Do you remember the Dennis Galiatsatos judge?
In May 2024, this judge of the Court of Quebec who sat at the trial of an English speaker accused of criminal negligence refused to publish his judgment in French.
Not only that, but – in a 34 -page decision! – Judge Galiatsatos declared that article 10 of the provincial law obliging the immediate translation of certain judgments rendered in English was unconstitutional since criminal law was of federal jurisdiction!
In short, this judge was not content to do his job as a judge.
He turned into a militant and drew red bullets on a law adopted democratically by the Quebec government.
However, this week, judge Dennis Galiatsatos was given in his place by the Court of Appeal which reminded him that the role of a judge is not to comment on the laws, as he decided to do, but to apply them.
A serious fault
Judge Dennis Galiatsatos did not receive a simple tap on the fingers. He was downright varoped!
“A judge cannot decide on a question which concerns the constitutional validity of a legal provision without being assigned the jurisdiction to do so,” ruled the three judges of the Court of Appeal.
These three judges also castigated the decision of the Galiatsatos judge to use the trial to challenge the constitutionality of law 96, when the accused herself said he did not want to embark on such a debate.
For the judges of the Court of Appeal, this unilateral decision constituted a serious fault.
“As he did, as he did, judge Galiatsatos usurped a prerogative of the parties, forced their hand to them and imposed against all of them an inadequate framework to resolve questions dictated by him, and potentially serious, but that it would have been necessary to treat everything else so that they were appropriate,” it reads in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In short, this judge had no business to challenge law 96 as he did. It was not the place to do it, and it was not his role either.
Legal vs Politics
When the Minister of Justice Simon Jolin-Barrette decided to appeal the initial decision of the Galiatsatos judge, some people were offended by saying that the policy did not have to get involved in the legal.
Now, in this case, it was the opposite: it was the legal that mingled with politics!
It was a judge who took advantage of the criminal trial to assert, from the top of his bench, that a law adopted by a democratically elected provincial government was unconstitutional, therefore illegal!
It must be believed that Minister Jolin-Barrette did well to challenge the decision of the Galiatsatos judge, because the court of appeal agreed with the whole line.
A clear message to all the other magistrates who would also be tempted to put their toga aside to play activists.