Proceedings ancillary to the trial are not covered. It is an issue that both the Commissioner of Official Languages and various French-speaking jurist associations have been raising since 1995. As you have just pointed it out again, we should look into how the situation could be corrected. What could result is a bilingual justice system that does not reflect the rate of bilingualism in any other sphere of the public sector. For example, here in parliament, no one is required to be bilingual as a prerequisite to becoming an MP. In the same fashion, judges are not required to be bilingual.
Applying the rights of the accused above and beyond a preliminary hearing, for example during ancillary proceedings, appeals, etc., would impose a burden on the justice system. Representatives from various jurisdictions—and we have studies confirming this—have said that their respective systems could not bear the burden. Obviously, in some regions of the country, a higher level of bilingualism is permitted or accepted for practical reasons, or in compliance with applicable provincial regulations. However, in cases where levels of bilingualism are only a few percentage points, introducing a bilingual system is out of reach.
For now, the problem has not arisen. Some would like to see these rights applied to other procedures, but it is currently not the case.