SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 

(On Appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal)

 

Raymond Carby-Samuels (Applicant)

v.

Ville de Gatineau at al. (Respondent)

 

Open Motion to Reconsider Leave to Appeal based upon Rule 73

 

This an Open Motion via a public petition for the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider, pursuant to Rule 73, its very shocking decision to reject the constitutional obligations of Quebec in our Confederation to play by the same rules as the rest of Canada, in the case of Raymond Carby-Samuels vs Ville de Gatineau rendered on November 21, 2024 (File 41259).

Do you believe that English-speaking Canadians as well as Canadians who speak other minority languages in Quebec, should have the same right to obtain a free court interpreter as francophones and other minority languages groups in the rest of Canada? 

In (R. v. Tran, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951), the Supreme Court indicated that "the right under section 14 of the Charter is one held not only by accused persons, but also by parties in civil actions and administrative proceedings and by witnesses" (Tran, supra, page 995). 

Raymond Carby-Samuels in defence of the rights of all Canadians, applied to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to get free court interpreter services for minority language groups in Quebec, which are already available to francophones and other minority language groups in the rest of Canada, as a result of this 1994 Supreme Court of Canada ruling.  Just Ontario alone, provides over 100,000 hours per year in free court interpreter services, and Raymond hoped that the Supreme Court granting his Leave to Appeal, would support access to justice for all Canadians who need to pursue litigation in Quebec.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission had ruled that the Gatineau Police Services had committed flagrant human rights abuses and their lawyers switched to only speak French, apparently in order to undermine the ability of Raymond to represent himself in court.

However, on November 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada not only rejected Raymond's Leave to Appeal which simply sought that Quebec court's provide free court interpreter services, it also fined Raymond for even seeking that Quebec respect Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

This Supreme Court of Canada decision could be perceived to be part of the overall capitulation of the Justin Trudeau government to deal with Quebec's effort to rob the natural public treasury of over $13 billion in transfer payments each year, while empowering separatists in Quebec to run a pretend country which thumbs its nose to laws designed to protect the civil and human rights of all Canadians.

It is one thing for our politicians to ignore standards of ethics and laws.  It's quite another thing for the highest Court in our land that is there to enforce our Canadian constitution, to so brazenly ignore the integrity of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the very basis of its previous own rulings on the right of free court interpreter services. 

It was former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci in the Appellant's submission, who underscored that the Supreme Court must grant Leave to Appeal to any application which outlines vital constitutional issues which are of public importance.

We, the undersigned implore the Supreme Court of Canada to do the right thing, and grant Leave to Appeal to File 41259 which seeks to enable access to justice for all Canadians who don't speak French in Quebec courts. 

We implore the Supreme Court of Canada to grant Leave to Appeal to File 41259 on the constitutional merits of this application which seeks to ensure courts in Quebec respect minority language rights through court interpreter services, in the same manner, that other courts from sea to sea to sea across Canada are already enabling free court interpreter services to minority language groups including francophones.

The Ministry of the Attorney General in Quebec cannot be allowed to continue to undermine the rights of Canadians to a fair trial in Quebec courts, based upon their lack of ability to understand the language of court proceedings, with the support of this Supreme Court decision.