Ms. J. Lee

The Crown applied for an order under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code to permit the adult complainant, S.L., to testify behind a screen or outside the courtroom in a sexual assault trial.

The application was based on the complainant's expressed discomfort and anxiety at seeing the accused while recounting intimate and sexual history.

The court, considering factors under section 486.2(3) including the nature of the charges and the relationship, granted the order for S.L. to testify behind a screen, finding it appropriate and without prejudice to trial fairness or the accused's right to cross-examination.

The defendant, K.M., charged with sexual offenses, brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging violations of his Section 14 Charter rights and Section 650 Criminal Code rights due to inadequate simultaneous interpretation services during his trial.

K.M. claimed one interpreter, Mr. To, failed to provide continuous, precise, or contemporaneous translation.

The Crown argued K.M. was bilingual or, alternatively, that the defence failed to prove Mr. To's interpretation was deficient, citing poor audio recording quality and compromised objectivity of the defence's expert witness.

The court found that K.M. did require an interpreter but was not fully candid about his English proficiency.

The court dismissed the mistrial motion, concluding that the defence did not meet its onus to establish that the interpreter failed to meet the required standards, largely due to the unreliable evidence from the poor-quality recordings.

The delay caused by the motion was attributed to the defendant.