Justice Lost in Translation

Language access is a prerequisite for access to justice and the rule of law.

Access to justice is a foundational principle of Canada’s legal system. Yet for many, justice is inaccessible not because the law is unavailable, but because it is incomprehensible. The federal government mandated plain-language standards across public communications, emphasizing inclusive language, avoidance of jargon, and accessible design for audiences with diverse literacy levels and language proficiency. But comparable efforts in courts and legal agencies, particularly to simplify procedures and improve comprehension so that self-represented litigants can navigate processes with confidence, remain largely absent. As a result, language barriers across courts, tribunals, policing, and immigration processes undermine procedural fairness and violate basic human rights. When people cannot understand the proceedings that determine their liberty, safety, or legal status, the justice system fails its most fundamental obligation.

In fact, language as a barrier can arise at every stage of the justice process. People may be arrested without truly grasping their right to counsel (present in Canada and south of the border), appear in court without adequate interpretation, or navigate immigration and refugee processes in a language they cannot understand. Although interpretation is formally required in criminal courts, access outside that context, across administrative tribunals, family courts, and other quasi-judicial bodies, is inconsistent. Quality and availability vary widely by province and by institution.

Canadian law already provides the tools to close this gap. The Charter guarantees more than a seat in the room: section 7 protects life, liberty, and security of the person; section 15 guarantees equality; and section 14 affirms the right to an interpreter. Read together, they require that people understand—and be understood—in legal proceedings. Canadian courts have made clear that procedural fairness demands meaningful, informed participation, not mere attendance. A hearing conducted in a language a person does not understand is, in substance, no hearing at all.

Case examples: 

• In immigration and refugee proceedings, language barriers have been repeatedly identified as contributing to negative credibility findings and procedural errors. Studies of refugee determination hearings in Canada show that inadequate interpretation can distort testimony, undermine credibility assessments, and affect life-altering decisions. These outcomes are not rare errors; they are systemic risks tied to under-resourced language services.

• Language barriers also disproportionately affect racialized communities, newcomers, and people with limited literacy. This creates indirect discrimination, contrary to federal and provincial human rights legislation. Justice delayed or denied due to language is not a neutral administrative issue but a civil rights failure.

Policy implications: 

Language access should be treated as core justice infrastructure, not an accommodation granted only when resources allow.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish national standards the quality and guaranteed availability of legal interpretation. Existing frameworks (e.g., the National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services and ISO 18841:2018) define competencies and ethics but do not require courts and tribunals to provide qualified interpreters or set service levels. A national standard should specify minimum qualifications by proceeding type, certification tiers, permitted modes (in-person/remote), booking and response times, continuous quality assurance, and complaint/recourse mechanisms.

2. Establish a pan-Canadian standard and registry for court and tribunal interpreters. Regulation is currently provincial/territorial, with CTTIC coordinating member associations; anyone may interpret, the use of protected titles as “Certified Interpreter” is restricted in some provinces. A federal–provincial framework should harmonize minimum competencies, testing, ethics, and continuing professional development, ensure mutual recognition across jurisdictions, and require courts and tribunals to use certified interpreters wherever practicable.

3. Establish dedicated, indexed legal aid budgets for interpretation/translation with minimum service levels (e.g., certified interpreters for all proceedings; translation of essential documents within set timelines). Mandate standardized data collection and public dashboards reporting language requests, service provision, unmet need, delays, and expenditures, with annual independent audits.

There is persistent confusion about which languages merit protection. In Canada, some assume that only official languages, or those with formal recognition, are entitled to safeguards. In fact, constitutional bilingualism (English and French) does not exhaust Canada’s obligations toward other linguistic communities. International human rights standards make clear that minority cultures and languages are protected whether they hold official status. Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the right of minorities “to use their own language,” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms Indigenous peoples’ rights to maintain, use, and transmit their languages.

In practice, this means the languages of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, as well as those of immigrant and refugee communities, warrant acknowledgement and practical facilitation in public institutions, including the justice system. Protection is not limited to symbolism or education rights. It demands concrete measures such as effective interpretation, translation of essential documents, and procedures people can meaningfully understand. A justice system that cannot be understood cannot be trusted.

Language access is not ancillary to justice. It is justice.