The appellant, a francophone litigant in a family law matter, appealed two interlocutory orders.
The motion judge had implicitly denied his request for a bilingual judge, instead ordering that an interpreter be provided for an English-speaking judge.
The case conference judge subsequently ordered all future hearings to be in writing.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the right to a bilingual proceeding under section 126(4) of the Courts of Justice Act is a substantive right, not subject to judicial discretion.
The court set aside the motion judge's order and directed a new case conference before a bilingual judge.
The court also replaced the written hearing order, directing virtual proceedings with a telephone option to accommodate the appellant's illiteracy and hearing difficulties.
