|
Small Claims - Language Interpretation. Haddadi et al. v. Soleimani et al.
In Haddadi et al. v. Soleimani et al. (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court considered a 'lack of interpreter' issue, here including Charter s.14 ['Interpreter']:Interpreter
[12] The Appellants submit that “…the core issue on this appeal is the denial of the right to an interpreter, which severely prejudiced the Appellant’s ability to understand the proceedings, testify and present their case”. The Appellants submit that the trial judge erred in refusing to provide or permit the use of an interpreter, despite being informed that the main plaintiff did not speak or understand English and that both plaintiffs had requested interpretation services. The Appellants states that the trial judge excluded the Appellant from testifying.
[13] Relying on R. v. Tran, 1994 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951 the Appellants submit:The right to an interpreter is fundamental to ensure meaningful participation in legal proceedings (Charter, s. 14, R. v. Tran, 1994 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951 (S.C.C.). The judge’s refusal to provide interpretation deprived the Appellants of this right. [14] This ground of appeal is dismissed for two reasons.
[15] First, there is no right to an interpreter in a civil case involving a purely private dispute. Section 14 of the Charter extends to criminal and quasi-criminal cases. It does not extend to civil cases involving purely private disputes. In civil cases involving a purely private dispute, if a party believes that they require an interpreter, then that party must arrange for, and pay for, their interpreter: Royal Bank of Canada v. Welton, [2009] O.J. No. 4205, at para. 9. Also see Rule 53.01(5) and 53.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, which, by analogy, govern proceedings in the Small Claims Court under Rule 1.03.1 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98.
[16] Second, the Appellants did not ask for an adjournment in order to obtain a qualified interpreter so that Mr. Haddadi could testify. At the outset of the trial, Ms. Esfahani advised the Court that Mr. Haddadi, cannot speak English very well. The trial judge told Ms. Esfahani that she could not translate for Mr. Haddadi as she is not a qualified interpreter. When asked when she would plan to have a qualified interpreter, Ms. Esfahani did not ask for an adjournment for any amount of time in order to arrange for a qualified interpreter but instead responded that Mr. Haddadi would not testify.
|
