2 total
The accused was convicted of impaired driving based on credible eyewitness testimony of seat-switching.
The Crown charged the defendant with impaired driving and "Over 80" following a single-vehicle accident in a shopping plaza parking lot.
The central issue was whether the defendant or his partner was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.
An independent eyewitness testified that she observed the defendant exit from the driver's side door and subsequently saw both occupants switch seats before police arrived.
The defendant's partner testified that she had been driving.
The court found the eyewitness credible and reliable, rejecting the partner's account as far-fetched and incredible.
The defendant was convicted as charged.
Accused entitled to competent interpreter, not necessarily accredited interpreter.
The accused required a Tagalog interpreter for a criminal trial, but there were no accredited Tagalog interpreters in Ontario.
Defence counsel objected to the court conducting a competency inquiry into non‑accredited interpreters, relying on prior decisions suggesting that only accredited interpreters should be used.
The court held that s. 14 of the Charter guarantees a competent or qualified interpreter, not necessarily an accredited one, and determined that a competency inquiry into proposed interpreters was appropriate.
The matter was adjourned to allow arrangements for a conditionally accredited Tagalog interpreter who had previously interpreted at the preliminary inquiry to attend.
The accused waived s. 11(b) Charter rights for the adjournment period.
