Law Times

December 12, 2011

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50253

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 11 of 15

PAGE 12 FOCUS December 12, 2011 • Law Times Interpreters consider rotating strikes Remuneration among latest headaches in ongoing dispute with AG BY GLENN KAUTH Law Times O ntario's court inter- preters are consider- ing rotating strikes at courthouses across the province if the government doesn't address long-standing demands, says the president of the Court Interpreters Associa- tion of Ontario. "We don't want a confronta- tion. There's no need for that. But you know what? Be fair," says Amin Shoukri, president of the association. According to Shoukri, the government raised the hourly rate for freelance interpreters to $30 an hour in April from $25 per hour following years of complaints about their pay. But Shoukri says that with the previous raise — one he calls minimal — dating back about a decade or so, the $5-an-hour increase wasn't enough. At the same time, he says the govern- ment has tried to address the lack of interpretation staff by hiring people working at agen- cies at up to $90 an hour, a fact he says is proof that it's able to pay his association's members more. "If the ministry has the money to pay $90 an hour, why not pay us?" he asks while on a break from providing in- terpretation services during the high-profile Shafia murder trial in Kingston, Ont. The dispute isn't just about the hourly rate, Shoukri adds. Other concerns include mile- age, for which interpreters get 40 cents per kilometre for the first 3,000 kilometres they drive. After that, the rate goes down to 30 cents. "We don't get any benefits," says Shoukri, noting interpreters don't get a pension either. creates shortages and leaves the government turning to agen- cies, the association says. The issue of interpreter pay 'It seems to be becoming a crisis,' says Patrice Band. In addition, the association argues the current pay struc- ture acts as a disincentive for interpreters to take on longer trials. For a routine traffic mat- ter, for example, interpreters get a minimum of $75 even if the case wraps up quickly. So with just two short traf- fic matters, interpreters could earn close to what they'd make during an entire day of sitting through a complex criminal trial. The result is that the most qualified interpreters won't take on longer cases, a situation that PRACTICAL INSIGHT ON HANDLING WITNESSES EFFECTIVELY NEW EDITION THE PORTABLE GUIDE TO WITNESSES, 2ND EDITION PETER SANKOFF, B.A., J.D., LL.M. Gain confidence in evaluating witness evidence with this time-saving resource that you can turn to in a courtroom. The Portable Guide to Witnesses, 2nd Edition pulls together all the law governing witnesses, giving you the understanding and insight you need to prepare, examine and cross-examine witnesses in all manner of judicial proceedings. This compact reference manual and practice guide for court appearances is cross-referenced to the classic work in the field, Witnesses, by Alan W. Mewett and Peter Sankoff. WHAT'S NEW IN THIS EDITION • Major changes in the Rules of Civil Procedure for British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Ontario • A new section covering Expert Witnesses and the requirement for independence • A new section covering the rule against Prior Consistent Statements, including the new exception for statements made by a defendant upon arrest ORDER # 983702-65996 $105 Softcover approx. 200 pages August 2011 978-0-7798-3702-1 Shipping and handling are extra. Price subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. • Major updates to the rules covering the exclusion of witnesses, including those involving the parties in a civil case • Coverage of recent Supreme Court and leading appellate decisions pertaining to the law of witnesses, including: – R. v. Prokofiew (2010, Ont. C.A.) – Kent v. Kent (2010, N.L.C.A.) – R. v. National Post (2010, S.C.C.) – R. v. Abdullah (2010, Man. C.A.) – R. v. Abbey (2009, Ont. C.A.) – R. v. Ellard (2009, S.C.C.) surfaced in the recent case of R. v. Dutt, a matter in which the court had to declare a mistrial over the interpreter's poor in- terpretation of the proceedings. During that case, the interpret- er, A.K., failed to show up on more than one occasion due to illness. But under questioning, the court services supervisor in Brampton, Ont., noted A.K. had previously been asking for more money, at first $400 a day and then $600 a day, amounts well beyond the ministry's standard pay structure. At the same time, the supervisor told the court that having informed A.K. that she didn't yet have an answer to her pay demands, the interpreter responded by say- ing she'd be telling the judge she was sick. That's exactly what happened. Of course, the pay issue wasn't the only challenge in Dutt. The case involved a sexual assault matter against Vishnu Sharma Dutt before the Ontario Supe- rior Court. A.K., described as a fully accredited interpreter with the ministry for English and AVAILABLE RISK-FREE FOR 30 DAYS Order online at www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 Hindi, was to provide simulta- neous interpretation for Dutt. According to the ruling, she had undergone interpreter testing through Vancouver Community College, the institution retained by the ministry to develop the new tests in response to previous concerns about qualifications. So far, scores of interpreters have failed to achieve full accredi- tation through the new tests. Many of them have achieved only conditional accreditation, while others remain unaccred- ited with their ability to work in a matter subject to the court's discretion. In Dutt, despite A.K.'s qual- ification, she hadn't undergone bilingual testing, according to Superior Court Justice Casey Hill's ruling that declared a mistrial. In fact, Hindi isn't one of the 24 languages — those in highest demand — for which the ministry requires bilingual testing. As a result, Shoukri says, those providing service in other languages undergo what's essentially an English profi- ciency test. In Dutt, then, the court found that A.K. made several errors in interpreting for the accused. She interpreted "You had been sexually assaulted," for example, as "You had been physically assaulted." "Did he touch your geni- tal area?" meanwhile, became "Did he touch you between legs?" "A couple of weeks" was "Two days," while defence law- yer Prashant Rai's statement that something was "complete- ly hearsay" became "Your law- yer has objected." See Gov't, page 13 www.lawtimesnews.com

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - December 12, 2011