Could Trump happen in Canada?

I have a question for Canadian lawyer Dopers, especially @Northern_Piper and @Spoons. I figure I can ask it in this thread since it follows from something that’s been posted here.

Trials can be held in English or in French in Canada. And all these trials contribute to Canadian jurisprudence, and so must be accessible to lawyers and judges to write legal arguments. So how does this work for lawyers not fluent in both official languages? How do they find and understand jurisprudence from trials held in the other language? Is there an army of Canadian legal translators translating all documents produced by all Canadian courts so they can be made accessible to all Canadian lawyers and judges?

I can’t answer for the lawyers, who have professional knowledge and legal experience.

It should first be pointed out that Quebec and the primarily English speaking provinces have different legal systems at the provincial level. Most provinces use common law, like the US. These laws use precedent cases, say what you cannot do, and are derived from the Brits. Quebec uses civil law, like much of Europe, for civil matters. These laws are derived from the Napoleonic Code and Roman traditions and are much more prescriptive. Criminal matters are usually federal and in any province use common law.

Any landmark case will be studied in the legal journals regardless of language. I suspect Quebec civil cases are kept transcribed in the original language since minor inflections in meaning can be the lifeblood of legal practice. Most offices have access to good translators. But probably the criminal cases are most relevant, and these would probably be made available in both English and French? An interesting question. I await a more learned response.

It’s different depending on whether it’s in the federal courts or the provincial courts.

Most matters are in the provincial courts, where language use varies. But, the starting point is that most criminal trials don’t result in written reasons at all. If it’s a jury trial, then it’s just a verdict: guilty or not guilty. Judge alone trials are often judgments from the bench, no written reasons. Same for a lot of civil matters, like family law and child protection cases. It’s only if there is a tricky point of law that you’ll get written reasons.

As you go up to the provincial appellate courts, it’s much more on legal points that are in issue, so much more likely that you’ll get written reasons. Whether the reasons are bilingual or not will depend on the province. The courts in New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba all have a constitutional obligation to use both languages, but the judges can choose which language to use in their judgments. In Ontario and Saskatchewan, there is a similar statutory regime, where the judges can use either language.

In my personal experience, if it’s a criminal case, the court will give judgment in the language of the accused person. (Speaking of appeals; the accused has a right to trial in their native language, English or French, across the country, and the trial judgment will be in that language). The criminal cases I’ve argued in French, were all decided in French, but some of them were given bilingually as well. If it’s a civil case where only one language is used by the parties, the court gives judgment in that language, normally English in my province. If both languages were used, the judgment will likely be a bilingual one. Don’t know how it works in other provinces were either language can be used, but I imagine it’s similar. Since Quebec and New Brunswick have larger minority language groups, I imagine there will be more judgments in bilingual format. Not sure if NB courts must give bilingual judgments.

It’s different in the federal courts. Under the Constitution, either language can be used in all federal courts. Parliament has added to that, by providing that the judgments have to be rendered in both languages. That means trial decisions of the Federal Court, and appellate decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, will be published in both languages in the official reporters. (Also the Tax Court and the Court Martial Appeals Court.)

But here’s the thing: most lawyers who go to court normally only have to be familiar with the law in their own province, and any pronouncements by the Supreme Court on the relevant legal issue, so the language issue normally doesn’t arise. The one area where cases from other provinces may have an impact is the criminal law, which is federal and therefore common across the country. For that, there are annotated Criminal Codes, produced by private legal textbook companies, with short summaries of cases from across the country, in both languages:

https://store.thomsonreuters.ca/en-ca/pdp/martins-annual-criminal-code-2021-edition/30913650

If a criminal lawyer needs to get the actual case cited in the annotations, they will be available free on www.CanLII.org. They’re normally in the original language, so if the leading case on a particular section is from the Quebec Court of Appeal and is in French, anglophone counsel and the trial court in another province will have to make do somehow. But that doesn’t happen much, in my experience.

Not sure how it works the other way, for Quebec lawyers and the leading case is in English from another province; I imagine that may happen more often, simply because there are nine appellate courts which give the bulk of their decisions in English. However, my personal experience with counsel from Quebec is that they tend to have a high bilingualism rate, in part from studying law. (That may be sampling bias on my part.)

Here’s how New Burnswick deals with it, in their Official Languages Act:

Came here to address that but NP beat me to it, so I’ll add:

To confirm - you’re ok with Jagmeet Singh wearing his turban in parliament?

I came in 1968 (Trudeau had just taken over) and there was universal hospital insurance then, but no medical insurance, not in Quebec. It came in in 1970 and the doctors went on strike. Then came the FLQ crisis, the murder of Pierre Laporte and the doctor’s strike fell off the news. By the time the war measure’s act (martial law essentially) was over the doctor’s strike was over.

I assume then that the decision had been taken earlier but not implemented for a few years. But we took our kids to a pediatrician for 2 or 3 years and paid him cash. Then we didn’t.

To return to the OP, I cannot see a left wing demagogue taking over. We don’t have primaries here. Candidates and party leaders are chosen by people who have paid dues to join the party and cannot be the low information types who voted for Trump in the primaries. I could see a Boris Johnson becoming leader of the Conservative party since he has some intelligence, but I absolutely cannot see a Trump-like figure. As Mary Trump points out, he has been coddled throughout his life, people covering for his insanities.

There’s no doubt that much of Trump’s appeal was due to racial appeals or appeals to prejudice against minorities - either of another country (mexican rapists), another religion (proposing to ban muslims from entering america), or another race (whipping up obama’s birther thing or re-tweeting bogus interracial crime stats to make black people look bad).

I don’t think Trump would have ever been elected if he hadn’t gone all-in on attacking minorities. That was the main thing that got his crowds excited, along with appeals to violence.

Not that I have any great insight into Canadian politics…but my two cents: There are no 100% guarantees in politics, but I don’t think Canada would ever fall for a grifter like Trump. I’ve been to Canada a few times, and have worked with some people from there. I sense that the average Canadian is much more mild-mannered than the typical American, and just not as likely to fall for the demagoguery of a guy like Trump. They would politely laugh, make a few jokes, and walk away.

Now, I might have said that a guy like Trump could never happen in the US prior to 2016. But one thing that WAS clearly happening prior to 2016 was the radicalization of the Republican party, and the growth of the right-wing media/information-bubble ecosystem. I didn’t put “two and two” together to draw the line to Trump until it was too late. If we saw the same thing happening in Canada…a political party going bonkers, or an alternate-“facts” media system growing, then we should be on the lookout for an authoritarian in Canada’s near future…Having said that, I don’t think Canadians are as susceptible to it.

Canada has plenty of wealthy people who became politicians. But a politician who talks publically about how rich or great he or she is would stand little chance of winning people over. Although Canadians may be less susceptible to Trump-types, an embarrassing number of Canadians support some of the fringier views in private, though less so. Canadians are not so different from Americans and are not immune to demagogues.

Thank you @Northern_Piper. So if I understand correctly, trials having a written decision are already somewhat uncommon, and if it’s an important case that will be cited in future cases, chances are it will find its way to standard textbooks. In other words, my worry, which is that lawyers might have to research similar cases, and possibly fail because of not being able to understand the most relevant decision, is unlikely to happen.

MPs aren’t officers of the state with coercive power over citizens, so yes, that’s perfectly fine. (For that matter, I don’t think there are laws about MP dress other than the House’s own procedures allowing it to enforce decorum among its members.)

Unlikely, yes.

Northern Piper has done a great job of explaining, and I’m not sure what I can add, but I will mention the Supreme Court Reports (SCR). No matter what language (French or English) a Supreme Court matter is heard in, or what language the written decision is rendered in, the SCR will have it in both languages. So, all lawyers, as long as they understand French or English, can understand the most important and influential decisions.

The interesting thing about the SCR is that each page is printed in a two-column format. The column on the left side of the page will be the decision in English, while the column on the right side will be the corresponding paragraphs of the decision in French. This allows lawyers in both languages to understand a citation that points to a particular page, no matter what language they speak.

For example, here’s a link to the Oakes case, which is one of the most frequently cited Charter cases, in the two column format Spoons mentions:

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

Sigh I remember when it was cutting edge new law. Sigh

Federal statutes are also published in the two column format:

Official Languages Act / Loi sur les langues officielles

Very much so. A big part of legal research isn’t just looking for cases, but checking out the most current texts in the area of law you’re interested in, because the authors will have already done a lot of the case research for you.

I take issue with that a little bit. Or maybe more than a little. For a few reasons.

To begin with Canada has a much more egalitarian, less stratified educational system, resulting in a generally more educated population:

Another factor (undoubtedly related) is that right-wing fake news media have had a hard time taking hold here. It’s not that they don’t exist at all, but they’re more in the form of lunatic newsletters rather than cable news channels with top nationwide viewership (witness the quick and total failure of the Sun News TV network – it was a Fox News wannabe that never really got off the ground and was widely regarded as a joke). Hence, far fewer major sources of disinformation, plus a robust public broadcasting system in CBC television and radio with high journalistic standards.

And a third factor, already mentioned, is that Canada has a much more deeply entrenched sense of community and social cohesiveness, making us in many ways more akin to the social democracies of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries than to the US.

You are right in many respects. Canadians are well educated and we have more equality. Conservative attempts at talk radio and TV stations here have been wildly unsuccessful. However, it is presumably easy to access like minded people on the Internet. Lots of people get all their news digitally, and lots of people stay in a bubble rather than be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

It is naive to think Canadians and their media are immune to demagogues. We are far less susceptible than the US, however. If it happens, it won’t be Trumpiform.