Anthony Wong

The appellant, who speaks Taishanese and has no English language capability, was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, he argued that his right to an interpreter under section 14 of the Charter was breached because the interpreter provided for the first half of his trial interpreted in Cantonese rather than Taishanese.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence confirming the linguistic differences between the two languages and the interpreter's use of Cantonese.

The Court found that the interpretation fell below the constitutionally guaranteed standard, creating a real possibility that the appellant did not understand the proceedings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with trafficking opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police operation and the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

While the accused pleaded guilty to the direct trafficking counts, he disputed possession of 809.61 grams of opium and $1,475 in cash found in a basement bedroom.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the house, his ongoing trafficking activities, and personal items in the bedroom, led to the only reasonable inference that he occupied the room and had a measure of control over the drugs.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, but acquitted of the proceeds of crime charge regarding the $1,475 due to reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses a pre-trial application by two accused, Nicole Fife and Leonida Pilliatis, seeking to exclude evidence obtained by police, alleging breaches of their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights.

The court found that while the initial detention of both accused was lawful, Ms. Fife's Charter rights were breached by the police failing to promptly inform her of the reason for detention and her right to counsel, and by interrogating her after she invoked her right to counsel.

Mr. Pilliatis's Charter rights were not breached.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court excluded the evidence (drugs and statements) against Ms. Fife due to the seriousness and impact of the Charter breaches, but found the evidence admissible against Mr. Pilliatis.