The appellant appealed convictions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, arguing that as a self-represented accused requiring an interpreter he did not receive a fair trial.
The court held that the trial judge had a duty to provide meaningful procedural guidance and to inquire into an apparent Charter issue concerning hospital blood samples and medical records obtained without a Criminal Code demand or properly supported warrant.
Given the possible infringement of s. 8 and the need to consider exclusion under s. 24(2), together with broader failures to assist the accused and deficiencies in the treatment of the evidence, the fairness of the trial was compromised.
The convictions on the impaired driving charges were set aside and a new trial was ordered.
