The B.C./Yukon Court of Appeal has ruled a Whitehorse man was denied his right to have court services made available to him in French and that Yukon taxpayers must pay the court costs of the appeal.

'The failure to print and publish the Rules of Court in French seriously impaired his ability to engage in the court's processes,' the Sept. 18 decision reads.

Henri Halotier filed the appeal over Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower's decision against him in favour of Kilrich Industries Ltd. over payment for supplies from the businesses.

In addition to the territorial government paying the costs of the court action for what was deemed a 'systemic failure' by not publishing the Rules of Court in French, the Court of Appeal also agreed to set aside Gower's earlier decision. Halotier can file a new statement of defence and have a new trial.

Throughout the process, Court of Appeal Justice Carol Huddart wrote, Halotier was not provided with a copy of the Rules of Court or forms in French prior to the hearing.

Halotier requested the presence of a bilingual judge or the bilingual court clerk to assist him on the matter.

Interpretation was provided by Rejean Babineau, a bilingual legislative counsel with the territory's Department of Justice.

'It is apparent from the transcript (and M. Babineau's affidavit) that he interpreted consecutively from French to English for the court and respondent, and consecutively from English to French by whispering' to M. Halotier from a position behind him,' the decision notes.

Babineau didn't have a microphone and viewed his volunteer role as 'trying to help out' a self-represented French-speaking litigant.

A transcript of the trial supports Halotier's complaint that he wasn't allowed to explain his defence to the judge and wasn't allowed to adjourn it to find a bilingual lawyer, the decision notes.

'The essence of M. Halotier's appeal is that the process leading up to and including the summary trial constituted a denial of his rights under the Languages Act,' Huddart wrote.

'He attributes his lack of understanding of the summary trial process to his inability to obtain the services of a bilingual lawyer, as well as to the government's failure to make the Rules of Court, relevant forms and practice directives available to him in French.

'His resulting difficulties were not, he submits, ameliorated or corrected by the provision of services in French or the assignment of a bilingual judge to preside at the settlement conference or summary trial.'

Pointing to numerous sections of the federal Languages Act, its history and case law around it, the Court of Appeal concluded that Halotier established the breach of his language rights entitling him to a remedy.

Section nine of the act, it was noted, states: 'Anyone whose rights under this Act have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain any remedy the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.'

By not being able to get a complete and current copy of the Rules of Court in French, Halotier couldn't effectively exercise his right to use French through his court proceeding, in pleadings, the settlement conference and at the summery trial.

'For this reason alone, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of Gower J. and remit the matter for a new trial,' the decision reads.

The 46-page decision was also signed by Chief Justice Lance Finch and Justice John Vertes.