H. Song

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge refused to hold a voir-dire to assess the competency of a conditionally accredited Amharic interpreter.

The trial judge insisted that a fully accredited interpreter was mandatory and invited the Crown to call no evidence when one could not be provided.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that there is no constitutional right to a fully accredited interpreter, only a competent one, and that the trial judge was obligated to conduct a voir-dire to determine competency under section 14 of the Charter.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on impaired driving charges, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The respondent had fled a car accident and was found hiding in her parents' shed after police conducted a warrantless search of her own home next door.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the trial judge's finding that the warrantless search of the respondent's home violated s. 8 and was sufficiently connected to the discovery of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial judge had excluded the refusal evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding multiple breaches of the respondent's rights under s. 8 and s. 10(b) following his arrest.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by misapprehending material evidence regarding the implementational component of s. 10(b), applying the wrong legal test to the strip search, failing to conduct the required temporal analysis for evidence obtained prior to a breach, and misapplying jurisprudence on the seriousness of a refusal offence.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal his 2017 convictions, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed because he was unaware they would render him inadmissible to Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding it moot because the Immigration Appeal Division had recently granted a conditional stay of his removal order.

The court also noted the application would have been dismissed regardless due to the applicant's significant delay in bringing the application and serious credibility issues with his evidence.

The five accused, charged with fraud and conspiracy related to a multi-million dollar tax avoidance scheme, brought applications for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 44 months.

The court dismissed the delay application, finding the delay justified by the exceptional complexity of the case, which involved voluminous disclosure and multiple accused, as well as transitional exceptional circumstances under the Jordan framework.

The court granted an adjournment for three accused to retain counsel but denied a severance application by the remaining two accused, emphasizing the strong presumption in favour of joint trials for alleged co-conspirators.