In Canada, it will be possible to violate ArriveCAN requirements, but only once

The Canadian government is relaxing the once-strict rules on ArriveCAN requirements, making exceptions for travelers who fail to provide mandatory health information.

The new rule provides more flexibility for those who are unaware of the requirements.

As a result, they will be “exempt from quarantine, testing, and fines on a one-time basis.”

Vaccinated Canadian citizens, permanent residents, those registered under the Indian Act, and those with “no history of violations” are eligible for the exemption.

The exemption applies only when crossing the land border.

A spokesman for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said the temporary measures have been in effect since May, and as of July 29, the exemption applies to fully vaccinated foreign nationals entering Canada by land.

“We can tell you that from May 24 to August 4, 2022, of the 5,086,187 travelers eligible to enter through the land border, the one-time exception was used 308,800 times,” they said.

Those who used the one-time exception will receive information explaining their obligations to provide data to ArriveCAN when crossing the border in the future.

Quebec Repeals Certain Provisions of Act 96 Discriminating Against the English Language

A group challenging Quebec’s new language law won its first legal victory Friday, Aug. 12, as a judge temporarily suspended a provision requiring English court documents to be translated into French.

Quebec Superior Court Judge Chantal Corriveau ruled that sections of Bill 96 requiring companies to pay a certified translator to prepare French versions of legal documents could prevent some English-speaking organizations from accessing justice through the courts.

In a written decision issued Friday, Corriveau said the provision could lead to delays and costs that would particularly affect small and medium-sized businesses.

“In this case, in the court’s view, the evidence shows a serious risk that in these cases some legal entities will not be able to assert their rights in court on time or will be forced to do so in a language they and their attorneys know best and consider their native language,” she wrote.

The judge ordered that the two articles be suspended until the case is heard on the merits, which will likely happen in November.

The group of attorneys challenging these articles of law argued that the translation requirement violates provisions of the 1867 Constitution Act that guarantee access to the courts in both official languages.

According to court documents, the group claims that the number of certified legal interpreters is limited, especially in some regions, and that their services cost between $0.20 and $0.40 per word.