J. McCulligh

In a criminal trial involving human trafficking and sex work offences, the trial judge issued a preliminary ruling on jury selection procedures following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Chouhan.

The court held that counsel, rather than the trial judge, would pose the challenge for cause questions to prospective jurors individually, without providing the questions in advance.

The court also permitted offence-based questions regarding the victim's race and occupation as a sex trade worker, and outlined the procedure for exercising the stand-by power under section 633 of the Criminal Code to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed an NCR verdict on charges including criminal harassment and breach of probation, arguing principally that the actus reus of criminal harassment had not been proven.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the blended procedure used at trial, although unusual in light of the Swain principle, caused no prejudice because the trial judge substantially segregated the actus reus analysis from mental disorder evidence.

Applying the established elements of criminal harassment under s. 264, the court found repeated and persistent communications directed to a correctional officer, subjective fear on the complainant's part, and objective reasonableness of that fear in the full context.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was on trial for sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant testified through a Punjabi interpreter.

During the trial, it became evident that the complainant was capable of testifying in English.

The court noted that the right to an interpreter under s. 14 of the Charter requires a necessity criterion to be met.

Because the use of an interpreter materially interfered with the court's ability to make credibility determinations, and the trial was still in its early stages, the court declared a mistrial so the complainant could testify in English with a stand-by interpreter.