The question simply does not arise for English, because these concepts evolve in English. They are interpreted by the courts in English. I am talking about Canadian common law. In Canada, when there is a new term or a new concept, it is the courts that interpret it. The concept is interpreted and circumscribed, and it is found in context, in judicial decisions and in legislation. The problem never arises, then. The concepts continue to evolve in English. Obviously, there will always be problems of interpretation, but they are resolved in the courts.
In French, conversely, the situation is not the same. We are behind all that. We wait for the concept to evolve first in English, and then we determine what the concept means, how to circumscribe it, and how it is used in context.
I can give you examples, I have collected a few that are in areas under federal jurisdiction, in particular divorce. For example, there is the term "legal alien". That is a technical term that has a very specific meaning. In French, there are equivalents such as “étranger illégal”. That is a totally incorrect term, however. A person cannot be illegal. There are also “étrangère illégale”, “étranger clandestine”, “étrangère clandestine”, “étranger à situation irrégulier”, “étrangère à situation irrégulière”, “étranger en situation irrégulier”, “étrangère en situation irrégulière”, “clandestin”, and “clandestine”. We cannot practise common law in French with concepts like these. It is completely ridiculous. Do you see what I mean?