Majority
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Lamer C.J.
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ Since the Attorney General of Canada shares the appellant's view and the Attorney General for Alberta does not dispute it, we are of the view that the constitutional question should be answered as follows:
Question:Is s. 110 of The North‑West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, as amended by S.C. 1891, c. 22, s. 18, in force in Alberta in relation to proceedings commenced under federal legislation which are criminal in nature or which involve penal consequences?
Answer:Yes.
The real issue that arises in this appeal is stated by the appellant in his factum as follows: does [translation] "s. 110, in the context of a criminal proceeding, require that the court, either the judge or the judge and jury, understand the accused in his official language without the assistance of an interpreter or of simultaneous translation and require that the judge and the Crown attorney address the court in the accused's official language at all stages in a criminal prosecution"?
We are all of the view that R. v. Mercure, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234, a recent decision of our Court, disposes of this question.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Rand Moreau, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General for Alberta: Peter T. Costigan, Edmonton.
Cases cited
- R. v. Mercure 19688-1988-02-25
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 110
- s. 18