedential value unless they are explicitly overturned. This means that older rulings can still be cited in current cases.
In an article for The Conversation, legal scholars Yan Campagnolo, François Larocque, and Lawrence David from the University of Ottawa described the court’s refusal as “astonishing.” They argue that, despite the Chief Justice’s remarks, older rulings remain embedded in Canada’s legal framework.
“Many Supreme Court decisions of that era are still taught in Canadian law schools,” the authors write. “Moreover, lawyers still refer to pre-1970 precedents in their daily practice to support their legal pleadings. The Supreme Court itself regularly cites its old decisions.”
Étienne-Alexis Boucher, executive director of Droits collectifs Québec, echoed this sentiment, describing the refusal as discriminatory against French-speaking Canadians. Boucher told National magazine that several judgments handed down before 1969, such as Roncarelli v. Duplessis, remain important today.
The Role of AI in Legal Translation
In light of the court’s concerns over the cost and time required for translation, some have suggested that artificial intelligence (AI) could help alleviate the burden. However, many legal experts are skeptical of AI’s ability to handle the complexities of legal translation. “[AI] can in no way replace human expertise, particularly that of jurilinguists,” Vicky Ringuette, director of the Centre for Legal Translation and Documentation in Ottawa, told National magazine.
In fact, when AI tools were tested on legal texts, they produced concerning errors, including the fabrication of non-existent Civil Code articles. As Stéphanie Bachand, Chief Justice Wagner’s legal officer, told National magazine, errors in AI translations could undermine public trust in the judiciary. “The high quality of the original and translated versions of the Court’s decisions is one of its strengths,” she explained, stressing that AI-generated translations without human oversight could harm the court’s reputation.
