TORONTO - The failure of 77 Ontario court translators to pass proficiency exams is not reason enough to launch an inquiry into cases involving those interpreters that resulted in convictions, Attorney General Chris Bentley said Monday.The government would have to be handed new information or a "real concrete reason" before it would launch such a review, Bentley said in an interview."If there's some evidence, something more beyond the results of the accreditation (exams) to suggest cause for inquiry I'm sure that will be brought to our attention," Bentley said.It was revealed earlier this month that 77 of 223 court translators failed accreditation tests administered by the ministry last June. An additional one-third were given conditional approval, while several hundred more await testing.Last week the Criminal Lawyers' Association called on the government to conduct an inquiry into the matter and identify cases in which substandard court translation may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.Association president Paul Burstein said in an interview Monday that he is disappointed the attorney general isn't reviewing the issue further.Starting with the names of translators who failed the test, the government "could go back and look at the cases where there were trials that resulted in convictions... and (get) a sense of whether or not they had enough skills to reliably interpret the evidence and proceedings," Burstein said.Only the ministry has the necessary information to conduct such inquiries, he added.The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled previously that post-trial concerns about translation quality are not enough to call the validity of court proceedings into question.Accredited interpreters must achieve a score of 70 per cent and above overall and in each category tested, according to the ministry's website.Conditionally accredited interpreters are ones who did not reach a score of 70 per cent overall in each category, but their test score showed a high level of proficiency.The ministry website says accredited interpreters will be assigned to the more complex court matters, with conditionally accredited interpreters being assigned to other proceedings.The previous test used to accredit court interpreters in Ontario was a standard language interpretation test.The test rolled out last year, developed by Vancouver Community College, is specific to courts and based on actual court documents and trial transcripts from Ontario court proceedings, the website states."This approach ensures the tests match a realistic court interpreter experience and reflect the high level of skill and specialized terminology required for court interpretation."
Link to this article in Metro:
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/local/article/512408--court-translators-failing-exams-not-reason-enough-to-launch-inquiry-ontario-ag
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hamilton & Niagara region court interpreters
Here is the blog link of Hamilton & Niagara region court interpreters:
http://www.haniinterpreters.blogspot.com/
http://www.haniinterpreters.blogspot.com/
comments on CBC's story :
1-Stellarahman:
I am the President of the Court Interpreters Association of Ontario and I have read all the comments posted on this issue. The accredited court interpreters in Ontario, as a collective body of professionals, did not present any reasonable grounds of inadequacy to the Ministry of Attorney General to necessitate re-examination of their linguistic capabilities. Similar to any other profession, individual cases of misconduct and/or negligence should have been dealt with separately and can hardly be a base to entice an overall judgment. Interestingly, the re-test was so unrealistic that interpreters with more than 20 yrs. experience failed the test - doesn't this say something?
2-Jaybird83:
For those few people going on about ASL interpreters in the courtroom, I don't think your arguments are all that valid becuase if I am not mistaken the sign language used in North America would be American Sign Language or the French equivalent and therefore I don't think anyone going on about only French or English would have a problem with a government interpreter provided it was the ASL or the French equivalent (sorry, I don't know the actual name of it).
3-Kumars wrote: "Who is paying for this translators. If you can not understand the official languages, bring your own." What if the only witbness to a crime committed against you happened to be a tourist who spoke neither English or French? Then would request a government interpreter? What if you were unfairly charged with a crime? Would you want a professional accredited interpreter or some guy off the streets? To those who are concerned about their tax dollars - does anyone know how much court interpreters earn? Anyone? If you want to save tax dollars, let's not bother with accrediting judges - or lawyers for that matter - let's not even check into their background. Court clerks too, let's save more money there, would it matter if they were unprofessional and say let a child molester go free on a technicality? Let's save tax dollars by having everyone bring their own unaccredited court staff. Could we save on the court security too by having everyone bring their own guns ? How about the cleaning staff at the courthouse, because they get more of your precious tax dollars than do the interpeters - remember to bring a mop and bucket. Well you can imagine the chaos. My point is the triviality of the tax issue. Social programs get most of your tax dollars, not court interpreters.
4-Mikeclark wrote:
Why do they need interpreters they are supposed to be fluent in our language here in Canada and if its like Quebec we even have to pay for them to learn our language. And I find this really a affront that my governments make me pay for this so they can insult me every day or cry about us not letting them run us. So send them all back to were they came from I refuse to be taxed to pay for anymore of this stupidity as they don't want to be Canadians they just want what they get for free.
5-watchingtext wrote:
Interpreting is not translation. For the interpreter, it means using both sides of the brain in a high velocity verbal excercise. You are speaking, listening to sometimes convoluted sentence structures (not all judges and lawyers are eloquent), turning them backwards and sideways into another language all the while still listening and having to make sure legal terms are precise and that the client understands clearly what is taking place.Something like playing the piano and doing calculus at the same time. Try it! Repeat every single word the newscaster says, get all dates and numbers correctly and don't miss a word for only 15 minutes - ahhhh now you get the idea,! Sorry about the headache. Now learn another language, (or try it in your mother tongue) study the dictionary of legal terms, meanings and their translation, obscure ones too, and the Latin terms (the client may not speak Latin) . Now pass the gruelling government tests for a few hours (you must pass with at least 70%) and then go to work for less than $26 per hour on a per call basis with no benefits. Enjoy! By the way - Liberal -Muslim wrote: "A good interpiter knows what the answer will be and helps the client out on the stand I would pay for an experienced interpider. " ???Allow me a few momments to recover from the shock and to pray that he is not involved with the Canadian court system in any way! This is what a court interpreter does NOT do! Repeat - does NOT do!
6-e.g.johnsmith wrote:
Remember how teachers fought so hard against being subjected to testing?
7-killerbea wrote:
Sounds like a sweep to get rid of many people who worked in the courts systems for decades, then all of a sudden, they are no longer needed or qualified?Sounds messed up to me.
8-yosh Schmengie wrote:
@jaybird83 Re: "Don't commit a crime, problem solved!"
You don't need to commit a crime in order for the police to charge you with a crime. Happens all of the time. The Court-appointed interpreters are there to ensure that the judge (or judge and jury) can accurately understand and assess the evidence of everyone (police, witnesses, and the accused) and most importantly to allow an accused person to fully understand and participate in his or her trial. Imagine bring in another country, where you don't speak the language, and you are wrongly accused of a terrible crime. Imagine not understanding a word of what is being spoken at your trial. How do you think that would feel? With your liberty and possibly your life on the line? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to be able to understand the case against you, and to be able to tell your side of the story? THAT is why we have Court-appointed interpreters. Fortunately we live in a society where we value things like fundamental justice. If you don't want to help pay for the services and facilities necessary to allow justice to be carried out, then there are many regimes in the world where, in exchange for paying less in tax, you get to give up such freedoms and liberties.
9-exasperation wrote:
A lot of the posters here seem to be missing the point that this is as much for the court's benefit as the person who doesn't speak English or French.Imagine a tourist or newly landed immigrant who are the only witness a horrible crime. "Tell us exactly what you saw." -- "Man *point* stab very bad bad bad many bleed he die" is hardly going to be sufficient testimony to convict for murder...
10-Joe Gall wrote:
This is just my observation, no data:Court interpreters have English as their second language.This article seems to be saying that some of them do not have sufficient competence in languages such as Ethiopian, but I wonder if their English isn't the problem.
11-Allen Robertson wrote:
Not to worry folks, soon they'll only need two interpreters in Canadian Courts, English and French.
I am the President of the Court Interpreters Association of Ontario and I have read all the comments posted on this issue. The accredited court interpreters in Ontario, as a collective body of professionals, did not present any reasonable grounds of inadequacy to the Ministry of Attorney General to necessitate re-examination of their linguistic capabilities. Similar to any other profession, individual cases of misconduct and/or negligence should have been dealt with separately and can hardly be a base to entice an overall judgment. Interestingly, the re-test was so unrealistic that interpreters with more than 20 yrs. experience failed the test - doesn't this say something?
2-Jaybird83:
For those few people going on about ASL interpreters in the courtroom, I don't think your arguments are all that valid becuase if I am not mistaken the sign language used in North America would be American Sign Language or the French equivalent and therefore I don't think anyone going on about only French or English would have a problem with a government interpreter provided it was the ASL or the French equivalent (sorry, I don't know the actual name of it).
3-Kumars wrote: "Who is paying for this translators. If you can not understand the official languages, bring your own." What if the only witbness to a crime committed against you happened to be a tourist who spoke neither English or French? Then would request a government interpreter? What if you were unfairly charged with a crime? Would you want a professional accredited interpreter or some guy off the streets? To those who are concerned about their tax dollars - does anyone know how much court interpreters earn? Anyone? If you want to save tax dollars, let's not bother with accrediting judges - or lawyers for that matter - let's not even check into their background. Court clerks too, let's save more money there, would it matter if they were unprofessional and say let a child molester go free on a technicality? Let's save tax dollars by having everyone bring their own unaccredited court staff. Could we save on the court security too by having everyone bring their own guns ? How about the cleaning staff at the courthouse, because they get more of your precious tax dollars than do the interpeters - remember to bring a mop and bucket. Well you can imagine the chaos. My point is the triviality of the tax issue. Social programs get most of your tax dollars, not court interpreters.
4-Mikeclark wrote:
Why do they need interpreters they are supposed to be fluent in our language here in Canada and if its like Quebec we even have to pay for them to learn our language. And I find this really a affront that my governments make me pay for this so they can insult me every day or cry about us not letting them run us. So send them all back to were they came from I refuse to be taxed to pay for anymore of this stupidity as they don't want to be Canadians they just want what they get for free.
5-watchingtext wrote:
Interpreting is not translation. For the interpreter, it means using both sides of the brain in a high velocity verbal excercise. You are speaking, listening to sometimes convoluted sentence structures (not all judges and lawyers are eloquent), turning them backwards and sideways into another language all the while still listening and having to make sure legal terms are precise and that the client understands clearly what is taking place.Something like playing the piano and doing calculus at the same time. Try it! Repeat every single word the newscaster says, get all dates and numbers correctly and don't miss a word for only 15 minutes - ahhhh now you get the idea,! Sorry about the headache. Now learn another language, (or try it in your mother tongue) study the dictionary of legal terms, meanings and their translation, obscure ones too, and the Latin terms (the client may not speak Latin) . Now pass the gruelling government tests for a few hours (you must pass with at least 70%) and then go to work for less than $26 per hour on a per call basis with no benefits. Enjoy! By the way - Liberal -Muslim wrote: "A good interpiter knows what the answer will be and helps the client out on the stand I would pay for an experienced interpider. " ???Allow me a few momments to recover from the shock and to pray that he is not involved with the Canadian court system in any way! This is what a court interpreter does NOT do! Repeat - does NOT do!
6-e.g.johnsmith wrote:
Remember how teachers fought so hard against being subjected to testing?
7-killerbea wrote:
Sounds like a sweep to get rid of many people who worked in the courts systems for decades, then all of a sudden, they are no longer needed or qualified?Sounds messed up to me.
8-yosh Schmengie wrote:
@jaybird83 Re: "Don't commit a crime, problem solved!"
You don't need to commit a crime in order for the police to charge you with a crime. Happens all of the time. The Court-appointed interpreters are there to ensure that the judge (or judge and jury) can accurately understand and assess the evidence of everyone (police, witnesses, and the accused) and most importantly to allow an accused person to fully understand and participate in his or her trial. Imagine bring in another country, where you don't speak the language, and you are wrongly accused of a terrible crime. Imagine not understanding a word of what is being spoken at your trial. How do you think that would feel? With your liberty and possibly your life on the line? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to be able to understand the case against you, and to be able to tell your side of the story? THAT is why we have Court-appointed interpreters. Fortunately we live in a society where we value things like fundamental justice. If you don't want to help pay for the services and facilities necessary to allow justice to be carried out, then there are many regimes in the world where, in exchange for paying less in tax, you get to give up such freedoms and liberties.
9-exasperation wrote:
A lot of the posters here seem to be missing the point that this is as much for the court's benefit as the person who doesn't speak English or French.Imagine a tourist or newly landed immigrant who are the only witness a horrible crime. "Tell us exactly what you saw." -- "Man *point* stab very bad bad bad many bleed he die" is hardly going to be sufficient testimony to convict for murder...
10-Joe Gall wrote:
This is just my observation, no data:Court interpreters have English as their second language.This article seems to be saying that some of them do not have sufficient competence in languages such as Ethiopian, but I wonder if their English isn't the problem.
11-Allen Robertson wrote:
Not to worry folks, soon they'll only need two interpreters in Canadian Courts, English and French.
Ontario court interpreters failing tests
Interpreters working in Ontario courts are facing new proficiency examinations. (CBC)
The use of interpreters in Ontario courtrooms could become a serious issue after about 40 per cent in the first group failed the new proficiency tests.
Ontario is testing all of its accredited interpreters.
The first group to take the tests didn't fare well as only 46 passed, 69 were given conditional credentials and 77 failed. About 600 interpreters are still to be tested.
The results mean that in the Greater Toronto Area, for example, right now there is only one fully accredited Mandarin interpreter and one fully accredited Tamil language interpreter.
Selahedin Abubaker is one of the interpreters who failed. But he has been a court translator for more than 20 years, working on cases all over Ontario.
Abubaker says he is fluent in two languages spoken in Ethiopia, but as of this week the Ministry of the Attorney General says he's no longer qualified.
No complaints
Abubaker says that over the past two decades he has never had a complaint about his work from "the justices of the peace, the judges, the clients."
He says his exam was too academic and didn't take into account the nuances of the languages he interprets.
"The speed and the pause of our language" are extremely important, he said, "and that doesn't reflect what the test is all about."
Stella Rahman, president of the Court Interpreters Association of Ontario, says the organization offered to work with the ministry to upgrade skills or train interpreters, but the ministry refused.
Courtroom co-ordinators have told Rahman they now have strict instructions to use interpreters from the accredited list first, then those with conditional credentials.
Rahman worries that some of those on the list have little court experience.
"Although the interpreter has passed the test, he or she is not competent to handle high-profile cases like murder trials," she said. "But [the court co-ordinator's] hands are tied. He has to call on that interpreter."
Bev Dowd, a Spanish interpreter who passed her test, says the fallout may be felt in the Ontario legal system for years to come.
Chaos predicted
"Lawyers are saying, 'Maybe I'll go back and say that wasn't a good interpreter, the whole decision should be overturned.' So it's going to just create chaos," said Dowd.
Some lawyers say there aren't enough qualified interpreters.
Gary Anandasangaree, who represents many clients whose first language is Tamil, said the ministry's decision could put a barrier between "people who are effectively the accused and the system."
In a statement sent to CBC News, the ministry said it is recruiting new interpreters to help fill holes. And it defended the examinations.
"The new tests are specific to courts and are based on actual court documents and trial transcripts from Ontario court proceedings," the ministry said.
"This approach ensures the tests match a realistic court interpreter experience and reflect the high level of skill and specialized terminology required for court interpretation."
This story is now closed to commenting.
The use of interpreters in Ontario courtrooms could become a serious issue after about 40 per cent in the first group failed the new proficiency tests.
Ontario is testing all of its accredited interpreters.
The first group to take the tests didn't fare well as only 46 passed, 69 were given conditional credentials and 77 failed. About 600 interpreters are still to be tested.
The results mean that in the Greater Toronto Area, for example, right now there is only one fully accredited Mandarin interpreter and one fully accredited Tamil language interpreter.
Selahedin Abubaker is one of the interpreters who failed. But he has been a court translator for more than 20 years, working on cases all over Ontario.
Abubaker says he is fluent in two languages spoken in Ethiopia, but as of this week the Ministry of the Attorney General says he's no longer qualified.
No complaints
Abubaker says that over the past two decades he has never had a complaint about his work from "the justices of the peace, the judges, the clients."
He says his exam was too academic and didn't take into account the nuances of the languages he interprets.
"The speed and the pause of our language" are extremely important, he said, "and that doesn't reflect what the test is all about."
Stella Rahman, president of the Court Interpreters Association of Ontario, says the organization offered to work with the ministry to upgrade skills or train interpreters, but the ministry refused.
Courtroom co-ordinators have told Rahman they now have strict instructions to use interpreters from the accredited list first, then those with conditional credentials.
Rahman worries that some of those on the list have little court experience.
"Although the interpreter has passed the test, he or she is not competent to handle high-profile cases like murder trials," she said. "But [the court co-ordinator's] hands are tied. He has to call on that interpreter."
Bev Dowd, a Spanish interpreter who passed her test, says the fallout may be felt in the Ontario legal system for years to come.
Chaos predicted
"Lawyers are saying, 'Maybe I'll go back and say that wasn't a good interpreter, the whole decision should be overturned.' So it's going to just create chaos," said Dowd.
Some lawyers say there aren't enough qualified interpreters.
Gary Anandasangaree, who represents many clients whose first language is Tamil, said the ministry's decision could put a barrier between "people who are effectively the accused and the system."
In a statement sent to CBC News, the ministry said it is recruiting new interpreters to help fill holes. And it defended the examinations.
"The new tests are specific to courts and are based on actual court documents and trial transcripts from Ontario court proceedings," the ministry said.
"This approach ensures the tests match a realistic court interpreter experience and reflect the high level of skill and specialized terminology required for court interpretation."
This story is now closed to commenting.
Read more:
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Article in Toronto Star - Bilingual Supreme Court is a matter of justice
Senator Claudette Tardif
Linguistic duality is an intrinsic part of our Canadian identity and values. Bill C-232 aims to amend the Supreme Court Act by adding an additional requirement in the selection of Supreme Court judges: that of understanding both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.
Many political pundits have argued that we would sacrifice judicial competence by requiring linguistic abilities, and that we would reduce the pool of qualified candidates for the top positions at the highest court in Canada. However, I believe that these arguments are ill-founded and based on misinformation regarding the intent of the bill.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure justice and equality for all citizens who choose to have their case pleaded in the official language of their choice before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees the right to use the official language of one’s choice in courts established by Parliament. The Official Languages Act further guarantees that parties may be heard and understood without the assistance of interpretation by all Federal Courts. There is, however, one exception: the Supreme Court.
It is critical for Supreme Court judges to fully understand the subtleties and nuances of counsel’s arguments. Based on his own personal experience at the Supreme Court, attorney Michel Doucet stated in a parliamentary committee studying this bill that “when you lose a case in a five to four decision, as happened to me at one point, and you’ve pleaded that case in French, . . . you wonder about what they understood. I listened to the English interpretation of my argument, and I understood none of it.”
I have great admiration for interpreters and translators, who have a very difficult job with stringent time constraints. However, at the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land where there is no possibility of appeal, interpretation introduces a margin of error and a counsel’s case could be damaged.
It is also important to note that the laws of Canada are written jointly in French and in English. No version has precedence on the other. No version is the translation of the other. A judge who understands both official languages will possess the required skills to understand the nuances of both the French and the English versions.
Some commentators have also argued that it would be difficult to acquire sufficient linguistic skills in both official languages to be able to understand legal arguments without interpretation. This argument fails to take into account Canada’s evolving reality. Canadian Parents for French estimate that there are currently 300,000 students enrolled in French immersion programs across the country. Some of our top law faculties are already teaching in both official languages.
As Professor Grégoire Webber of the London School of Economics noted: “understanding a case directly, unaided by interpretation, is part of the legal competency we expect of a judge.” The interpretation of law is not simply about knowing jurisprudence; it is about understanding what is said and what is meant. Similarly, being a judge is not a right. Judges are at the service of Canada and its population. It is not sufficient to rely entirely on an intermediary to understand arguments that will ultimately lead to a decision that is not appealable.
We expect the prime minister of Canada to be bilingual. Why then is it not expected that Supreme Court judges, at the very least, understand Canada’s two official languages without interpretation?
Canadian citizens not only have the right to be heard in the official language of their choice, they should also have the right to be understood
Senator Claudette Tardif (Alberta) is deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate and the sponsor in that chamber of Bill C-232, an Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.
Link to this news:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columns/article/800138--bilingual-supreme-court-is-a-matter-of-justice#article
Linguistic duality is an intrinsic part of our Canadian identity and values. Bill C-232 aims to amend the Supreme Court Act by adding an additional requirement in the selection of Supreme Court judges: that of understanding both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.
Many political pundits have argued that we would sacrifice judicial competence by requiring linguistic abilities, and that we would reduce the pool of qualified candidates for the top positions at the highest court in Canada. However, I believe that these arguments are ill-founded and based on misinformation regarding the intent of the bill.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure justice and equality for all citizens who choose to have their case pleaded in the official language of their choice before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees the right to use the official language of one’s choice in courts established by Parliament. The Official Languages Act further guarantees that parties may be heard and understood without the assistance of interpretation by all Federal Courts. There is, however, one exception: the Supreme Court.
It is critical for Supreme Court judges to fully understand the subtleties and nuances of counsel’s arguments. Based on his own personal experience at the Supreme Court, attorney Michel Doucet stated in a parliamentary committee studying this bill that “when you lose a case in a five to four decision, as happened to me at one point, and you’ve pleaded that case in French, . . . you wonder about what they understood. I listened to the English interpretation of my argument, and I understood none of it.”
I have great admiration for interpreters and translators, who have a very difficult job with stringent time constraints. However, at the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land where there is no possibility of appeal, interpretation introduces a margin of error and a counsel’s case could be damaged.
It is also important to note that the laws of Canada are written jointly in French and in English. No version has precedence on the other. No version is the translation of the other. A judge who understands both official languages will possess the required skills to understand the nuances of both the French and the English versions.
Some commentators have also argued that it would be difficult to acquire sufficient linguistic skills in both official languages to be able to understand legal arguments without interpretation. This argument fails to take into account Canada’s evolving reality. Canadian Parents for French estimate that there are currently 300,000 students enrolled in French immersion programs across the country. Some of our top law faculties are already teaching in both official languages.
As Professor Grégoire Webber of the London School of Economics noted: “understanding a case directly, unaided by interpretation, is part of the legal competency we expect of a judge.” The interpretation of law is not simply about knowing jurisprudence; it is about understanding what is said and what is meant. Similarly, being a judge is not a right. Judges are at the service of Canada and its population. It is not sufficient to rely entirely on an intermediary to understand arguments that will ultimately lead to a decision that is not appealable.
We expect the prime minister of Canada to be bilingual. Why then is it not expected that Supreme Court judges, at the very least, understand Canada’s two official languages without interpretation?
Canadian citizens not only have the right to be heard in the official language of their choice, they should also have the right to be understood
Senator Claudette Tardif (Alberta) is deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate and the sponsor in that chamber of Bill C-232, an Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.
Link to this news:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columns/article/800138--bilingual-supreme-court-is-a-matter-of-justice#article
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A TIME TO ACT!
Court Interpreters' Association of Ontario
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
A TIME TO ACT!
EMERGENCY COURT
INTERPRETERS MEETING
on the unjust re-testing and
results
When:
Saturday, April 24, 2010
9 A.M. to 12 Noon
Where:
Committee Room #1, 2nd Floor
New City Hall
100 Queen Street W., Toronto
Calling All Court Interpreters
(Freelance and Staff)
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
A TIME TO ACT!
EMERGENCY COURT
INTERPRETERS MEETING
on the unjust re-testing and
results
When:
Saturday, April 24, 2010
9 A.M. to 12 Noon
Where:
Committee Room #1, 2nd Floor
New City Hall
100 Queen Street W., Toronto
Calling All Court Interpreters
(Freelance and Staff)
Court Interpreters Association of Ontari- Petition
Court Interpreters' Association of Ontario
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
Petition
MAG Retesting
Immediate suspension of New Policy
The outcome and the classification model
The accredited court interpreters in the province of Ontario, as a collective body of professionals,
did not present any reasonable grounds of inadequacy to the Ministry of Attorney General to
necessitate re-examination of their linguistic capabilities. Similar to any other profession, individual
cases of misconduct and/or negligence should have been dealt with separately and can hardly be a
base to entice an overall judgment.
The Ministry refused the representation of the Court Interpreters’ Association of Ontario (CIAO),
the representative association of court interpreters, prior to testing. They further declined to indicate
the type of test, nor offer any preparation for the test, within a reasonable time. For many years,
they have also declined to provide interpreters with any training, essentially providing interpreters
with no professional support.
The recent results of re-testing and classification model are unacceptable for the following reasons:
• There has been no support or upgrading from the ministry for more than 15 years
• The pre-test material was provided one month before the re-test and that is totally unfair and
unreasonable
• The re-test does not reflect the real working situations of court interpreting
• The speed of the simultaneous interpretation section of the re-test was humanly impossible
• The results of the re-testing are therefore inaccurate and distorted
• Interpreters with years of experience may have failed the re-test, simply due to the
unrealistic features of the re-test and taking the re-test under tremendous pressure
• The classification model places interpreters in a degrading position within the court room,
therefore rendering it impossible to deliver quality professional service
All interpreters are placing a request to the Ministry for an immediate suspension of implementing
new policy and to review their decision based on the results of the re-test and the classification of
present and previously qualified court interpreters.
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
Petition
MAG Retesting
Immediate suspension of New Policy
The outcome and the classification model
The accredited court interpreters in the province of Ontario, as a collective body of professionals,
did not present any reasonable grounds of inadequacy to the Ministry of Attorney General to
necessitate re-examination of their linguistic capabilities. Similar to any other profession, individual
cases of misconduct and/or negligence should have been dealt with separately and can hardly be a
base to entice an overall judgment.
The Ministry refused the representation of the Court Interpreters’ Association of Ontario (CIAO),
the representative association of court interpreters, prior to testing. They further declined to indicate
the type of test, nor offer any preparation for the test, within a reasonable time. For many years,
they have also declined to provide interpreters with any training, essentially providing interpreters
with no professional support.
The recent results of re-testing and classification model are unacceptable for the following reasons:
• There has been no support or upgrading from the ministry for more than 15 years
• The pre-test material was provided one month before the re-test and that is totally unfair and
unreasonable
• The re-test does not reflect the real working situations of court interpreting
• The speed of the simultaneous interpretation section of the re-test was humanly impossible
• The results of the re-testing are therefore inaccurate and distorted
• Interpreters with years of experience may have failed the re-test, simply due to the
unrealistic features of the re-test and taking the re-test under tremendous pressure
• The classification model places interpreters in a degrading position within the court room,
therefore rendering it impossible to deliver quality professional service
All interpreters are placing a request to the Ministry for an immediate suspension of implementing
new policy and to review their decision based on the results of the re-test and the classification of
present and previously qualified court interpreters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
