Mazraani v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. 2018 SCC 50

Breakdown of the Decision:

• Unanimous Decision: Justices Clément Gascon and Suzanne Côté (Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Brown, Rowe, and Martin in agreement)

Case Background:

• Parties: Mr. Mazraani and Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.
• Issue: Mr. Mazraani, who worked as a personal insurance representative, sought Employment Insurance benefits after losing his job. His contract classified him as self-employed, which made him ineligible for these benefits. The case went to the Tax Court of Canada.

Language Rights:

• Canada recognizes both English and French as official languages. The Constitution guarantees the right to use either language in federal courts, including the Tax Court of Canada.
• The case highlighted the importance of respecting language rights, which allow individuals to choose their preferred official language for legal proceedings, regardless of their fluency.

Events Leading to the Appeal:

• At the hearing, Mr. Mazraani chose to speak English. However, Industrial Alliance’s witnesses preferred to speak French.
• The Tax Court judge instructed these witnesses and the company’s French-speaking lawyer to testify and argue in English, to avoid delays due to the lack of an interpreter.
• This led to significant portions of the hearing being conducted in French, which Mr. Mazraani did not understand.

Court Findings:

• The Tax Court ruled in favor of Mr. Mazraani, classifying him as an employee and ordering Industrial Alliance to pay his legal costs for misuse of the court process.
• Industrial Alliance appealed on the basis that the Tax Court judge violated the language rights of its witnesses and lawyer. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

• The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that the language rights of both Industrial Alliance’s witnesses and lawyer, as well as Mr. Mazraani’s rights, were violated.
• The absence of clear rules in the simplified Tax Court procedures did not absolve the judge from the duty to protect language rights.
• The decision emphasized that judges must ensure all parties, witnesses, and lawyers are aware of their right to choose their language of communication in court.
• The Court ruled that violations of language rights are serious enough to warrant a new hearing, as such violations could affect public trust in the judicial system and indicate potential bias against a language group.

The Supreme Court ordered a new hearing, reinforcing the importance of language rights in Canadian courts. This decision underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold these rights to maintain fairness and public confidence in the legal system.