INTERPRETERS' FACTSHEET

2010-07-10

(1)     According to the memo dated March 3, 2006 and addressed "To All Ministry of The Attorney General Accredited Freelance Interpreters" the Court Services Division would entertain "Requests from judicial officials for a review of interpreter performance". Any complaint on the performance of an interpreter would be "under investigation".

"Following this investigation, the Corporate Planning Branch may:

·         dismiss the complaint

·         require the interpreter to undertake language re-testing;

·         require the interpreter to undertake refresher training and re-testing in court interpretation procedure and ethics; and/or

·         remove the interpreter from the registry if he or she is found to have violated the

Rules of Professional Conduct, or if the results of re-testing are not satisfactory."

 

(2)     One may safely assume that none of the already-accredited interpreters who were required to undergo re-testing in 2009, and who have been required to do so since then, faced any complaint or investigation on his or her performance. As a matter of fact, the Ministry has informed Interpreter Mani Velupillai that "there are no complaints about your interpretation" (2010-05-26). In other words, all those interpreters who had already been accredited were required to be re-tested for re-accreditation against the letter and spirit of the above memo.

(3)     The logic of re-testing already-tested interpreters or re-accrediting already-accredited interpreters does not make any sense either. That's why accredited professionals like doctors, engineers and lawyers are not re-tested or re-accredited.

(4)     "An error in judgement" is a common and recurrent expression in courthouses. No judge is required to be re-tested or re-accredited for his or her "error in judgement". But already-tested and accredited interpreters have been required to be re-tested and re-accredited even though there have been no complaints or investigations on their performance. This amounts to discrimination and "an error in judgement" on the part of the Ministry. But, as in the case of judges, nobody would insist that the Ministry be re-tested and re-accredited for its "error in judgement"

(5)     We subjected ourselves to re-testing because "The Ministry is currently in the process of acquiring and implementing new tests which interpreters must successfully complete in order to be considered accredited" (according to the memo dated October 2, 2006 and addressed "To Ministry of The Attorney General Court Services Division Staff and Accredited Freelance Interpreters").

(6)     Interpreter Francis Sinnamalar who did not want to be re-tested received from the Ministry a Declining to Take Interpreter Accreditation Test Form. In other words, an already-accredited interpreter was required to fill out, not a re-accreditation test form, but an "Accreditation Test Form!"  He was advised that "This decision means that you will no longer be accredited with the Ministry" with effect form June 2009).

(7)     Here are his reasons for declining to take the re-test: "Too old (76 years). After 21 years unblemished service… hoped to retire gracefully when present accreditation ends in 2011. Never expected a bum's rush. But please don't get me wrong. I'm not boycotting the test. I do realise its value. But it's like my days are numbered. Anyway thanks for all these years" (2009-06-15). Regardless, the Ministry removed him from the registry; despite his credentials including seniority, experience and an impeccable record.  

(8)     Relevant to the point raised by Francis Sinnamalar is a finding made by Court in Regina vs. Tran: "What it requires are individuals to interpret continuously, precisely, impartially, completely and contemporaneously. I'm satisfied from the voir dire that Ms.Constant appears to be able to satisfy that, and therefore, I'm ruling that the trial proceed. However, should there be difficulties we'll have to take that situation into advisement at the time but, as I say, this voir dire  is similar to a  voir dire  for expertise and expertise can be achieved through experience, not just through training." This finding speaks volumes about the matter at issue before us.

(9)     Admittedly, the re-test we were required to take consisted of real court material, but we were required, quite unnecessarily, to do it at a break-neck speed. The consecutive part of the test required us to interpret whenever there was a pause and not before that. But, virtually, there was no pause up to the very end of the text to be interpreted. We had no option other than to interpret whatever we could remember from a page-long text! The whole re-test would be a cake-walk for us if not for the computerized speed arbitrarily stipulated by the examiners. Proceedings slow down for the sake of interpretation in a real court setting. Ironically, there have been instances, in a real court setting, where interpreters themselves have been asked to slow down by none other than their own clients! That's why the Court sets nearly double the time (nearly 6 hours) for a trial which can be completed in 3 hours under normal circumstances, if it involves interpretation.

(10) Interpreters are allowed enough leeway in a real court setting because "Translation is like serving two masters at the same time (Chandra Rajan, The Loom of Time, Penguin, 2006, London, p.17). It is beyond comprehension why the Ministry insists on speed at the cost of accuracy. Speed and accuracy are strange bed-fellows. The Court simply cannot sacrifice accuracy for speed or the defendant for speed.

(11) The examiners themselves were conscious of the unrealistic speed they set for the re-test: "candidates" were allowed to skip words in the simultaneous interpretation test! Skipping, in a real court setting, is unthinkable. The fact that we were allowed to skip invalidates at least the simultaneous part of the re-test. The purpose of the re-test is lost when you are allowed to skip while being tested for interpretation in a real court setting where you are bound to cover everything.     

(12) We understand that only 30% of the candidates passed the re-test, that a higher proportion of the successful candidates interpret European languages, that none of the Mandarin interpreters passed, that only one Tamil interpreter passed…This is not surprising. Whatever differences existing between European languages in terms of grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc. are fewer than those between European and Oriental languages. 

(13) If the Court expressed any reservations about the performance of an already-accredited interpreter, then his or her interpretation must be reviewed at random or entirely by none other than a panel of accredited interpreters. In fact, there have been instances where interpretations of a particular interpreter were reviewed by his or her colleagues at the request of the Ministry itself as required by the Court.

(14) The Ministry can simply isolate such a case and deal with it just as it did in Brampton where an unaccredited interpreter was dealt with after the court had expressed reservations about his interpretation. This applies to accredited interpreters as well.

(15) If the Ministry is not satisfied with the performance of already-accredited interpreters and if it prefers newcomers who can pass the ongoing test or a similar test, then the Ministry can and must test and accredit newcomers instead of subjecting already-tested and accredited interpreters to a re-test and re-accreditation. The Ministry can and must phase in newcomers who pass the latest test and phase out already-accredited interpreters.

(16) Unaccredited interpreters have been informed that the Ministry "… would like to thank you for your contribution to the Ministry's court interpretation program and wish you all the best in your future endeavours" (2010-04-08). Even though the Ministry has thus bid adieu to the unaccredited interpreters, it has retained their names in it's registry with a red label. This reminds the proverb: Have your cake and eat it! So the courts continue to call them as a last resort and subject them to a voir dire which amounts to an interrogation on their biography. 

(17) There is no chance that such a voir dire will have any validity. For the Court consisting of a monolingual Judge, Prosecution and Defence has to rely on the same defendant or the  witness who needs an interpreter to gauge whether their bilingual interpreter is competent enough to interpret for themselves. A lay individual becomes an amicus curiae in such a voir dire!      

(18) On June 7, 2010 interpreter Candiah Nadarajah who happened to be in Oshawa for a set-date matter was asked to attend to a plea. He advised the plea court he was not comfortable with doing so for obvious reasons. But the court insisted that he proceed with the plea. He stood his ground in compliance with his current level of accreditation. The court said: "I could find you in contempt … I'm going to complain against you to the Ministry of the Attorney General" (which no longer recognizes him as an interpreter even though he is busier than before in the same capacity!). He bowed out of the court.

(19) Quite contrary to Candiah Nadarajah's experience in Oshawa, he has been comfortable with attending to a trial with the consent of the court given to him in writing in another jurisdiction. This shows a lack of consistency not only between the Ministry and the Court but also between jurisdictions. 

(20) We wonder why the Ministry did not organize workshops in a real court setting in aid of existing interpreters at no cost at all instead of subjecting them to an unrealistic re-test at an enormous cost (running into millions of dollars according to rumours) resulting in a situation where they face humiliation and embarrassment in open court and in public.   

(21) The Ministry is obliged to identify the "experts in the field of interpretation and an independent, expert advisory panel," who designed the re-test, specify their "field of interpretation" and clarify the words "independent" and "advisory" in this context. May we know whether they are court interpreters, whether their "field of interpretation" includes court interpretation, and whether those who marked the tests are court interpreters. If so, they ought to be identified. 

(22) "Vancouver Community College (which has been conducting the tests) is an internationally recognized specialist in court interpreter training and language assessment test development" according to the Ministry. If so, the Ministry should identify the VCC professionals who train or trained court interpreters and court interpreters already or currently trained by VCC.

(23) Re "specialized terminology required for court interpretation," we would like to know if VCC uses a specialized legal glossary in each language.

(24) A lay defendant can hardly understand "specialized terminology." So the interpreter has to do his or her best to reconcile "specialized terminology" with the vernacular. A lay litigant might be more familiar with certain English terms than with their vernacular equivalents

(25) We are not sure if the Ministry or VCC know that many languages have a written form and a spoken form, that a lay litigant might be more familiar with the spoken form than with the written form, and that any "specialized terminology" could include only the written form but not the spoken form.  

(26) "Many interpreters were successful in various areas of the test" according to the Ministry. But only a few interpreters passed the whole test according to their own information.

(27) The Ministry ought to specify "the standard expected in the courtroom situation," and give a breakdown of how the test met "the standard expected in the courtroom situation."

(28) We are afraid that the Ministry and VCC have no idea how many hours are normally set for a trial (1) with and (2) without interpretation. No court prescribes any time limit for interpretation during a trial. The court recognizes the fact that the interpreter sets the pace of a trial in need of his or her interpretation. 

(29) The Attorney General's Office itself has admitted in an e-mail that "Ontario has a strong court interpreter testing program in place... The old test exceeds the standard of most other provinces…" (quoted by Antonella Artuso, SUN, Toronto, June 11, 2010). This needs a clarification from the Ministry. We would like to hear from the Ministry in its own words how the new test differs from the old test in terms of standard except speed. 

(30) "The e-mail appears to suggest the ministry is altering the tests…" according to the same source (Item 29). The authorities have to clarify how "the ministry is altering the tests" and how it is possible to alter the current tests without invalidating the tests conducted in 2009.

(31) We are afraid the re-test does not reflect what happens in a real court setting. We would, however, invite the Ministry to review at random or entirely the transcripts of our past interpretations and verify where we have failed to meet the latest standards set by the Ministry for the re-test and re-accreditation.

(32) We wish to reiterate that the Ministry can and must phase in newcomers who pass the new test and phase out existing interpreters without subjecting them to humiliation and embarrassment by relegating them to the level of unaccredited interpreters and subjecting them to a voir dire.  

(33) "Removal from the Ministry of the Attorney General's Registry of Accredited Freelance Interpreters."  We understand, however, that the registry does still include our names with a red label. We seek a clarification from the Ministry.

(34) The current situation has led to a large number of 11B motions for a stay or dismissal of trials in very serious cases involving murder, sexual assault, robbery, impaired driving etc. Such charges have been lowered for lack of an accredited interpreter. Court staff have been allowed to fall back on MCIS (Multi-Cultural Interpretation Service, an agency) for interpreters who are being repeatedly turned down by most defence lawyers for obvious reasons. In one instance the court pressed ahead with a preliminary hearing despite objections raised by the defence counsel who put it on record that the services of an unaccredited interpreter would lead to an appeal.     

(35) Robertson, a Hamilton-based dispatcher for the Niagara region, was fired after he failed a test. The test showed "he didn't have the aptitude or traits they were looking for in a dispatcher." It was a high price to pay for failing a test he was never meant to take. "I was surprised to find out that I wasn't cut out to be a dispatcher," Robertson says. "I've been doing it for 20 years, then this Mickey Mouse test comes along and tells me I can't do it." OPSEU protested Robertson's firing. He was back on the job three weeks later with an apology and back pay in hand… It was what I consider a no-brainer case," said Larry Butters, OPSEU's top ambulance official for Niagara and Hamilton. "He should never have been put through the procedure." The grievance coupled with pressure from Bob Patrick, head of OPSEU's ambulance division, prompted the ministry to stop testing experienced dispatchers and remove results from the files of any dispatcher who had been forced to take it… He feels the test is faulty. "We were seeing people with 10 and 15 years' service, with no blemishes on their records, being told they were incompetent."… Gary Latham, an industrial psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said alarm bells should have gone off when longtime dispatchers performed poorly on the test. First, nobody should be fired on the basis of the results, he said. Second, veteran workers should be the ones posting the best results. "That's stupidity," said Latham. "If a person does well on the job but not on the test, it's the test that should be fired" (Shaunn Herron, The Ottawa Citizen, 1997-01-25).