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
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
