La démarche à suivre lorsque les versions anglaise et française d'une loi ne concordent pas

D.K. c. R., 2009 QCCA 987 

Lien vers la décision

[38]           Dans son ouvrage intitulé The Law of Bilingual Interpretation, le juge Michel Bastarache indique la démarche à suivre lorsque les versions anglaise et française d'une loi ne concordent pas :

1.         The first step consists in examining the two versions to determine whether there is a discordance between the two versions. "Discordance" here has the same meaning as "conflict" does in many earlier cases: the important notion here is simply that the two versions are different. If the two versions are the same, there is really no issue. If there is a discordance, the interpreter must proceed to the next step.

2.         The second step consists in determining the nature of the discordance, and determining the shared meaning. There are three possibilities here:

(a)        The versions are in "absolute conflict". Each is clear and no shared meaning can be found.

(b)        One version is ambiguous and the other clear. The clear version provides the shared meaning.

(c)        One version is broad and the other narrow. The narrow version provides the shared meaning.

At the conclusion of the second step, the interpreter is armed either with (i) a shared meaning, arising out of (b) or (c), or (ii) a conclusion that no shared meaning exists, arising out of (a).

3.   The third step consists in an appeal to extrinsic methods of determining the intention of the legislator with respect to the provision. There are two possibilities here:

(a)        The extrinsic evidence of intent allows for a choice between the two conflicting versions as to which provides the true meaning of the provision.

(b,c)  The extrinsic evidence of intent is examined to ensure that the shared meaning is not inconsistent with it.