Court interpreters should be audited after accreditation

Re Lost in translation, Dec. 2

I’m very unhappy — and surprised — to see that this type of thing is still not being addressed.

Many years ago, my in-laws sold their downtown Toronto home. Due to a dispute between the listing agent and the buyer’s agent, my father-in-law and I were called to be witnesses for the listing agent.

Since the home was being sold by my fatherin-law, he was called to be the first witness to testify about the events. Being a recent immigrant, his command of the English language was not up to par, so an interpreter was called to assist.

Even though I grew up in Canada, I speak fluent Italian and could easily have interpreted, but was not allowed to because I was not an “accredited interpreter.”

While listening to my father-in-law’s testimony and the translator’s statements as to what my father-in-law was saying, it became very clear that she was not interpreting correctly. I was shocked, to say the least.

At the break, I told the listing agent about the errors, some quite significant, that were made in interpretation. He said they likely wouldn’t make a difference, but he would see about speaking to the judge.

Since the parties settled before returning to court in the afternoon, nothing was discussed with the judge.

However, it always made me wonder whether something should not have been said to the court clerk to relay to the judge. Since I didn’t have any standing in the trial, I didn’t have any option but to let it be.

It would be interesting to note whether there is any “auditing” of these interpreters (maybe spot-checked during a trial on a rotating basis?) once they are accredited.

Defendants shouldn’t have to go to jail because something was not translated properly by an “accredited interpreter.”

Rita Maio, Woodbridge