I taught law for some 18 years, in English and in French, in Canada and in the South Pacific. I've published legal academic pieces, in English and occasionally in French -- usually about issues of politics and development.

In 2009 I moved back to Canada, to Nova Scotia (I grew up in Montreal). I am available now full-time for translation and editing work.



SINCE there is no space to post them elsewhere in this profile, here are samples of my editing work; translation samples appear in the dedicated slot of this profile.

Source: Different addresses to conference on environmental regulation
(NB edited to US conventions)
_____________________________________________________________


Sample 1: SOURCE

What is the difference between inspections and investigations?

While the environmental investigator has the same common law powers as the police and the right to apply for a search warrant, the environmental legislation has granted extraordinary powers of search and seizure that far exceed those exercised by the police in the investigation of true crimes. In an attempt to balance those powers against the rights of the accused, there has been a great deal of commentary in the case law as to whether evidence ought to be excluded depending on whether the dealings between the regulator and the accused are in the nature of an inspection or an investigation. However, I suggest this is an overly complicated approach. In practical terms, the issues are very simple:

1. Has there been strict compliance with the extraordinary statutory powers of search and seizure granted to investigating agencies?
2. Has the investigating agency acted fairly in the exercise of that power?

If the investigating agency fails to meet both tests, the courts will the investigation v. inspection issue as a way of punishing the investigating agency by either excluding the evidence or throwing the case out altogether.

Sample 1: PRODUCT

Why do courts distinguish between inspections and investigations?

While the environmental investigators have the same common-law powers as the police, as well as the same power to apply for a search warrant, environmental legislation grants them additional powers of search and seizure—powers far beyond those available to the police in their investigations of ordinary offenses. In court cases where these extraordinary powers must be balanced against the rights of the accused, because evidence was obtained in violation of those rights, judges have discussed at length whether the decision to exclude the evidence should depend upon a distinction between ‘inspections’ and ‘investigations’.

I suggest, however, that this is an overly-complicated approach. In practice, the issues are very simple:

1. Has the invstigating agency complied strictly with the terms of its extraordinary statutory powers of search and seizure?

2. Has the investigating agency acted fairly in the exercise of those powers?

If the investigating agency fails to meet either one of these tests, the courts will punish it by excluding the evidence, or even by throwing the case out altogether. The ‘inspection’/ ’investigation’ distinction is merely a way of rationalizing this approach.

-------------------------------------------------

Sample 2: SOURCE

In my country, an environmental judicial process is not a matter of administrative law, but rather a matter of criminal law—or sometimes it is referred to as quasi-criminal law. However, in all cases, the responsibility lies with the party making the accusation to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Part of what must be proven is the element of the violation committed that is essentially based on the Crown’s scientific theory in this prosecution process.

If the result of the trial is that the offender is declared guilty, it will be necessary to impose a penalty, however this aspect has gone through an evolutionary process in our judicial system. Now, we don’t ask ourselves about penalties to be imposed on the person determined to be have violated the country’s laws. Rather, we must examine—and this is perhaps the most important, significant consideration—how the damage caused by the violation committed can be repaired.


Sample 2: PRODUCT

In my country, an environmental judicial process is not a matter of administrative law, but rather a matter of criminal law. True, it is sometimes referred to as quasi-criminal law, but even so, the responsibility lies with the party making the accusation of an environmental offense to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, just as in any criminal trial. That proof must include whatever scientific theory supports the prosecution case.

If the result of the trial is that the offender is declared guilty, then, as in any criminal trial, it will be necessary to consider the appropriate penalty. This element of the process, however, has evolved considerably in environmental cases. Nowadays, we don’t actually ask ourselves how the violation should be punished. Rather, we ask ourselves—and this is perhaps the most important consideration—how the damage caused by the violation committed can be repaired.

----------------------------------------------

Sample 3: SOURCE

I want to close with perhaps the most important fruit from the environmental enforcement tree, that is deterrence. When prosecuting a particular individual or business, it will probably be discouraged or deterred from the same kind of conduct in the future. Since we are David against Goliath, we are pleased when our cases appear in the media, so that people who may never see federal regulators at their own door understand that they need to protect the environment. Every environmental case has to occur with specific deterrence in mind to prevent the violator to doing it again, but also, like a rock dropped in water, it has to spread out ripples through the community and even through the country.


Sample 3: PRODUCT

I want to close with perhaps the most important fruit of the environmental enforcement tree: deterrence. Prosecuting a particular individual or business will probably discourage—deter—others from that kind of conduct in the future. Since we are David against Goliath, we are pleased when our cases appear in the media, so that people who may never see federal regulators at their own door understand that they need to protect the environment. Every environmental case has to occur with specific deterrence in mind, to prevent the same violator from doing it again; but also, like a rock dropped in a pond, it should spread ripples of deterrence generally through the community and even the country.