The appellant appealed a conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.
He argued the trial was unfair because no interpreter was provided despite his limited English, that the trial judge’s questioning created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the judge erred in finding a realistic risk that the vehicle could be set in motion.
The court held the appellant sufficiently understood and participated in the proceedings and neither he nor counsel requested an interpreter.
The trial judge’s questioning did not create an appearance of unfairness.
Applying the test from Boudreault, the court found the trial judge reasonably concluded there was a realistic risk the impaired appellant could put the vehicle in motion.
